Cartoons of Mohammed have sparked up death threats and other unrest. The cartoons can be seen here.
Isn’t it fundamentally (good word ay?) important to be able to take the piss out of anyone’s religion? Nobody should have to pander to superstitions, they are all equal on the utterbollocksometer scale as we struggle towards an enlightened future free from avoiding the cracks in the pavement, and march arm in arm under ladders with impunity.
Bill Clinton reckons that anti-Islam is the new anti-Semitic and he may have a point. Some of the cartoonists were just plain nasty and over the line, but a couple were funny and made good points. However, it seems the problem for the protesters is not the content, it is the fact that Mohammed was drawn at all. Pure religious superstition gone mad. I’m sure it goes against Christian superstitions to put an effigy of Christ into a bucket of wee, but we stuck up for free speech then, didn’t we?
Previously [by dk.au]: Trouble in DK, Trouble in DK redux – a fatty buildup?
My vague memory of art history reminds me that until a few centuries before the renaissance it was considered blasphemous to image religious icons. In fact it was also an aspect of the protestant revolution. Calvinism and such
However
This is absurd. How can this be allowed to happen?
See the cowards with the balaclavas on their faces outside the BBC and a placard saying “butcher the blasphemours.” Tolerance is one thing but that is crap. Daring to threaten imports and exports over a cartoon?
haha we should just ban trade from them until they stop threatening our sovereignty and our traditions of freedom of speech. Screw their oil, ride a bike you fat fucks.
And those geniuses that plan to kidnap people of those nationalities? wtf
I feel personally insulted that the media is too soft to publish it.
I already have said it before and at this rate, Australia is going down the shithole
yeh Patrick we better get Queen Mary of Denmark onto makeovering the shitholeness of Australia right away.
There is also the angry letter the joint chiefs of staff wrote to the Washinton Post sooking about a Tom Toles cartoon featuring an amputee war veteran – obviously not a religious issue, but still pretty interesting:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102465.html?nav=rss_print/style
Yawn.
The cartoons are a well-executed bit of right-wing shitstirring designed to enrage muslims while pretending its all about freedom of speech.
Mission accomplished, I’d say.
Yes we did Flute. Serrano had the right and I much liked the piece by the way. Can’t say I disagree with the thrust of the free speech argument here and the Danish Govt is to be comdemmed for backing down in the face of this.
But so goes international relations huh? The indonesians have in the past been pretty angry at Australian press reports, they seem to have gotten over that and now realise that it’s our way.
Still as with all things protest and censorship based they have only served to spread the ‘toons far and wide so what are they gonna do? Boycott and kidnap the internet?
Patrick. When would you like that bike mate? Remember, I’m your go to guy for all your carbon fibre, steel or aluminium needs. Big girls bum saddle streamers and spokey dokes – or something sleek and fast?
Feeling in a controversial mood, ay Mr Flute? Still, it’s a good subject for discussion. While I share your secularism, and think that the influence of religion on the world is, on the whole, a bad one, I’d disagree with you that the cartoons should be published on three grounds. Let me also leave aside the difficult question of government censorship and, for the sake of the argument, imagine that the decision is before us as a responsible editor, weighing up the public interest.
I’d give them the thumbs down because: (1) the playing field is in general not a level one: the nominally Muslim countries are on the whole immeasurably poorer, less educated and less powerful than the nominally Christian countries, and I always feel squeamish (to put it mildly) about the big kicking the weak; (2) it plays into the whole Clash of Civilisation bullocks at a time when it is in very much the world’s interest not to have the present conflicts defined in those terms, and when peace loving secularists need the good will of peace loving Muslims; and (3) I only found one of them funny.
I went googling for the Danish cartoons this morning, but lost patience when I failed to find them reproduced on any website. Then, unrelatedly, I did my blog-around, and was amazed, flabbergasted, gobsmacked etc when I found a link on this blog.
Congratulations flute. How did you get under Mark’s guard, or is he still suffering from a hangover from a bit of Friday night carousing? I’ll have another look at this blog after lunch today and I fully expect it to be erased when Mark discovers it and to hear that flute has been consigned to the special place in hell reserved for EP. flute ought to know free speech on this blog ends at pouring metaphorical faeces over Christians but that Muslims have to be “respected”.
…and with that post from whyisitso, I rest my case.
But of course provocative cartoons can appear on LP, whyisitso. I mean you pop up here regularly.
And what happened to the piss Christ effigy?
Wooh! Watch yo’ haid!
Baldy.
Been waiting for this to be ‘discovered’ by this site. I applaud you for doing so, even at this remove of several months from when it started.
Jyllands-Posten requested the cartoons to illustrate the issue of freedom of the press in Denmark, where it had become close de riguer not to even mention one – and only one – religion.
This was not ‘right wing shitstirring’, Bill, but an exercise of fundamental freedom of speech which the paper said at the time was not meant to cause offence to anyone. Even so, the ‘imam’ (not a Danish citizen, either) who kick-started this furore had to add three highly inflammatory and very crude cartoons to the 12 J-P published and then lie about their provenance in Arabic media in order to generate the faux-outrage you see now. If anyone is the ‘right-wing shitstirrer here, to use your poetic phrase, it is the islamofascist imam himself.
So the issue here is where does one stand on the issue of free speech? I’m with those who feel it is fundamental to western values to be able to mock, comment on, criticise, or take the mickey out of ANY subject. Freedom of speech is critical to us irrespective of political stance. I was personally offended by that pathetic little prat and his ‘art’ (the crucifix in urine, I’ll not dignify it with the name he gave it), but recognised that his right to make that object was important to me, as much as I detested him and his object.
So where do you folks stand on the issue of free speech? For it, and so supportive of J-P’s action, or against it (islam must not be mocked, commented on, or discussed)?
If the latter, why would anyone hold ‘little brown folks’ to a different standard than that they hold whities to?
I think I know where CS stands (‘about the big kicking the weak’) and the sight of mighty Denmark, that colossus of military power and superpower rival to the USA, ruthlessly bullying the 1,200,000,000 muslims of the world is indeed a hideous thing to behold. Meanwhile, on my planet, Denmark is a glorified sandspit that makes cheese! Thanks, CS, for the humour!
MarkL
Canberra
Thanks, MarkL, for driving home my point.
Of course, Clinton makes a good point. Everyone seems to have forgotten that Arab peoples are also Semitic. Plenty of anti-semitism around these days (*looks at certain RWDBs*)
And it yet another reminder that Christianity is in fact the main historical source of anti-Semitism. Apology would be nice. The Pope half managed one once. Remember, folks, its aint Islam that claims the Jews killed its prophet.
“Remember, folks, its aint Islam that claims the Jews killed its prophet”
Remember, folks, it ain’t Christians that deliberately blow up innocent women and children on buses as part of a “freedom fight”, the latter proving that language means whatever you want it to mean.
This thread is still going, and no sign of Mark yet. Must have been some boozy night!
Mark is not under any obligation to read or contribute to any particular thread. If you want to discuss it, go ahead.
Does anyone think the cartoons are any good (in/offensiveness aside)?
Nope! Was watching dvds and reading. I’m typically a late riser. And what Rob said.
I think the point about Piss Christ that Flutey makes is a good one. Some right wingers defended free speech then, but a hell of a lot said it was an obscenity that traduced sacred symbols. And in the US context, it wasn’t an isolated instance. Guiliani took away city grants to a NY museum because he didn’t like some art which portrayed the Virgin Mary.
No thanks, Mark L, for missing my point, but it’s not compulsory.
Re: So the issue here is where does one stand on the issue of free speech? I’m with those who feel it is fundamental to western values to be able to mock, comment on, criticise, or take the mickey out of ANY subject.
Bully for you. Not being a fundamentalist of any sort, the only thing I’d die in a ditch for is the right of citizens to freely criticise their government, and even that’s hedged by defamation laws and public interest tests etc. There is no such thing as completely free speech, except perhaps sitting in a room by yourself; there never has been, there isn’t, and there never will be. The issue is whether this instance falls in or out of the usual or exceptional standards etc; a question that cannot be resolved by reference to fundaments, unless you are talking out of one.
“Some right wingers defended free speech then, but a hell of a lot said it was an obscenity that traduced sacred symbols.”
It’s quite logical to believe both positions can be held simultaneously by the same person. I do myself. Why do so many people confuse criticism of something said with the wish to ban said speech? Why do some people think that because of a free speech philosophy they can say anything they like and not be subject to protest or criticism?
I tend to agree with cs here, on the grounds that the cartoons, in context, are akin to the proverbial shouting of “Fire!” in a crowded theatre.
That said, I think the West has a distinct problem when it comes to the criticism of Islam, particularly in fiction. There is an over-cautiousness here that could be termed the “Fear of Rushdie’s Fate disease”.
A pithy example of this is Michel Houellebecq’s publisher Flammarion apologising for a supposed “Muslims=terrorists” slur contained in Houellebecq’s 1999 novel “Platforme”. This apology was made, and duly received, in a Paris mosque on the morning of September 11, 2001, minutes before the atrocities of that day commenced.
Yes, whyisitso, but there’s a difference between saying “I don’t like that, I think that’s religiously/culturally offensive” and moving to prevent the work from being shown, and discouraging future work in the same vein. Guiliani, and the Republican appointees to the National Endowment for the Arts, did the latter. That’s not exercising one’s own right to free speech by criticising something, but depriving others retrospectively and prospectively of theirs.
So, in other words, one shouldn’t interpret criticism as a call to ban said speech, but sometimes there are calls to ban said speech, and actual bans.
Mark L said:
Err yeah, well you could have read about it, here at LP a couple of months ago or here at LP a couple of days ago if you were looking.
FYI – Sources
This all started on 30 September 2005, so anyone who has not been following it closely and who may wish to get idea of the path this extremely interesting event has followed may wish to go to the Brussels Journal:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/
which has been following this closely since 30 Sep 05 (there are 19 articles, for those interested).
The 12 original J-P images are at:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146
The 3 images the imam added to spice up the mix are at:
http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger38.jpg
http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger39.jpg
http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger40.jpg
Their poor quality is noteworthy (and poor image quality too)I guess the imam and his lads are not very good at this.
The astounding islamic-fascist responses are imaged at:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/index.php?loadhome=true
and at
http://michellemalkin.com/
(hey, you don’t have to read the words)
Bill – no problem. Glad that you understand this conflict to have been created and orchestrated by a group of Danish-based Islamic fascists as a deliberate attack on a fundamental western value. I have to admit that the speed of its spread through the muslim world has dismayed me. I had hoped that Islamic fascism (in the National Socialist sense) had less penetration in the non-Arab muslim world than this indicates. It is also magnificent to see a scattering of European leftists abandoning the path Leon Blum also chose, and to see a handful of highly courageous Muslims also taking a stand against the Islamic fascists. Perhaps there is still a chance to avoid what might be coming if these folks get their way. Here’s hoping.
CS. Thanks for the humour-filled response. Let no-one say that the Aussie left is dour and humourless!
MarkL
Canberra
“sometimes there are calls to ban said speech, and actual bans.”
Of course, like the case of the Two Dannys by the Soviet Union of Socialist Victoria.
It’s difficult to see the narrow channel (if there is one physically possible) between not shouting fire in Paul’s fictional crowded theatre and at the same time avoiding the charge of cowardice explicitly charged in his second paragraph above.
