Luxor4u

Fascinating BBC Hardtalk interview today featuring Zineb El Rhazoui.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3ct2kn4

I recommend it to anyone interested in the struggle between Islam - which she regards as a form of fascism - and secularism. She is particularly critical of the word "islamaphobia", regarding it as a term used to silence critics of repressive islamic regimes and behaviour which may have had some relevance amongst the bedouin 15 centuries ago, but which has no place in the 21st Century.

Rhazoui was born on 19 January 1982 in Casablanca, Morocco. She describes herself as a "blédarde, born in Morocco to an indigenous father and French mother, and thus a dual French and Moroccan citizen.

Growing up in Morocco, she routinely asked critical questions about the subordinate status of women under Islam. In secondary school, she made a point of wearing black nail polish and low-cut blouses to school, where her teacher was a conservative man with a long beard. "As a woman in a male-dominated country, you sooner or later face a choice. You can comply, let yourself be cowed, and shut up, or you have to fight."

.She was arrested three times by the Moroccan government for criticizing it. One of the crimes for which she was arrested was a protest picnic in 2009, which involved her eating sandwiches in a public park during Ramadan. This is forbidden by law in Morocco. She was eventually forced into exile in Slovenia.

She ended up working for the magazine Carlie Hebdo in Paris.....narrowly avoiding the massacre there as she was on holiday at the time. She would learn that twelve of her friends and colleagues had been murdered. She later told Aftenposten that she believed herself to have been one of the terrorists' main targets. She said: "Those of us who are alive are alive only because of small coincidences".

After the massacre, extensive security routines became a part of Rhazoui's life. She avoids eating at restaurants or taking the train.

"Those who defend the violence [against Charlie Hebdo] or who think we've all but asked for it ourselves," she has said, "I place...in the same category as the Islamists. Many of those on the left, in several countries, are so scared of being accused of racism or Islamophobia that they accept oppression and abuse of women and children, 'among the others.' They don't dare get involved. I think that's exactly what racism is – approving differential treatment"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zineb_El_Rhazoui

I do admire people who stand up for their beliefs no matter what the cost, too much of a coward myself I'm afraid.

carrie wrote:I do admire people who stand up for their beliefs no matter what the cost, too much of a coward myself I'm afraid.

Living in Egypt, you're sensible not to voice anything that could be interpreted as offending religion - Islam, Christianity or Judaism.

There are laws against it and many people all too ready to file an official complaint.

Such action mainly relates to Islam, although I have seen cases involving Christianity. I can't recall seeing anyone complaining about insults to Judaism.

I.P. Freely would, given half the chance. Hope we get the Xmas speech off him this year.

Heard it. Much to agree with but I found her tone/approach/thinking similar to those she opposes - dogmatic. More of a polemicist than a commentator/reporter - a disease many journalists suffer from. Still it does get lots of media attention - which might be the objective.

Nothing excuses the attack on Charlie Hebro but prior to the attack it was regarded as extremist and a very provocative satirical magazine (although the attack makes this unfashionable to mention). It was playing with danger and accepted the risk.

One wonders what the positive role of satirical magazines is. I'm not sure that even moderate satirical magazines like Private Eye have much of a positive record in changing bad things/drawing public attention to bad things but they do act as an emotional release for angry, literate, narcissists looking for attention. (note I used to be a big fan of Private Eye in its hay-day).

I agree that Zineb can grate.

But, personally, I feel that satire has an important, and sometimes very effective, role in engaging public opinion on subjects which might otherwise get overlooked. It's also, again personally speaking, an enjoyable form of entertainment per se.

Although its context is often political, it can also throw a different light on non-political attitudes. For example. "The Life of Brian" a propos religion.

As regards effectiveness, there are many examples of satire affecting political ambitions. John McCain's presidential hopes were dealt a mortal blow when the satirists focused on his running mate, Sarah Palin.

Sisi obviously considered satire a threat and didn't take long in banishing Bassem Yousseff once the Egyptian satirist started undermining his "image".

I'm a vigorous advocate of the "right to offend".....where there's a purpose other than just offending

Provided the satire fulfills the objective of trying to engage, it's valid. Otherwise it's just egregious offence....and perhaps Charlie Hebdo can be criticised in this regard with some of its cartoons

One of my favourite quotes about satire :'

"Political satire became obsolete when they awarded Henry Kissinger the Nobel Peace Prize" - Tom Lehrer

One of the truly great creators of political satire was the Punch magazine, 1841 onward, so popular across the world that it had many imitators, one based in Cairo. I just wonder what it would be portraying today if it still existed.

When I was in the fifth form at Grammar School we had "free periods" where we went to the library to do homework or other study.

I discovered on a high shelf a lot of bound volumes of Punch pre 1900 which I chose to read instead. Very enlightening actually.

About thirty odd years ago I bought a massive volume of Punch containing around twelve months publications, plus a lot of add on's for £10 on a boot sale. I read it from cover to cover, the detailed sketches were very well drawn and most highly amusing. I eventually past it over to a friend who proceeded to cut out the full page ones and frame them. The Lake district's second hand book shops seemed to be a good place to find these publications at quite reasonable prices for some reason.

Dusak and Newcastle agree with almost all.

However, satire seems almost dead even though we have the best educated generation in the history of the world. Punch is absolutely dead and Private Eye has its best years well behind it. US satirical magazines of the 70's are all dead. The Life of Brian was a generation ago and there has been little similar in film since.

In any event satire is select - 5% of the population in its peak - and my point is that you have to go back to Swift to find a satirist who actually changed anything. If you consider Orwell a satirist (a stretch) I don't think his powerful novels have changed anything - indeed we have ended up with a deal of the dystopia he savaged. Thackeray and the Church of England are an exception or nor because little changed.

Political Correctness has also meant there is a continent of subject matter it is 'inappropriate' to satirize in the modern world.

I also thing that the dregs of celebrities who are now in the media as commentators lack wit, humor - as well as intelligence - but they are charming, plausible and very hansom.

My point is that satire may be amusing, particularly for me, but it changes little.

My point about Z was that she sounded as dogmatic as the people she criticized.