We are not big on petitions but we pass this along (Hat tip: E-Nough!):

TOGETHER AGAINST TERROR PETITION

And its sponsor:

MOUVEMENT POUR LA PAIX ET CONTRE LE TERRORISME ("MPCT")

The petition, which doubles as the MPCT manifesto, cobbles up a mix of airy notions and practical statements. It is one of those effusive French projects that sounds better than it reads. Though well-intentioned, it has some jarring tenets. For example:

Muslims are the first victims of Islamic extremism.

Now we suppose in some tortured way one can reason back to such a proposition. But the first victims in any meaningful sense are the kidnapped, beheaded, blown up -- the actual sufferers -- by those who have given themselves over to Islamic extremism. Sorry, but we don't see drawing the circle any wider.

And though the petition early on decries the deliberate mis-naming and euphemizing of terroists and terrorism, we wish MPCT had done itself some good and offered its own definition, a definition on which the whole of its project depends. Just what is the "terror" MPCT invites all to be against?

Then this:

We believe that condemnation of terrorism must be absolute, universal and unconditional.

Well, it sounds good, but how can something be condemned absolutely, wherever it is met, and without qualification if the something itself has not been absolutely and universally identified?

The manifesto itself is loaded with conditions, including the Camus money quote:

“Whatever cause one defends, it will be dishonoured for ever by resorting to the blind massacre of an innocent crowd, when the murderer knows in advance he will kill women and children.”

"Blind", "massacre", and "innocent crowd" taken together would seem to make it irrelevant in absolute terms what a "murderer knows in advance". Also the term "murderer" (le tueur, "killer" here seems to be the better translation -- and properly ambiguous word) seems wrong as murder is a criminal act, a crime based on intent which presupposes murderous outcomes. This, again in absolute terms, makes the whole quote overspun. "Murderers dishonor their causes," seems more to the point.

If this all seems like nit-picking a good cause, well, good causes don't get a pass on clear thinking. A propositional project such as a petition needs have a logical hang to it. Being in the service of a good cause makes clear thinking imperative because good causes are advanced by the best arguments.

Of course we are happier to see a sprawling French petition against terrorism than a French hermetic screed, logically argued from Islamite premises, excusing or advancing terrorism. If you feel adding your name will somehow transform Reuters or make al Qaeda evaporate, please, by all means, sign up. Sign severally.

PFFT (What is this?): Well intentioned sprawl 4 | Rayonnement français 3