If you want to read what I think about that, then go here and here, whyisitso, but I consider a discussion of that case incidental to the point of this thread, so I won’t debate it with you on this thread. The shorter version is that on balance I’m opposed to the Victorian legislation, and I think that the state should always err on the side of freedom of speech, though like cs, I don’t think there’s any such thing as absolute freedom of speech.
I find the whole thing puerile and regrettable. I can’t remember the last time I heard anything that could be called “free speech” – most of what I hear in public nowadays is borrowed sloganeering or the braying of tired, angry and stupid populations of people around the world who think that striking out at shadows is the way you deal with fear and frustration.
I felt the same way about Piss Christ as I do about this recent incident. It’s the equivalent of a small boy discovering his willy and quickly realising that he can cause an uproar by wielding it in public.
I’m a bit sickened by some of the stuff I’m reading that supports the cartoons – most of it along the lines of “yar – what makes them think they’re different and can’t shit on their own sacred icons; after all, we shat on all ours and it hasn’t done us any harm eh wot – why can’t they get a joke – that’s wot we’re like – we’re irreverent – and hilariously funny to boot”. What we often are is vulgar, tasteless and rude. What we are is thoughtless and inconsiderate. I can’t imagine that anyone wouldn’t know about the Islamic thing about pictures of the prophet – it’s a core thing that means alot to them. It’s their most sacred thing. Have we really lost our respect and empathy for others to that extent? Would we do the same to nuns? Or the Dalai Lama?
Why take pleasure in 1) offending people (maybe even by accident) and then 2) rubbing their noses in it like they deserve to be defiled (which is how it would feel to them). Where’s the joy in that, except maybe in a perverse retaliation for having lost one’s own connection with the sacred and punishing those who still cling to theirs.
I really don’t get it. Where’s the joy in genuinely upsetting someone when it comes to something that’s more important to them than it is to you?
The Danish cartoons is exactly the same genre of happening as the Victorian case, and so very much at the centre of this thread, which is all about so-called vilification (=criticism) of Islam. It appears you have a propensity of narrowing a thread topic whenever its direction vears away from your prejudices.
That’s fine, whyisitso, but I have nothing to add on that topic other than what I said over at Troppo. But please feel free to keep talking about it if you think it’s relevant, just letting you know I personally won’t be debating it with you here.
Interesting roundup on British Asian blog Pickled Politics:
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/273
I liked this point:
I also like roseg’s comment above, I think you put that very well.
We’re getting sidetracked here. A couple of points:
1) Whisisitso – There were plenty of Christians bombing the shit out of each other in the British Isles until recently, so terrorism is not purely a muslim thang. Plus, and here’s a biggy for you. Most violent crime in Australia is perpetrated by Christians!
2) Robert, I laughed at a couple yes.
3) Mark, removing funding from an artist is a couple of steps away from smashing shit up, and violence.
Why did I know that instead of a question of censorship and why Islam is not ridiculed more, this would turn into a Christians v Muslims shitfight as usual.
There are a few issues around this whole exercise.
1) It’s ironic that the militants who are so fired up are angry because their figurehead has been accused of being a militant who fires miltants up. They were stirred by their own sense of outrage at any kind of criticism of their own actions by people who see themselves as being under the controlo of their violent actions or threats.
2) Freedom of speech apparently includes defacation of beliefs. But is freedom for the victim if an adversary chooses to insult their beliefs?
3) It is understood by most critics that Christians are exhorted to turn the other cheek and forgive, not to retaliate, or employ pay-back, so they’re easy targets for religious defamation. Thus, when a foul, deliberately basphemous painting or peice of ‘art’ gains the interest of the media, Christians are chastised for daring to raise valid objections.
4) Muslims however, apart from a few isolated voices, don’t display the same concept of forgiveness or longsuffering, and are more likely to seek vengeance for what amounts to the same kind of mockery of their icons.
5) There is an automatic reaction and comparison to Christian actions of some by-gone age, as if to make sure that critics don’t let them off this ‘religious’ hook, including, now, an accusation of Christian anti-Semitism, which swings the direction of the attack on freedom from the Muslims who are objecting so vociferously, to Christians, who have said or done nothing, and, in effect, nullifies the brutality of the opressive threats issued from militants over these cartoons, which have nothing at all to do with any Christian protest or influence, as far as I can make out.
On your point 4, FaceLift, I’d suggest the difference doesn’t lie in varying concepts of forgiveness in Christianity and Islam (as you yourself point out, in the past they were observed mainly in the breach by Christians) but rather in the varying degrees of adaptation to modernity found in the two cultures. Acceptance of ideas of tolerance and freedom of speech are very much bound up with post-Enlightenment liberalism and its effects on culture and mores. In largely pre-modern societies, you get a more tribal and vengeance driven attitude to what are seen as totemic signifiers for the whole society (and there’s some truth in this – attacks on the Prophet are normally proxies for attacks on Islam/Arabs generally). So I’d be wary of positing a religious explanation as the most important cause for the differences in behaviour between different cultures when symbols are attacked.
Incidentally, having now looked at the cartoons, Bill C is onto something. Some but not all are very reminiscent of the depiction of stereotypical features of Jews from Nazi era cartoons.
Some background on the newspaper in question.
Uh huh, as the blogger I linked to pointed out, the paper in question has a record of Fascist sympathising – according to Wikipedia at any rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten
Um, well, in the 1920’s & 30’s a large chunk of Europe had fascist sympathies, n’est pas? A considerable chunk had communist tendencies. Another chunk was fundamentally capitalist. The rest were ordinary non-political battlers looking for leadership. Tough times guaranteed. However, I think we’ve moved on from there.
We live in a thoroughly different age, where Islam is re-emmerging and making itself known as a force. Should a secular society have the right to criticise, and produce ‘artworks’ which politically or religiously satyrise the concepts of Islam. Absolutely.
The question is; do you dare?
Not sure the history on the paper is relevant. People still buy Fanta and Coca Cola you know.
Anyhows, moving along slightly and I’d love it if you all came with me – a New Zealand Fairfax owned newspaper has published the cartoons in a newspaper as they consider them to be newsworthy. This will probably piss some Muslims off a lot. Is this justified?
We are now talking about a different set of motives (and yes I think the original reason for calling people to take the piss out of Mohammed may have been off). It has moved from a red rag to news.
Thoughts?
Hmm
‘It is a given fact that Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs are highly sensitive of portrayals of their gods and prophets.’
Sorry, I disagree, this is too much a generalisation. I lived in Malaysia for a couple of years, Hindus, Christians and Sikhs were sensitive to deliberate, insulting defacement of their religious images by Muslims and responded violently to that when it happened. Normal depiction was no issue at all, use for gentle humour or wry comment was fine (that everybody gets ALL the religious public holidays in Malaysia is a gentle running joke there), satirical use had to be finely judged but was certainly possible, mockery for its own sake was regarded as insulting and generated a strong but not violent response.
Any portrayal of Mohammed by a non-Muslim generated a violent response by Muslims (only some, and more in PAS domnated areas than in KL, Ipoh, Penang or Malacca).
And this in a nation extremely sensitive to race and religious issues.
The Danish Cartoon War is different, it is a deliberate and manufactured artefact – and the muslims themselves manufactured it. An obscure paper in the mighty superpower that is Denmark took a stand for their constitutional right of free speech, against PC and self-censorship inside Danish society. Sure, as has been pointed out, ‘there is no such thing as completely free speech’ – but nobody claimed that at all, this is a strawman. The point is a petty point scoring one of no relevance to a serious debate.
The RIGHT of free speech is constrained by the DUTY not to use it to cause deliberate harm to others. You can insult anyone you want to, but if the insult transgresses the laws about ‘deliberate harm’, well, we have courts to sort out the mess.
I can insult Mr X in public or private, he can insult me in return. But I cannot impugn his ‘virtues or personal honour’ and get away with it, I cannot accuse him of a crime or something like that, and he cannot do that either.
Historically, throughout hiuman history, that is an astounding level of freedom. CS rather surprised me when he said he valued it so little, but hey, that is his call to make.
Try publishing a satirical cartoon of Robert Mugabe or Fidel Castro in either nation and see how long you remain alive. But these are certainly not civilised places.
So it cannot really be argued that JP did anything wrong. Nothing they did was outside the boundary of their rights, because nothing they did was legally actionable under Danish law – and Denmark is a civilised nation.
J-P clearly did not intend to cause deliberate harm. They stated this. The violent muslim reactions are outrageously hypocritical, given that images of old Mo are routinely available for sale in every permanent market I saw in Malaysia, and in Iran and other Muslim countries.
J-P has gone beyond their duty to be conciliatory, and apologised to those who felt insulted. This is proper for civilised people. They have NOT apologised for publishing them in the manner they did. This is also quite proper and correct for civilised people.
MarkL
Canberra
Flutey, there was a Jordanian newspaper that published the cartoons as news – the editor was promptly sacked. (There seem to be lots of editors losing their jobs at the moment – see Brian’s comments on the other thread).
As to whether the paper’s past is relevant, it’s a mistake to see Denmark as some sort of cuddly bastion of Nordic niceness and liberalism. Its politics are quite distinct from those of other Scandinavian nations. The Danish People’s Party, for instance, which currently has over 20 seats in Parliament, is a populist extreme right wing party very close in policy and tone to movements such as those of Le Pen in France and Haider in Austria. Its main raison d’etre is to be anti-Immigration, and guess which mob it’s particularly anti.
If the paper is very conservative, it’s probably picking up on similar themes.
It’s always wise to do a bit of digging for the context.
Roseg, it was the moslem media which chose to make much ado over nothing here. Have a look at the media in the past 15 months in Australia ad what it has done:
Destroyed Latham because he criticised it, waiting to do a hatchet job on him
Created a mass, collective consciousness about the Tsunami, positive outcomes but truly indignifying(Remember how pathetic it was to watch the current affairs presenters vying each other for awards)
Schappelle Corby and that joke
Incited violence against Lebs in Cronulla
Incited violence against whites in Cronulla
Gave huge and irrelevant coverage to the franchise Sydney Swans undermining Sydney culture
They create these hysterias, they create every truly evil and stupid thing in society.
It is no surprise that the Moslem media are just the same and just as stupid.
ANTI-IMMIGRATION IS NOT RIGHT WING. IT IS NOT A RIGHT WING DYNAMIC ETC ETC
Why keep saying any political party that oposes immigration is extreme right-wing and neo-nazis?
MarkL, I may be misreading your point, but if the paper has the sort of circulation it claims, it’s hardly obscure. To us, but not to Danes (of whom there are only 5 and a half million – if you’re getting a readership of 600 000 odd, you’re doing pretty well).
As I said Mark, a few of the cartoons were clearly disgusting, but a few were not. Back to my point, the uproar is around because Mohammed was depicted. So just because a few people get the extreme shits, does that mean the Mohammed should never ever be depicted no matter what the context?
What do you think of the Jordanian being sacked? Would you think the same if the NZ editor got the boot too?
And I am fully aware of Danish politics. I am not trying to defend crackheads, just the right to take the piss out of beliefs. And seeing as I’m not in Victoria I think I can do that without being arrested.
I didn’t say it was neo-Nazi, patrick. Yes there are some on the left who oppose immigration, but populist right wing parties tend to specialise in it. They’re typically also socially conservative, and often reactionary in the true sense of the world when it comes to economic policy (bring back protection, etc). So it’s not unfair to characterise Le Pen, Haider (who actually is a neo-Nazi) or the Danish mob as right wing.
This cartoon thing hasn’t been “satire” or art. If the cartoons lampooned the hypocrisy of a specific group based on a real incident or exposed the corruption in the priesthood/corridors of power or revealed some important truth I’d be the first to applaud it. But it doesn’t – it just makes a set of generic potshots at huge numbers of people who are already being demonised for their religion/culture alone.
The cartoons themselves are merely mediocre and peurile. The behaviour since then is what worries me more – the way so many of us seem to be using it as an opportunity to vent our existing prejudices and anger at a vague group of people from countries we wouldn’t even be able to point to on a map.
I’d like to see what we would make of a set of cartoons deriding the Dreamtime as a bunch of fairy stories in the minds of childlike primitives. Cos that’s how this feels to me – the only difference is that Muslims are the current convenient punching bag for our frustrations and inarticulate fear. And that’s not just wrong, it’s stupid. What do we stand to gain from this? Why do we take pleasure in causing others distress? Who’s being “primitive” here?
I am not trying to defend crackheads, just the right to take the piss out of beliefs.
For whatever it’s worth, I think I’m with you there, in general. But I still think Roseg’s question is an important one, ie what’s to be gained from pissing people off.
It’s one thing to tolerate free expression and quite another to actively defend it, don’t you think?
For me it also matters quite a bit whether the actual pisstake is hopelessly lame / unfunny / crude or whether it does have a bit of wit and ingenuity and effectively takes down a windbag target. Michel Houllebecq and Salman Rushdie were mentioned earlier. I wouldn’t trouble myself either denigrating or defending Houllebecq’s books, cos I think he’s a piss-poor writer, but Rushdie is a real artist with real things to say and raises questions we can really talk about.
What Laura said. Roseg’s question is indeed an important one, as is the distinction Laura makes between toleration and defence of speech.
Actions speak louder than words, Mark. The present federal government (right-wing by repute) is the most pro-immigrant government for some decades. It’s the left that appears to be anti-immigrant, not wanting f..ing balts from Vietnam, and greenies, your archetypical lefties (eg Tim Flannery) wanting to cease immigration altogether.
Also, do I detect a small degree of disharmony about the Victorian free-speech issue from flute v. Mark? I detect a bit of a crack in the solidarity between bloggers on this blog?
“Bill Clinton reckons that anti-Islam is the new anti-Semitic and he may have a point.”
Look Clinton lies all the time. Think of him as that inbred kid sitting on the bridge in the movie “Deliverance” Except that when he eventually learnt to talk they had to take away the Banjo and shove a sax in his mouth. WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON YOU BIN LAHN AGIN HAINT YA.
“Bill Clinton reckons that anti-Islam is the new anti-Semitic and he may have a point.”
He doesn’t believe that. And I don’t fully believe that you believe that he believes that. He’s just angling for Koffi’s job while Hillary goes after the Presidency. Then they’ll sell every last weapons secret to China and take down any missile defense that has been built up.
I don’t know. This guy has some sort of weird Jedi-Knight-Like power. I can’t seem to hate him though I know I should. His selling off all those weapons secrets to China might yet get a lot of us killed. Most particularly relatives of our Asian friends here in Australia. He could be the worst traitor in American history. Or amongst the worst.
Pretty damn good with that Saxophone though.
If you think we agree on everything, you’re dead wrong, whyisitso. We don’t. And there’s no problem with that and people can be in solidarity with each other without agreeing on everything!
As to the rest of what you say, a left/right stoush is not germane to the issue at hand in my view, and I really only wanted to answer Patrick quickly. As I said before, you can talk about whatever you like that you think is on topic, but I’m not obliged either to agree that it is or debate it with you if I think it’s not.
Patrick – what you say about the media is true. Thanks for reminding me that my indignation is unwittingly serving their intent. So I’ve calmed down a bit. But I still stand by what I said. We can’t control what media or neo-cons or religious extremists or rabble rousers on any side of any fence do, but we do have some control over our own attitudes, behaviours, insights and choices about things.
Where’s Kamahl when you need him? (apologies to anyone under 35…)
People have different opinions whysitso. Get over it.
Moving right along, I can see that if we were a representative group of editors, we would come up with different papers.
The harder question is whether or not there should be government censorship, an issue on which I would always start from a very strong presumption of no.
Yet, this matter would surely appear on a government’s radar. Some of them remind me, not of the depiction of stereotypical features of Jews, but of allied wwi and wwii propaganda. Given the important present national security objective of maintaining the strongest possible alliance with muslim nations against a-q etc, to the extent that material can be read as the production of demonising war-time-like propaganda aimed at our international allies, officials would, I imagine, be paying close attention. The first cause of war, as Geoffrey Blainey once observed, was the preparation for war, and getting the propaganda in place can be read as one step along that way.
To be clear, I’m not saying that these examples rise to the level where government censorship is warranted, only that this is one pathway toward which I imagine such material could arguably and perhaps justifiably ultimately lead.
What Mark said here.
This idea that the might of the (losers in) the Arab world is picking on poor little liberal, nonoffensive Denmark is a complete furphy; as is the idea that these all cartoons are inherently toothless or lame. Patrick, I would suggest you have a look at Dansk Folkepartiet’s policy platform. They’re not just anti-immigration, they’re anti-immigrant – ie. they actually want to get expel immigrants to Denmark.
This is probably more effective then bombing in getting the goals of Jihad happening. Didn’t Jawahiri say that Bush would be forgiven if he converted to Islam? I’d believe it too. Since that’s their goal. To make us all believers. They’d enforce the more stringent stuff amongst there own before coming after us again.
They need a certain amount of terror but then they just need to go for all these weak points with intimidation. I wouldn’t be offended with Piss-Christ if I could where a Moh****** (see. I’m even doing it and its got to change) ***** **** teeshirt without third parties who would defend Piss-Christ (ludicrously as art) but at the same time come down on the tee-shirt wearer.
Either way it must be one standard for all. Because CONTEMPT follows hard on the heels of a two-rules system. We don’t quite know where the contempt demon will land or on which side (pity the poor Muslims if it lands on our side for a change) but we do know that when the rules are different for different people he will be not long in coming.
And this war is all about Muslim contempt for the rest of us. Its all about that and only about that and its about nothing else substantially.
The Danes should come down hard on any intimidation with extreme predjudice. Otherwise we can never be brothers again.
Is anyone else going to give an opinion on whether the NZ newspaper should have published the cartoons or not?
Sure, I will. No, on the grounds that they’re pretty crap cartoons.
On the other hand, if you were an editor who wanted to both inflame anti-Muslim prejudice and play into the hands of right-wing fundamentalist Muslim clerics… well, it’s two birds with one stone, isn’t it?
Given my position, I’d say no Mr Flute, he should not have published them (for previously stated equity, security and no-talent etc reasons: I also share in roseg’s sensibility to some extent). Certainly the issue should be reported and debated, but it doesn’t make any difference to this (my) position that the issue has gone to the second degree, since the act of publishing immediately privileges the pro-case.
At last, cheers cs.
There are echoes on this thread of the Satanic Verses affair, e.g. ‘Rushdie knew what he was doing, what did he expect, free speech is not freedom to offend, his books are unreadable anyway’. And ‘J-L knew what it was doing, what did they expectg, free speech isn’t freedom to offend, and the cartoons are puerile anyway’.
That aside, is there maybe a tiny bit of implied racism in supposing that Muslims will react murderously when provoked? These riots seem to have been sparked by radical imams and fostered by repressive governments esssentially for their own purposes. Perhaps they are no more representative of Muslims generally than the idiots who trashed Seattle are representative of western democracies.
Rushdie himself spoke movingly of a tolerant and sceptical islam – an Islam of which he thought he was part. We don’t see much of it, because in the west the media are largely uninterested, seeing better stories in radical outbursts, and in places like Iran it dares not speak – though there it seems to be growing stronger as Iranians increasingly tire of their Islamic revolution (the election of ‘A Madman-in-Dinnerjacket’ notwthstanding).
Re my first point above – wbb took a similar line on dk.au’s post, trivialising the murder of Theo Van Gogh by disparaging both the artist and his art (made with Ayaan Hirsi Ali), the film Submission.
Rob, I think that misses a point most folks have registered from the start, which is that there is little or no intrinsic merit in the works, which distinguishes the issue sharply from Rushdie (who is indeed a very talented writer). Moreover, the domestic context is different (newspapers have more of a duty to serve the public interest than a book), and the international context has substantially changed, and with that the national interest in securing as much goodwill from peace-loving Muslims as possible. This is not a time for giving gratuitous offence, I would say.
FWIW, and to get right down to it, I would have no problem with the ‘no more virgins’ cartoon, which is a laugh (I did) on suicide bombers, rather than the religion/Mohammad per se, and could have been done by, say, Tandberg.
“Is anyone else going to give an opinion on whether the NZ newspaper should have published the cartoons or not?”
Of course they should. Why not? They are just a cartoon. And you are giving away the whole store if you let a double standard in.
This is no great bravery on behalf of the New Zealanders. They don’t have a Muslim problem. Since they barely have any Muslims. And the belligerence in their society comes from some sectors of the Maori population instead. Which they kowtow to disgracefully. So at least they aren’t wimping out with the cartoons.
Its not going to spark a riot and is unlikely to pose and excuse for some people to murder someone. Since as I said they have barely any Muslims there. There is not enough of a population of young lads to feel like they can push their weight around.
Dig the outrageous double standard and appeasement here:
“No, on the grounds that they’re pretty crap cartoons.”
Yeah good one Neville. You aint fooling anyone Mr Chamberlain.
“For whatever it’s worth, I think I’m with you there, in general. But I still think Roseg’s question is an important one, ie what’s to be gained from pissing people off.”
Freedom of course.
You know.
LIBERTY. For us and for individuals within the Muslim Community.
You say what you think. Then they try it on with the initimidation. Then the hammer comes down with massive Police leg-work overkill. They you’re free.
You keep losing psychic ground like this and you’ll be wearing a Burka come the next year of the dragon.
On another angle, cartoonists are (and quite rightly, for mine) a privileged species in the west, or at least in Australia, who are given publishing permissions no other communicators enjoy. Thus, provided they are identifiably intended to be humorous, the conventions of not taking them seriously are well understood. I would be interested to know if Muslim countries, by and large, have a comparable tradition, and wouldn’t be surprised if the answer is generally no. The point is that, if this is the case, then we also have a language/culture difference issue, which might not only help explain the offence but raise issues of basic respect.
“Yawn.
The cartoons are a well-executed bit of right-wing shitstirring designed to enrage muslims while pretending its all about freedom of speech.
Mission accomplished, I’d say.”
Dudes got Stockholm Syndrome. How about taking a nap or keeping the yawn to yourself. I can see right out your earholes.
If no one can see the cartoons, no one can see how hateful most of them were.
I think there are a lot of those surfacing at the moment, Chris. As people have observed with regard to Al-Jazeera’s popularity, traditionally Arabic countries don’t have a free press, or for that matter the sort of liberal public sphere that fosters attitudes of respect and tolerance. Of course, neither did Europe until comparatively very recently. I return to the comment made above in response to FaceLift that cultural differences and positioning on the axis of modernity are much better explanatory tools than religious difference.
It’s also worth remarking that the Islamic attitude towards representations of the Divine is particular to the Middle Eastern civilisations – cf. “Thou shalt have no graven images” in Yahwistic Judaism, and much later the Iconoclast controversy in Byzantium. These things are always more easily comprehensible if one takes the very long view, as no doubt you’d agree.
Thanks for making my point for me, cs. It’s standard operating procedure in these cases to start by disparaging the artist.
But the response from fundamentalist Islam was exactly the same. Riots, threats to murder, and actual murders.
As for the national interest, clearly JL thought it was acting in the national interest (as opposed to the government’s or commerce’s interest) and national traditions by standing up for freedom of speech. That was the reason for the whole exercise.
No actual murders in the JL case – at least not yet.
I don’t know, Rob. Occam’s razor suggests that the underlying motive of newspapers is usually to sell more newspapers. Typically, controversy sells. I’m always suspicious of high sounding proclamations by newspaper editors.
“FWIW, and to get right down to it, I would have no problem with the ‘no more virgins’ cartoon, which is a laugh (I did) on suicide bombers, rather than the religion/Mohammad per se.”
What rot! It’s a direct assault on the very strong Islamic belief about the virtues of martyrdom. Whether or not the promise of virgins is involved, the reward for martyrdom is a strong concept of their religion, and an attack on that is just as much an attack on Islam as any of the other cartoons.
I don’t think any of the cartoons are funny. They are, as most cartoons anywhere, pictorial over-simplified polemics. Moslems should, to use Sheil’s words, Get Over It. They’re certainly less offensive than the gratuitous killings the Islamists have habitually engaged on in past decade or so, particularly 911, the London bombings, the Bali bombings, the bombing of innocent women and children on Israeli buses and cafes, the innumerable atrocities in Iraq, and so on.
Thanks for making my point for me, cs. It’s standard operating procedure in these cases to start by disparaging the artist.
I think that just shows you’ve never worked as an editor Rob, where the truth is that the real standard operating procedure is that, if copy doesn’t rise to the level in terms of quality, no other questions are relevant.
But the response from fundamentalist Islam was exactly the same. Riots, threats to murder, and actual murders.
So? I’m saying that would have less justification.
And on the other, I don’t give a bugger about JL, only good relations with peace-loving Muslims.
“I’m always suspicious of high sounding proclamations by newspaper editors.”
And blog owners too, no doubt.
You might be onto something there, whysitso, provided we recognise that the atrocities are not all on one side. Extreme sensitivity – as dk.au suggests, normally suggests a culture under great pressure rather than a confident inclusive one – and any fair reading of the situation would suggest that people living in Arabic countries have reason to be easily offended – the boot’s been pretty much on our feet for quite some time.
Two clarifications -
1. Genuine democracy in the Middle East would help a lot as it fosters habits of tolerance and norms of civil expression. I blame the Western supported autocracies such as the Saudi and Egyptian goverments to the degree that they contribute to dissatisfaction in the Middle East. Thus, if George Bush’s democracy push were genuine, that would be a good thing. But we’ve just seen that democracy doesn’t deliver what you necessarily want. Still, in the long term, it tends to.
2. I condemn violence perpetrated in the name of Islam as equally as I condemn all politically motivated violence.
So, I think also, if you think a bit, you can see that the issues raised go beyond left/right polarisations.
With that thought, I’m outa here to catch up with some friends.
So, cs, if the cartoons had been of sufficient standard to tickle your funny bone, would the murderous response have had ‘less justification’?
Look. You are all lashing out at the wrong people here. Its anyone who tries to intimidate then you jump on them with both feet. So the spirit of jihadism wins out and is egged on.
The way you handle it is you do a mental exercise. Just to seperate yourselves from this rampant Stockholm Syndrome. And you say “Hey. What if the cartoons were about the right of the American Republican Party” of course you’d publish them. What’s the controversy about in the first place.
Terrorism is an absolutely useless form of warfare from a technical military point of view. The only way it wins is if it has the psychological effect to swing things 10% the jihadists way. As evidenced by this thread.
Do you believe in freedom of speech or not? How about Piss-Christ. No art and speaking objectively 100 times more offensive. We should be making jokes about these guys all the time. Reagan used to tell a new Russian joke every week. It broke the spell since it had been a social faux pass to make fun of these guys for a very long time.
“This is no great bravery on behalf of the New Zealanders.” Graeme Bird.
Interesting point the bravery or otherwise of NZers, Graeme. They’re hardly likely to stand up to terrorists, are they? Not after their disgraceful performance vis-s-vis that self-admitted terrorist country in the EU blew up a ship in Wellington Harbour in the Lange days. They caved in pretty quickly to the terrorist country after having their butter export market threatened, and allowed the agents of the terrorist country to be repatriated for “punishment” in a South Sea paradise.
They’ve scuttled their defence forces and will no doubt call on Australia if they’re attacked by the Cook Islanders or some other South Pacific power.
Rob, if they’d been funnier, rather than seemingly gratuitously offensive, I’d feel happier defending them. Though some have a satirical point, others just seem designed to offend. As roseg said, why be offensive for the sake of it? And as Laura said, you can defend freedom of speech without lauding the particular speech that’s questioned.
Graeme – we’re not at war with the Republican Party and how many cartoons every day lampoon Bush or whoever? I return to cs’ points, which I don’t think have been adequately responded to.
And I’m also outa here to go and enjoy my Saturday night!
In answer to the question, yes, I think NS’s papers (and ours) should publish the cartoons, not as a result of any intrinsic value at this point, but as an illustration of what the furore is over. Their only value now is as part of the story.
I would object, though, to publication of some of the cartoons at retecool.com, which are meant only to offend: ie; to cause deliberate harm, and written with malicious intent.
MarkL
Canberra
Rob – what Kim said.
Also, there is a difference between whether something is right or justified, and then what the reaction should then be if such things are not right or justified. I think you know that even if cs had said that the cartoons were wholly unjustified, that doesn’t mean he for one second implied that therefore murder’s an acceptable response.
You don’t help the debate at all by making such statements.
So, cs, if the cartoons had been of sufficient standard to tickle your funny bone, would the murderous response have had ‘less justification’?
I haven’t taken a position on the response and its justifications or not. As I said earlier, one thing I would be interested in is the position of cartooning in the relevant countries, as it has a privileged and well understood position in this country, and I would like to compare the differences, if any, as a first step.
But on the question of quality, if the copy rises to a level where it qualifies for publication, then an editor would, according to standard operating practice, move onto further tests. I’ve stated my position in that regard.
Flute, I wonder if you have read the other thread. It doesn’t seem like it to me. Still starting with a clean sheet has produced a lot of interesting comment.
It seems that no British newspaper had published the cartoons, as I said last night. Mostly because they saw the ‘don’t offend others’ religion’ as having more weight than the ‘freedom of speech’ arguments in this case.
I agree with this argument. Still I’m glad I’ve seen the images. I think the internet is the appropriate medium, because you have to seek it out.
Also the the Deutschen Journalistenverband (German Union of Journalists) critcised the reprint of the material in German papers. They say that it is offensive to a specific group of people and has nothing to do with the responsibility of the press.
Mark it was the editor of the French newspaper France Soir that got the sack (Spiegel Online story here). It seems the owner was French/Egyptian. The latest I heard via the BBC was that papers in at least 12 European countries had published in solidarity with the French and the Danish.
The Jordanian paper published some of the cartoons and essentially told Muslims to grow up and calm down. My source was a (Deutsche Welle (English) story. Here’s the important bit:
This has been a big story for days in the European media and I keep hearing heaps about it on Newsradio. There has been a consistent theme of responsible Muslim voices calling for calm and moderation. Although they all say that the publication was a calculated insult, they are calling for calm and no violence.
Today I heard a Palestinian politician saying the same thing and claiming to represent the view of the overwhelming majority in Palestine. That was after the EU offices had been surrounded by a group of nutters with all sorts of threats of taking hostages and attacking churches etc.
If everyone takes a deep breath and the Danish don’t go ahead with the anti-Islam protests that were being foreshadowed today on the internet, we might just get through this.
Deutsche Welle worries that a lot of hard yakka on dialogue and understanding are going down the drain, and further that radical elements of Islam are using the issue to radicalise Muslim opinion (see my outline here).
Whatever the Danes had in mind it was always a pretty stupid idea if they intended to further peace and understanding or draw a line in the sand, or whatever. The boss of JP said somewhere that the other side had won, but some of his key editors seemed pleased with their handiwork as they stood on the street having evacuated the building because of a bomb threat.
Meanwhile a coupe of German engineers taken hostage in Iraq recently have probably had there chances of survival reduced.
I may be a bit slow here, but isn’t the nature and extent of the response the point of what we are discussing?
I think the actual merit or otherwise of the cartoons is largely irrelevant. I laughed at a couple. But what strikes people as funny varies according to individual and culture. Maybe the Danes thought they were all side-splitting – I don’t know, but I don’t see that it matters much. I doubt it matters at all to the fundamentalists, whom I can’t quite see making a distinction between good satire of the Prophet, and bad.
That’s a couple (two) German engineers, of course.
cs, on government censorship I’d have a bias against it but a hands-off (politically) body is needed for extreme cases, eg. snuff movies.
There is also a duty of care in what you allow to young children, although we routinely underestimate them.
Btw I think art is in a different category to freedom of speech and opinion, but I’ve already done that on the other thread.
Yes, but it’s pretty clear that if the question is one of balancing interests – unless there is absolute free speech, which clearly doesn’t exist anywhere – then the quality is a pretty serious component. “Depriving” society of a high quality piece is worse than depriving it of an inferior, poor quality work. So in the former case, it would seem that you would want better reasons for censoring it.
It still is a seperate question to whether murder is an acceptable response. Again, I think you already know that.
Another point is that we have no way of predicting whether a book or cartoon is going to strike fundamentalist Muslims as offensive or not. Rushdie’s book sparked death threats, actual assassination attempts (I believe), riots, a formal fatwa, and continues even today with a multi-million bounty placed on his head by a ‘charitable’ Islamic organisaition. No reasonable reading of The Satanic Verses could conceivably support the outpourings of hate directed at the book and its author.
I may be a bit slow here, but isn’t the nature and extent of the response the point of what we are discussing?
No. The initial point of discussion was whether you, as an editor, would publish the material. The second question was whether, once the story was running, you gain justification for publishing the material because it is now a story. Hope that helps.
I agree Brian. Such is the temptation for government abuse, the most thoroughly independent checks are required.
The big problem is that people think they have to worry about what Jihadia thinks of us. In wartime all such considerations are set aside and the only question is who will win and who will lose.
If we win they will lose and the war will be over. If they win we will be dead or Muslims and our girls will populate the victors harems. If nobody wins the war will continue.
So we don’t worry about what they think of us. I’m sick of worrying about what they think of us. Let them worry about what we think of them. After all we are the ones who are going to do the damage if we lose control of the situation. Forget about the Arab street. What about the American street. Or the Australian street for that matter.
No extant dictatorship with the possible exception of China could match Australia in a nuke-building competition. Once enough blood is drawn our guys will go stir crazy and start thinning their numbers down some. So that therefore its no good for the people of either side when we wimp out. It will let things roll out of control into another situation of catastrophic warfare.
Backing down leads to an upward spiral of violence which will result in far greater deaths on all sides when initially all it would take to sort things out is resources and firmness.
So you don’t want to wimp out on things like cartoons. You stay firm with that stuff and allow for plenty of cop overtime.
Rob, one of the British publishers I heard on the Beeb last night said he thought the cartoons were intrinsically below publication standard. This would not preclude there publication now IMHO to illustrate what the issue was all about. It’s is noteworthy that the Jordanians published some of the cartoons essentially telling Muslims that they ought to make up their own minds and not be led around by the nose. Also an Indonesian Islamacist internet site apparently published them and thereby became part of the reason for the assault on the Danish embassy in Indonesia by another Islamicist group.
I don’t see it, Anna. Oriana Fallaci is on trial for anti-Islamic sentiment in Italy at the moment. I’ve read some of the allegedly offensive material and don’t consider it to be of particularly high quality, aesthteically speaking (although she writes, as always, with great force and passion). I support and defend her right to write what she wants no less for that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1701930,00.html
Good for you, Rob, but I think most people would rather spend time defending thoughtful, high quality work, than deliberately offensive work that does little to add to debate or enjoyment.
Again, that is seperate from the debate about whether to respond at all, and what kind of response is necessary.
Still looks like the standard operating procedure to me, cs.
Rushdie: crap author of unreadable books
Van Gogh: lameass who made a crap film
JL: crap cartoons that weren’t good enough to publish in the first place.
All serving to deflect attention from the real issue: the murderous response to all three.
Oh well, whatever Rob. I can only give my opinion, I can’t make you accept it.
Good link Stephen; a good round-up of the arguments.
Roseg, whoever you are, you’re a clever bloke. And the Lovely Miss Laura.
Full of surprises.
Golly, I hope he is a bloke. Maybe it’s a woman? Well, they can be clever too.
Sometimes.
“Good for you, Rob, but I think most people would rather spend time defending thoughtful, high quality work, than deliberately offensive work that does little to add to debate or enjoyment.”
That’s just appeasement talk.
Are you guys seriously saying that Rob isn’t right? Or are you just mucking about. You mean to say you give these bastards exactly what they want. You reward the intimidation and what do you hope to achieve? Does everybody here live in gated communities or something?
Anna you aren’t ever going to defend anyone against these Muslims. Anyone who says this:
“but I think most people would rather spend time defending thoughtful, high quality work, than deliberately offensive work that does little to add to debate or enjoyment.â€?
So you would have defended them but the cartoons weren’t good enough? No no wait you would have defended these people against intimidation but you were too busy. There was someone out there with a better drawing and your time was taken up.
You wimped out and sold us down river. You were never going to defend anyone against those Crackers even on the mildest moral level
THIS is the reason we have terrorism. You do know that don’t you people? That this is the only reason for terrorism. The perverse response it gets from some people.
So you aren’t just teasing then? You really think Robs not right.
You can’t be serious.
Cheers Graeme, I must have missed the outbreak of war with “Muslims”. Thanks for getting us up to speed.
See you in the trenches, soldier!
*commando rolls into RWDB fantasy world*
The west hasn’t delared war against Muslims, but some fundamentalist Muslims have declared war on the west.
Abu Barkar Bashir: terrorism against the west will continue until the west consents to be ruled by Islam – such terrorism to include, if necessary, the use of muclear weapons.
Sure, Bashir may be a bit of a nutjob, but he happens also to be the spiritual head of Jamaah Islamiyeh.
The defence against such extremists appears to lie in the development of an educated, aspirational middle class in Islamic countries, as is happening in Malaysia and Indonesia. The Arab states are different, for a number of reasons, not least of them oil. A government that floats on oil revenues and does not need to tax its citizens has no need to cede power to the middle class, as it does not need their money. We can have far more confidence that Indonesia and Malaysia will be able to deal with their own extremists than the Arab states with theirs.
Besides, most of the modern Arab states are failed exercises in nation-building, partly due to the colonial legacy, and partly though their own malfeasance and maladministration. Their resentment of this unpalatable reality is sharpened, in the case of the Middle East, by the existence in their midst of an oustandingly successful exercise in nation-building, i.e. Israel.
Sorry, I have followed Graeme off topic here.
In The Guardian a couple of days back:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1697498,00.html?gusrc=rss
I’ll just add that I have seen Rowan Atkinson’s most recent efforts at “comedy” in an abomination called Keeping Mum, where he plays a C of E vicar. It’s craptastic movies like this that turned me into the freedom-hater I am today.
What’s your actual point, though, Laura? That Atkinson is too poor a comedian to have a right of freedom of speech, or what?
While I could quibble Rob, I won’t – that’s a much more nuanced analysis, thank you.
Lets keep it real people.
No, my actual point is pointing at that story in the Guardian, since it bears on Flute’s original question.
Have you seen the film, though, Rob? It’s terrifyingly dreadful.
I suspect Laura is indulging in some irony.
Seems to me that these cartoons have been blown out of all proportion. But my hazy recollections of Piss Christ were that disproportionate responses abounded. It was probably the same for Life of Brian. And there was a play on last year in the UK somewhere (goes off to Google)
link
which caused a bit of aggro as well.
I think Gary Larson got into all sorts of trouble with his cartoons – “Tethercat” comes to mind. If you read his autobiography there are a few that editors decided not to publish, and probably just as well!
Do I have a point? Not really. I just hang around LP to flirt with Kim, write the occasional rubbish haiku, and await the second coming of Fyodor …
No, I’ve not seen it, Laura, though I’m prepared to concede Rowan is now a fair way past his prime as a comedian.
I agree with his position on this though. Me, I’m opposed to any legislation that takes away our right to say what we think. But that’s a whole other debate.
Interesting about Piss Christ. Serrano is a Catholic. The rest of the exhibition left me thinking that he is a genuine artist, with strongly layered and metaphorical responses to his work.
People somehow hear the description and think wee wee infant baby jesus and go off their nanas. If you stop and think about it, the crucifixion was tied up with the notion of becoming human, enduring the full reality of the experience. God takes a shit. Do you think Jesus didn’t masturbate?
The notion that this image is about urinating on God is a shallow interpretation; the reflex to shut down thought from that point onwards is pretty sad.
To look at it another way, we did, and do, Piss on Christ, both then and day by day.
Of course it is acceptable to show a long scenes in which Jesus is beaten and beaten and beaten, and that is applauded by the very same people who attacked Serrano for Piss Christ. Don’t you think that is ironic?
ps – lest you think something funny has happened to my mind, I should reiterate that I am an atheist. But I can still admit the complexity in a confronting Xian work of art.
Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3562143a1861,00.html
This extract from the Dominion Post about why they chose to publish the 12 cartoons raises the issue appropriately – and good on them. Pity this was not done by the MSM in genral when Rushdie was condemned to death, or when van Gogh was murdered. The cowardice of the US MSM (and ours, thus far) in this wise is staggering. Muslims were grossly offended by their relentless coverage of Abu Ghraib, the US MSM paid no heed. Muslims in Iraq are still being offended by their refusal to cover the massive crimes of Saddam and his National Socialist regime, they pay no heed. But NOW they have come over all shy and retiring. Nothing to bash Bush with in this story, I suppose.
MarkL
Canberra
Quote
The Muslim case is not helped by the hypocrisy when it comes to respecting the religious values of others. No doubt many fundamentalist Christian Americans find it deeply offensive for their country to be constantly labelled the Great Satan.
And, as the German newspaper Die Welt pointed out when it published one of the cartoons, “when Syrian television showed drama documentaries in prime time depicting rabbis as cannibals, the imams were quiet”.
There have been earlier cultural confrontations between the West and a resurgent Islam, beginning with the death sentence pronounced in 1989 on author Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses, and including the murder in 2004 of Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh after he made a film dealing with violence against Islamic women.
They are confrontations the West cannot afford to lose. The right to freedom of speech is a precious one that has to be defended.
Unquote
Let’s go back to the beginning. The Guardian commentary Stephen Hill linked to tells us that back in September last year:
The BBC tells us:
He should have known, however, that Islam is not just like any other religion at present and that the cartoons would give serious offense.
I’d suggest that the action was reckless and hasn’t improved the pre-existing situation.
Does anyone think it would be easier to get an illustator for the book now?
When news organisations are finished with this contoversy, do you think that reporters and cartoonists are less likely to self-censor?
Certainly their action has raised the profile in Denmark of the issue of the integration of religious minorities, but is it a debate or a shouting match?
At least one of the cartoonists clearly thought the whole thing was a PR stunt.
I think it was reckless and was certain to have unpredictable outcomes.
Brian, I think there is a broader question: are we in the west prepared to accept that Islam is now off limits?
I understand the editor-in-chief of JL has conceded defeat:
It’s not just depictions of the Prophet. It’s Islam’s treatment of women (‘Submssion’, ‘Death of a Princess’) and heterodox messages generally (‘The Satanic Verses’).
Are we prepared to accept that Islam is beyond public criticism, in a way that no other theology or political philosophy has ever been in recent western culture?
I tend to think less of the outrage of Muslim leaders who took a trip to SA and Egypt with a dossier of the cartoons, with an addition of three others that were not originally printed in the newspaper. One shows a dog having sex with a praying Muslim, one shows Mohammed with the face of a pig and the last depicting him as a pedophile.
I would think that the additions are far more insulting then the actual ones printed (save perhaps for the bomb turban piece). Seems Muslim leaders are not so outraged as to prevent them from adding their own depictions. They claim it’s for ‘context’, so that Saudi Arabians can understand the culture of intimidation in oppressive Denmark (nothing of the sort occurs in Saudi Arabia, of course).
Then there was yesterdays protest in London calling for slaughter of cartoonists, 9/11 style punishment for Denmark and another 7/7 for London. Plus the violence in Indonesia, Gaza and elsewhere. But hey, let’s talk root causes for this violence shall we. A cartoon!
No, the cartoons may have initally provoked this outcome, but they certainly aren’t the fuel that escalates and keeps it burning. If it wasn’t the cartoons, it would have been something else soon enough.
Rob, I’m very far from suggesting that Islam is beyond public criticism. Just that this particular exercise was imprudent and badly handled from the outset.
Meanwhile In Denmark long-time reporter for Arab news outlets Osama Al-Habahbeh seems to make some sense.
It’s amazing that the Danish PM wouldn’t see 11 Arab ambassadors about their concerns when the whole thing blew up last year.
Must get some kip if it’s possible. We’re cooking here in Brisvegas.
Apropos Rowan Atkison’s little show, I cautiously endorse Chris Bertram’s (and dsquared’s) position http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/02/those-cartoons/
In other news, won’t somebody please think of the children?
Also, as the peacenik Johan Galtung is always saying, in these situations the chances are that no-one is going to win absolutely and in the end the opposing sides will have to talk. Iran’s actions at present can be interpreted as trying to get the US to the table and to extract a guarantee that they won’t attack and invade them.
If I take anything positive out of this whole business it is that there have been, on radio at least, many moderate Muslim voices with whom to talk.
Hmm. RH, thanks for the vote of confidence. Of course I’m a bloke. How else could I have formed an opinion or ventured forth without someone’s permission?
Yours in mock sisterhood,
roseg – the G being the bit that I’m not so sure about…. (or do you think that an E would be more suitable with my complexion? I really am so confused about these matters without someone manly like you to guide me).
dk.au, indeed!
Brian, it is indeed encouraging to learn, at long last, something we should have known all along: there are moderate Muslims, with powerful and articulate voices.
They speak to us, we listen to them; they give us comfort. They allow us to say, ‘See, they’re not all like that.’
But do they speak to the fundamentalists? Do they listen; do they derive comfort? I suspect not.
I suspect they just want to kill them. One of the Islamic terrorists’ principal targets in moderate Islam.
I’ve been out with my lady friend, I’m a little bit tipsy. Are you lot getting on OK? Has anyone seen my point yet?
I’ll check in after Insiders.
This from the US Constitution, the best in the world:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”
It follows that if domestic governments have no role in “abridging the freedom of speech”, foreign tyrants can go eat s@#$.
With that in mind, I turn to this Brian Bahnisch comment:
“It’s amazing that the Danish PM wouldn’t see 11 Arab ambassadors about their concerns when the whole thing blew up last year.”
It’s more amazing he didn’t invite them around and have them tarred and feathered, and then expelled from Denmark, for expressing an official opinion on an internal Danish matter.
What is even all the more amazing is the outrageous hypocrisy of these fascist Islamic despots, who are more than happy to allow crazed anti-Jewish propaganda to run rampant in their own countries (http://memri.org/antisemitism.html), while demanding pro-Muslim censorship in others’.
Having established their impeccable credentials as barbarians, these people therefore do not deserve “tolerance” or “respect”, but rather mockery, ridicule, demonisation, and ultimately the complete destruction of their self-esteem. JP is the Martin Luther of our times and we should applaud them for their courage.
To be on the safe side and not cause any further offence, we should never eveer again mention Islam.
People are exhibiting the very effects that terrorism is SUPPOSED to excite in them.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47469
“It is a given fact that Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs are highly sensitive of portrayals of their gods and prophets. To assume these cartoons would not have offended someone is naive, ….”
But to give a damn is suicidal. Leftist Projection: Whose being naieve here? The cartoonist wasn’t naieve. He probably knew that some Muslims would take a poopy-pants attitude towards the cartoons. Left-wingers are special pleading in this case only because of Muslim intimidation and violence. Its the job of the cartoonist to make these cartoons (always potentially offensive to someone) and the job of the Police to physically crack down fast and hard on the intimidation. The job of the rest of us to do so morally.
“Cheers Graeme, I must have missed the outbreak of war with “Muslimsâ€?. Thanks for getting us up to speed.”
You going to come up with an authentic argument? Or are you just going to put words in peoples mouths. How about re-read what I say and tell me what I’m getting wrong. Rather then putting obvious wrong ideas in the place of what I said. Do you suppose that is a more valid way of going about things? I think it is. Do you have some sort of alternative epistemology to me?
Obviously we aren’t in any kind of war against all Muslims. There are Muslims who work where I work. And they are still alive. No-one on this forum, least of all me, is saying that we are at war against Muslims as such. We have a word for what you tried on there. Its called lying.
Three aggressive comments in a row Mr Bird? Have you taken over this thread? Do you live alone and have no-one else to talk to? Is there something we should know? Do you want a thread all for yourself to play in, where no-one else comments?
I consider myself well and truly on the political Left, however I don’t buy this idea that Islam and the Muslim world ought be accorded any special respect just because they are supposedly “poor and downtrodden”. (Some of the Gulf States are actually extremely rich and in Malaysia the Islamic majority systematically discriminates against the Chinese minority)
No ideology, religious or secular, should be beyond ridicule and satire.
To my mind it is natural and healthy that European artists (including cartoonists) should wish to poke fun at Islam. After all, literally hundreds of their fellow European citizens have been turned into mincemeat by Islamo-fascists over the past few years.
If our sympathies are to lie with anyone, it should be with the likes of the Somali born Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has received countless death threats and requires 24/7 body guard protection from her fellow Muslims for speaking out against the violence and oppression of women that are commonplace in Islamic societies. Sadly, the Danish cartoonists will now also live under the constant threat of death from Islamo-fascists.
Oh well. I think I’ll now go watch Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” for the umpteenth time.
None of the above. Are you going to engage the argument or just get into personal attacks and innuendo.
CS says: “Three aggressive comments in a row Mr Bird? Have you taken over this thread? Do you live alone and have no-one else to talk to? Is there something we should know? Do you want a thread all for yourself to play in, where no-one else comments?”
Mr Bird was put on moderation on John Quiggin’s blog due to his aggression and threats. I think he may not be house-trained.
Threats? Could this be you lying Mr Munn? What threats would those be? Retract that most grievous lie.
Where’s that retraction Mr Munn?
Look the real point is that you can swarm me as a way of running from the debate and I’ll retaliate all day, probably get kicked off and my guess is that you’ll likely get off scott free. But one ought to aspire to greater things.
Let’s focus on the Stockholm Syndrome. Is that not a pretty good analogy for the response (on the left) to terrorism? I think its an almost one to one thing. And I put up a link explaining it.
So this cartoon thing and the intimidation surrounding it is a very effective approach from the jihadists. All they need to do is use these pressure points. And if we keep backing down we’ll wind up Wahabist or involved in catastrophic war.
Steve Munn said:
I agree absolutely, but leaving all other considerstions aside I don’t think that the Jyllands Posten action was pragmatically sensible in terms of achieving any worthwhile outcomes.
Steve Edwards, Jyllands Posten should have known that their action was going to offend Muslims everywhere, including moderate ones. Contrast what happened in Indonesia:
They then went off to harrass a local newspaper (with, I heard elsewhere, harder-line Islamicist sympathies) which had shown some of the cartoons on their website.
Having a cup of tea and a bikkie with 11 Arab ambassadors would have done no harm, I think.
Rob, I don’t know either but I suspect Muslim moderates and fundies don’t get on all that well. Johan Galtung suggested that Buddhists or agnostics/atheists might have more success as intermediaries. But we would do better by highlighting and interacting with moderate groups that are more representative of the Muslim population. These exist even in places like Palestine. Not sure about Saudi Arabia.
In Denmark you have Osama Al-Habahbeh.
Instead the Jyllands Posten action seems to have had the effect of giving a platform and a boost to radical Islamic groups on the one hand and to aggressively right-wing political groups on the other.
This was not well done IMHO.
I have to go and sweat in the sun now, so seeya.
And what we do, bless us, is keep providing them with the buttons to push.
‘The Forever War’, no, not the novel by Haldeman, this is what my Maronite friends call the 1400 year old war with Islam. They came here to escape it, but it followed them here.
There seems to be two themes in this thread, one where people assess that there is nothing to this ‘Islam thing’ that discussion will not deal with, and one which assumes that Islam is what it says it is, and intends to conquer everyone else outside the ummah and either force them in to Islam, or kill them. Reading the Koran confirms this view as the correct one, of course.
Oddly, there seems to be a general consensus that we are indeed dealing with barbarians possessed of a pathological cult of victimology, whose first recourse to any perceived or real insult (Ior even criticism) is to use extreme violence while blaming those they murder for their own demise.
The first group has a tendency to ‘try to tolerate the intolerable’, the second group sees no need to do so.
Interesting. I’d like to know, from this debate, if there is a point short of surrender where the first group thinks a line should be drawn. Is there a point where ‘the intolerable’ actually becomes too intolerable to tolerate?
This may be a milestone issue of our times. CS indicated above that there is nothing in western values he would ‘die in a ditch’ for. I do not agree with this concept, but he is perfectly free to hold it – a LOT of Australian soldiers have died that he may. Is it widespread? How deeply held is it? The students of Oxford said the same thing in ‘38, and two years later were fighting the Battle of Britain, so even if expressed now, is this view just a form of PC coverage?
MarkL
Canberra
You have mastered the art of pre-emptive surrender.
Its not for cartoonists to make utilitarian judgements each time they kick of the creative process. They should work without fear or favour and the rest of us should come down on intimidation.
From now on, I’ll be referring all questions concerning religious scholarship, previous LP content, and the War on Muslims* to our guest expert MarkL, Canberra.
*I believe this involves myself, LE and GMB (Team ‘Gamed Bulk’) flying sorties from a carrier in the Persian Gulf, tag teaming Tom Cruise and flirting with Kelly McGillis; all the while waiting for Jerry Bruckheimer to notice the dizzying emotional depths of our situation.
Free speech is a privilege and a responsibility. Unfortunately some will use it to provoke, or exercise it in bad judgment etc. But J-P did not give the illustrators a brief to offend Muslims. And leaving aside the arguments of “sensitive times”, in this digital age, just about everything we do or say is going to offend someone somewhere in the world. Everyone is responsible for what they say and do, but that necessarily includes being responsible for how they react to provocation. And I really cannot sympathise with threats of violence, embassy burning and claims of genocide (and frankly I don’t even see this as serious enough to warrant economic boycotts but wait for the furore if the EU decides to withdraw it’s funding from Palestine).
And if you want Nazis, we don’t just have our friends in Hamas etc., we also have Iranian government policy.
At this stage Hamas pretty much IS an extension of the Iranians. They are now the major contributer to both Hamas and Hezbollah. Or so I’ve heard recently.
“Free speech is a privilege and a responsibility.”
Meaning what? Meaning we ought to act ethically or meaning it should be on the verge or being ripped away at any moment……
I thought free speech was a right. And no rights do not entail responsibilities. If they do they aren’t rights.
mr tiley, I was brought up to believe it’s not nice to piss on people. How about you?
Putting anyone at all in a jar of piss is no sort of compliment. I could do it with the Star of David, or with your grandma, and how would you cop that – as art? Wake up.
Christ gor beaten, but there’s nowhere that says he ever got put in a jar of piss.
So don’t bullshit, okay?
What’s being discussed? Cartoons. Intended to be humerous yet failing to be so. Humour has a unique and potent power to portray the truth but to be effective the joker and the butt of the joke must both see the funny side and both laugh or grin, if only in private.
In our world (thus far) the Muslim is the underdog and as an Australian, advisedly or not, I tend to side with the underdog. However if the underdog prevailed there would be no underdog so I guess its a no- win or at best, an unlikely to win position. Nevertheless, I still think it not entirely a bad one, borne out of compassion for the downtrodden or unheard and perhaps an unhealthy dose of cultural cringe. There is more to be learnt in failure perhaps? For instance, I, like thousands, wanted Bagdatis to win the Australian Open. It took Federer till half way through the second set to get over the feelings of the crowd that largely backed the young Cypriot and realise that whilst Bagdatis is indeed a top tennis player and a good sport (BTW, possibly a better ’sport’ than his opponent) he is not as long and lean and focused as Federer, and so the champ when he finally focused on his game, in the end and middle, prevailed. And what’s this got to do with cartoons? Well nothing really other than while I support the right of religious freedom and tend to side with the underdog, blood is being shed and invective being sprayed over cartoons.
Freedom of speech and expression is an idea and a good idea, but not a reality. If we all spoke our minds, we’d all be deeply, deeply offended and while some of us from time to time speak our minds and indeed are for the most part encouraged–theoretically anyway to do so, its usually not a good idea and results in offense, alienation and anger.
There’s freedom of speech and there’s common decency. If tiley’s got a big nose and I point to it and yell “Hey Parrot!” in a room full of strangers, is that okay as freedom of speech?
You shouldn’t go around deliberately insulting people. Unless you’re looking for trouble of course.
My my. So creative in your appeasement. How are the Muslims an underdog? We would barely have noticed them if some of the Muslim lads hadn’t been pack-raping Anglo women. Getting on the mobile to get a whole bunch more of them over to pack-rape them again.
People who live in certain suburbs still face constant aggression from these guys. It peaked before and after 9/11 but its still there. And it won’t be gone until Jihadism is cracked down on abroad and double standards are defeated at home.
Images of Muhammad are not new. And the more I read about this overreaction the more the fingers are pointing to the people who distributed a booklet of the J-P cartoons in other countries as support for protest and boycotts and which included three truly offensive images that did not appear in J-P and probably did more to incite the angry reaction.
And who distributed the booklet? Not Danish newspapers. Not other European newspapers. The Islamic Society in Denmark. Or should that be Islamist?
Big frickin’ deal if a bunch of Muslims were “offended”, if their fragile feelings were “harmed” by those nasty, awful cartoons. The best word for people who threaten death on a whim is “bully”, and I learned from bitter experience that the only way to deal with bullies is to take them down. Likewise, we will have to stand our ground and increase the intensity of our ridicule and general disrespect – eventually the bullies, thugs and barbarians will get the message that nobody takes them seriously anymore.
1928 German advertisement for bouillon extract shows Gabriel guiding Mohammed up to Allah.
From a very interesting archive of images of Mohammed across cultures and eras:
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
The original twelve cartoons seem pretty mild to me. Not nearly as nasty as the three extras added by the Danish Muslims as spice to stir up their brothers in Arabia. Aside from the threats of violence what offends me most is the deceit of some of these people. I heard Keyser Trad recently saying how the depiction of all Islamic prophets was offensive to Muslims – Jesus included. I only wish the ABC interviewer had asked him whether he would find a cartoon of the crucified christ with the facial features of Saddam Hussein offensive. Trad’s answer would have been interesting given that such a cartoon appeared in the popular Palestinian Al Quds newspaper in July 2003. Where was the Islamic outrage then?
While we sould not set out to offend others gratuitiously, these current events at least serve to highlight the hypocrisy of [some of] these people.
“If everyone takes a deep breath and the Danish don’t go ahead with the anti-Islam protests that were being foreshadowed today on the internet, we might just get through this.”
Could there be a sadder statement, Quick everyone cower down in case they hurt us.
Oh BTW LE, There is a war on its probably a bit to subtle for you to notice. In Indonesia, you see the local people going Indonesia (muslim, christian, buddhist) at prayer time, in case they case offence. Women not wearing the Hijab are routinely abused in the street. In Aceh gamblers and other minor “criminals” are flogged in the street. Press Freedom is a joke (ask the Editor of Tempo).
On a side issue, I notice that for a lot of posters its not ok to print the cartoons becuase they knowingly cause offence, but it was ok to burn the Australian Flag on Australia Day.
Saint & I linked to the same site – I didn’t see Saint’s post as it was in the moderation filter where mine went too.
“And what’s this got to do with cartoons? Well nothing really other than while I support the right of religious freedom and tend to side with the underdog, blood is being shed and invective being sprayed over cartoons.”
Fantastic, so no doubt you’ll appreciate that these cartoons have not affected the right to worship Allah in the slightest. It is those who worship Allah that are clearly impinging on religious freedom, so it follows that we should side against them, and for the publishers of the cartoons.
No sweat Laura. I’m used to getting caught up on spam filters. I kind of liked the bouillon ad as well and wished there was also a shot of the back with the explanation. I can’t figure out the association!?
dk.au
Have you actually taken the time to read the Koran? I have (it is hard, and rather disgusting, work), as it is a conquest manual from the dark ages. Kind of explains the 450 years of unprovoked wars of genocidal aggression of the Muslim conquest period, the annihilation of the great Zoroasterian religion, and the destruction of two-thirds of the Christian world.
That is what it was FOR.
Read it, you might learn something.
MarkL
Canberra
Saint, great links. The Islamic Society of Denmark has every right to legitimate protest, but if they’ve been deceitful and deliberately stirred up international action against their own country, I would have thought that their actions might be verging on treason:
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/treason
The Danes are probably too civilised to pursue them.
There’s nothing civilised about failing to prosecute the guilty. What if a Dane had done this? It’s very hard to seperate a double standard in our minds once it gets up a head of steam. If there are laws on the books to put these guys in jail or to make them pay for this financially then they must be pursued with great vigour. The guilty in this case would have known full well that there was a clear danger that their actions would lead to killing. This is not free speech since they were deceiving people about the source of some of the cartoons.
Iran has escallated the cartoon crisis to code purple and left NZ bleating by calling for an economic jihad against those countries who published the cartoons http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=89145
Well, as I always say: a wanker with free speech is still a wanker. I personally oppose all censorship, but belieive the wanker rule may be the issue here.
PS Russ, the ‘war’ you’re talking about in Indonesia is in a real sense a struggle between moderate and the minority radical Muslims. I know of one organisation of moderate Muslims who spend their Sundays physically guarding Christian churches.
Claiming there’s a war with Islam in general is anything but subtle, and will get us absolutely nowhere.
That’s bollocks. There is no wanker issue here. The flotsam and jetsum follow where the wind blows. Your excuse is just another iteration of the endless attempts at appeasement in the face of intimidation.
Memo to the LP Collective.
There are now too many RWDBs at this site.
Please explain.
Yours,
Disgruntled RWDB,
Alice Springs
Memo: to Rob
They’re your side, baby. You deal with the unpleasantness.
Yours in solidarity,
Liam (THE LEFT Central Headquarters, Research Div. 3/8 Inner West Sydney Bn.)
What’s an RWDB?
“Comments that are purely abusive, or which reflect on other commenters in an overly offensive manner will not be tolerated.”
RWDB hey?
You wouldn’t be violating board policy would you fellas?
Id say its a big feature of this one GB – indeed, the wanker aspect was captured well by one commentator above. Bit of RW shit-stirring, which worked, as intended.
Sure, have your free speech, but why be such wankers with it, Jyllands?
And as for the appeasement theme, GB, no idea what you’re on about. Im sorry you’re feeling intimidated by a small minority of loonies, far away, but some of us take a bit more in the way of threat level to get into full war gaming mode.
Now, global warming – that scares me.
Leftie HQ used to be Sussex St with days and nights spent at Harold Park Hotel squinting at the form guide and a quick early morning liven up at Woolloomooloo before your mate bundied you in but since they all wised up and got big houses at McMansionville I guess it is now more where the doctors wives take their latte?
With an apple Danish?
Note the qualifying words in the comments policy – “purely” and “overly”. There’s nothing wrong with a bit of stoushing, if it’s kept good humoured. I’ve been out all day, and haven’t had time to read over the comments threads, but I’ll issue a general reminder to everyone to stay civil.
Rob, I think the argument has run its course, and there’s no-one left but RWDBs, trying to out hairy chest each other.
I bet a virtual case of vb that no-one has changed their mind after 160 comments.
I learned a little, I guess; the debate kinda filled out and rounded up my starting position.
Your view, Mr Flute?
I’m willing to continue the stoush in the spirit intended.
It’s good and valuable and democratic for newspapers to commission cartoons satirising religion. It is not good or valuable or democratic for newspapers to commission sectarian cartoons.
For comparison, the Catholic hierarchy has had historical problems with their instutitions abetting and protecting child abusers. It’s something the Church is coming to terms with and which has caused an enormous amount of humain pain and anguish. Cartoons satirising the Church’s attitudes and failings are fine, to be encouraged. Cartoons that portrayed all Catholic clergy as kiddy-fiddlers would simply be sectarian, just as portraying the Prophet Mohammed as a bomber is sectarian.
Good for the newspaper editors who commissioned the works. Good also for the line artists who declined the contracts, or who mocked the process—as in the cartoon with the kid in front of the blackboard.
“Have you actually taken the time to read the Koran? I have (it is hard, and rather disgusting, work), as it is a conquest manual from the dark ages.”
MarkL – a side issue. I doubt that I would describe the Koran as a conquest manual . There is not much by way of unified narrative or much cohesion within the Koran, even if you try to read it from within a Mulsim interpretative framework. It makes me wonder whether that is why some Muslims have attached such importance to the Sunna and imitation of the prophet, with resultant statements like this from a British imam:
To me that sounds like this imam is saying Mohammed is higher than God.
This is quite a contrast with Jewish-Christian scripture has a very strong narrative, and is as much about God as it is about the people of God, including His prophets (not to mention for Christians, Jesus is more than a prophet and both fully God and fully man) and I think also has implications as to why Jews/ Christian identity and adaptability and transformation of culture is so different to that of Islam.
Anyway that’s just some idle musing – badly expressed – about a side issue I’d been meaning to explore for some time.
“Im sorry you’re feeling intimidated by a small minority of loonies, far away, but some of us take a bit more in the way of threat level to get into full war gaming mode.”
Mate. You need to check yourself into a lunatic asylum. I’m not the least bit intimidated by these people. Its your end of the argument that is the appeasement end. Its your people who have got the Stockholm Syndrome in spades.
But do tell me what a RWDB is.
Bearing in mind that:
“Comments that are purely abusive, or which reflect on other commenters in an overly offensive manner will not be tolerated.�
Its nothing to do with hairy chests. The people who are paid to do these things will enforce the law so long as they have the resources and permission to do so. Locally the only thing stopping them is a double standard which is resultant from appeasement. Once you allow a double standard you’ve given the game away.
I don’t see why you can’t engage with the argument. Have you got some powerful argument in favour of appeasement and double standards that heretofore has remained your little secret?
An RWDB is a “right wing death beast”. I believe it’s a term that right wing commenters invented to describe themselves way back in the prehistory of the blogosphere.
We should all be encouraged to fart in the presence of God, Matthew Parris observed in the Times yesterday. I agree.
Gay Sydney regularly gets slammed for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Catholics complain but no-one marches in the streets chanting “Freedom go to Hell!” Equally, Mardi Gras a few years back ran with a “Homosutra” theme that was manifested in colourful murals of Hindu deities in same-sex coupling. There were complaints from Hindus but nothing like, “Behead those who Insult Islam”, or, “Britain you will pay – 7/7 is on its way.”
I don’t see the difference between a Rushdie fart in the presence of God and that of the Jutland Post.
The only difference I see is the degree of utterly excessive (and surely manufactured to some extent) rage invoked in Islam compared to that invoked in other religious groups by not dissimilar irreverence. The issue is not whether a Danish tabloid should have published some scarcely memorable cartoon. it’s whether the leaders of liberal democracies should be cringingly apologetic to those who would seek to threaten and wreak vengeance out of all proportion to the supposed “offence,” within their jurisdictions.
The BBC, which has not printed the cartoons out of (deadly) respect for Islam, has no problem commisioning and showing Jerry Springer – The Opera. Many Christians are extremely insulted by it’s contents, showing Jesus the homosexual and God the ineffectual buffoon. Of course, most of us won’t find that overwhelmingly insulting, just like almost no one actually finds the cartoons insulting.
But you’ll notice the same arguments about the limits of free speech are used by insulted Christians as by insulted (embassy burning) Muslims. [Link]
The outrage is less palpable because violent and brutal protests aren’t breaking out in the streets of London, the Vatican and Kansas. But the percieved slight is the same, and the insult no less evident. Lampooning Christianity in the west is hardly a novel and taboo idea, so what purpose does this musical serve?
Who here would then agree that Jerry Springer – The Opera should not have been shown?
Not many I suspect, and rightly so.
“Now, global warming – that scares me.”
Fella. You DO need help. Our planet has been iced over 80-90% of the time these last three and a half million years. The natural course of events is for us to slide into another glaciation. But you are going to have a hard time convincing sane people that you aren’t in a fear and trembling about Muslims making threats. Your reaction to them says otherwise.
See the Muslim protestors on the bus. They jump off when they see a camera. Yelling bloody blue murder and burning an American flag. They don’t scare me. But our own SAS does. The protestors were not going to go out to the Western Desert to fight our guys when the war was on. And if they did so they would die.
cs, I’ve modified my position to the extent that I think some of cartoons should not have been publsihed. I agree with what JL was trying to do – publish provocative images as an act of defiance against self-censorship. But the Prophet-as-terrorist cartoon could hardly not be seen as a calculated insult. Of course they had the right to publish it, but it would have been better not to have exercised that right in this particular case.
Not but what the response, including in England has been totally disproportionate and, as would appear, an outright incitement to terrorism and murder. Surely that’s a far graver offence than the publication that prompted it.
Michael, I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that nothing that offends Christians should be said?
And now a veiled threat from the general secretary of the board of Imams in Victoria http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=85222.
As has been said here there is much literary licence and history rewriting when Imams say pictures of Mohammed are banned, when in fact they are historically available from most eras since he walked this earth.
So now we’re being warned to honour a prophet who is no prophet to us. Clearly a prophet of doom as can be witnessed by our generation as well as countless others, as the evidence of his handywork unfolds before our eyes, with blood on the streets of almost every continent.
Of course Australian Muslims are in a minority so the given strategy is ‘Peace’, but still the warning to us all to ‘drop to heel’ in the voice of the local Imam.
And totally sickening, too, to see Islamic clerics in Europe and Britain reportedly saying that the JL cartoons would never have been published if Salman Rushdie had been properly executed.
cs, I’ve modified my position to the extent that I think some of cartoons should not have been publsihed.
Fair enough Rob. I assume you are speaking as if you were the editor having to make the decision, which means you are now pretty close to my position, which is to turn them all down bar possibly the one which I see more as a piss-take on suicide bombers. The question of whether they should be government censored is another level of question again. Congrats to a reasonable man. Enjoy this virtual vb case on me.
Can we have contest with a virtual carton of James Squire?
I think it becomes offensive to have people insulting Christians when the people doing it aren’t equal opportunity put-down artists. If they are then going to turn around and say “Insult Mohhamad! Oh no you can’t do that.”
And its dangerous too. Since it doesn’t take a Masters in Sociology to figure out that the reason for the double-standard is the lack of intimidation and basic goodwill of the Christians in this time period. Do we really want to reward violence and intimidation? Not only will that egg on the Jihadists. It may eventually lead to other people getting the idea.
Because encouraging violence is what the left is doing. As stated earlier terrorism is militarily useless. It only even is tried on because of this peculiar reaction to it.
It’s not too difficult to think of examples of religiously motivated violence on the part of some Christians. For instance, death threats against doctors who perform abortions, bombing clinics etc. But I’m not sure how productive this line of reasoning is.
My position is this. If a cartoon is funny, then no subject is taboo. The cartoons in question were mainly vindictive, not funny and the only point was to piss people off. So there are two issues here, one of intent, and one of subject matter. The intent to incite should have ruled most out of publication. But as for the subject matter, just because a superstition exists that Mohammed should never be depicted, or wider – that we should never take the piss out of any facet of Islamic belief (when other religions are fair game, particularly Christianity), that we should all adhere to that, even when the intent is to amuse, is ridiculous.
As far as I can tell a certain group of extremists has completely overshot with their reaction, and while I agree with “the left” view of the western world and the middle east, that does not remove all responsibility from the nutters who burned a Danish embassy.
So no, most should not have been published, a couple should, and no one should have taken it so bloody seriously.
Agre with much of that, flute, but I think you are signficiantly underplaying the nature, extent and ferocity of the response, especially in the UK, which has not (to my knowledge at least) even published the cartoons.
“It’s not too difficult to think of examples of religiously motivated violence on the part of some Christians. For instance, death threats against doctors who perform abortions, bombing clinics etc. But I’m not sure how productive this line of reasoning is.
I am, Mark. Totally non-productive. People who perpetrate such outrages are rightly condemned. They are seen as aberrant , murderous, criminal, sociopathic. And yet, as we speak, liberal democratic leaders are falling over themselves to placate that selfsame response.
Religion is a poor excuse for homicidal posturing. Excusing homicidal posturing on the grounds of religion is – simply – disgusting.
Yes, Geoff, we’re in agreement. My example was chosen just to show that claims that one religion is inherently violent can be countered with examples from another, but that this gets us basically nowhere. Although religious symbols are at stake in all this, my argument at the top of the thread is that the disproportionate reaction (which where it escalates into potential or actual violence is to be unequivocally condemned) is more likely to have cultural causes than religious ones.
“the disproportionate reaction (which where it escalates into potential or actual violence is to be unequivocally condemned) is more likely to have cultural causes than religious ones.’
Indeed. The vast majority of those screaming about the inherent wickedness of this are probably no more likely to be personally offended by a cartoon in a Danish newspaper than I am. But it offers a bullly mass mobilisation pulpit for seeing just how far placatory, lberal democratic realpolitik might stretch.
“It’s not too difficult to think of examples of religiously motivated violence on the part of some Christians.”
Yeah that was my point exactly. But I’m a sort of soft-spoken type who finds it hard to call a spade a spade. By showing great deference to people BECAUSE they are employing threats and intimidation you can only fan violence not just within Islam but outside of it.
Flute you cannot be serious. As if there is some objective standard for humour. Humour is the art-form with the shortest half-life out of anything. Who is to judge these things? Myself I think its hilarious whenever these Jihadists get angry. Not so hilarious when people get hurt by them.
But they have declared war on us and there is simply no way to placate them short of conversion. They are quite enough angry at us already. The goal is not to make the jihadists not be angry at us. This lies beyond our control except to the extent that we can make them fearful of OUR anger. Because its pretty hard for these guys to be angry and in a fear and trembling both at the same time.
The thing to get out of peoples heads is the idea that our era is someone different from the rest of recorded history. Nothing has changed. And this sort of thing would have happened in earlier ages if people were given the same incentives that the left gives them now.
But supposing the Ottoman Sultan had let an Arab dominion of his start taking hostages and killing people randomly in (lets say) the 1860’s?. Supposing it was put about that these were spontaneous occurences and had nothing to do with regimes. Well he wouldn’t even try that one on nor would he let anyone in his Empire. Since he would know that the next cool breeze off the ocean would bring the message from Her Majesty and that message would be billowing sales followed by cannonballs would be bouncing down the streets.
So in that sense terrorism is the result of the post-war West trying to make war a last resort. And we’ve lost our sense of deterence by placing too high a bar over what must happen before we can take any persuasive action.
“I’ve modified my position to the extent that I think some of cartoons should not have been publsihed. I agree with what JL was trying to do – publish provocative images as an act of defiance against self-censorship.”
Again I am not sure that JL deliberately set out to publish provocative images (unless you see any image of Mohammed as provocative included those by Muslims on display in museums around the world).
More background:
There was no brief to be provocative. Or to be funny for that matter. Hence the range of illlustrations.
Geoff Honour: “And yet, as we speak, liberal democratic leaders are falling over themselves to placate that selfsame response.”
The politicians you disparage have no real alternative. Danish business interests, workers’ jobs as well as lives are now at stake. I fully support the cartoonists and the papers that have published their cartoons, but I also understand that pollies have no alterantive other than to hose the situation down.
What I would find unacceptable is politicians clamping down on free speech. I think the religious vilification laws in Victoria are appalling and have no place in a liberal democracy.
I’m so pissed off that I am thinking of having the “Mohammed with a bomb” cartoon transferred onto a t-shirt. I’ll sell them at the local market for ten bucks a piece.
It is the thuggish and murderous elements within the Islamic community who need to change, not us. I suspect Somali born Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali and plenty of other civilised Muslims would agree.
Of course provocation works both ways. Muslims were provoked by the JL articles. Now, at the moment, there are Muslims on the streets of London calling for Jihad against Europe, lionising the June 7 and September 11 terrorists, calling for further such attacks, openly inciting murder and terrorism across Europe. Meanwhile, in Gaza, Palestinian gunmen hunt for Europeans to kill, and torch the offices of the EU – their principal financial benefactor. More and more Europeans are going to say, ‘These people are just monsters. Get rid of them’.
In other words, the anti-Islamic borometer is going to go right off the scale.
Well sure it could do. That’s why the conflict should be brought to a close as soon as possible. You don’t need to get angry at people to follow good policy.
Isnt it the case that it is the Islamic “barometer” that is off the scale?
Wotever.
I think we will see things in Europe that will make Cronulla look like a friendly picnic in the park. And as with Cronulla, the response of the civil authority will be critical. Marcus at Harry’s Place has a good post on this. If the police do nothing, while merrily prosecuting BNP leaders, the results downrange are going to be very ugly.
Flutey, we agree on the threshold test. A cartoon has to be funny. This, as I recall, is Bill Leak’s test. He reckons he has one obligation, and that is to be funny, once a day.
I recall some years ago when Bill had a shot at feminists, who shot back, unwisely, as it merely made people laugh when they went to the drawing, and left them looking like sourpusses. Harry Seidler also looked silly in his court case against Patrick Cook, as people sniggerred on at the constantly recycled cartoon.
Yet there are some taboos, surely. A cartoon laughing about child abuse would scarcely be acceptable in a mainstream newspaper, and perhaps nowhere. There are some limits, wouldn’t you agree, where other-regarding kicks in, even if it is funny?
Does it kick in here? Obviously there are different views. For mine, the ‘others’ I feel it’s important to ‘regard’ these volatile days are peace loving Muslims of good will, and surely this just makes their relations harder, setting off the nutters in their margins. Is a cartoonist devoid of all social responsibility?
Mark, of course I wasn’t suggesting such a thing, I can’t see how my last post would indicate that. My point was that Christianity on the whole would have once reacted the way Islam is reacting today, albeit using more systematic methods. Today we have two separate but similar cases where the magnitude of outrage is very different. Appeasement here is not going to help Islam shed violent tendencies on perceived slights occuring on another continent. Remember the man dead (Muslims) in Afghanistan when Newsweek’s magic flushable Koran hit the press?
Is this prophet any less dear to them now that a minor regional newspaper published cartoons they would never have known about had it not been for troublemaking Danish Imans who rather then consider what is needed to bridge the gap between them and the rest of Danish society, decided instead to drum up support in the Middle East based largely on falsified information? Extra cartoons added by them, and fake stories of Danish oppression.
As for you saying the reaction is probably cultural rather then religious, that line of reasoning seems stretched to me. What is the one major cultural trait that is shared by people in Libya, Gaza, Syria, and Indonesia where these violent protests are occurring?
And whether or not the cartoons had any real artistic merit is of little importance considering the reaction recieved. You could have commissioned a modern day genius to come up with a masterpiece, but as long as it depicts their prophet then Muslims would have reacted in the exact same fashion because that is what Islam calls them to do. The worth or otherwise of the pieces is irrelevant, we non-Muslims must abide by Muslim taboos or risk their wrath, pitiful as it may be. This is a ridiculous state of affairs.
There are no rules about humour, cs.
Here’s a lightbulb joke I tried a couple of months ago at LP:
I got shouted at a lot for that, but I still think it’s funny. It’s wry, irreverential, mocking. Gives you a bit of a twist in the guts, but it’s funny.
Here’s another:
Now that’s earnest, morally correct, easy to agree with. But most of all, it’s just not funny.
The extent to which the lefties here may disagree with me simply reinforces my point, I think.
Geoff Honnor, Rob, let’s be honest all with ourselves. Liberal democracy is by definition non-placatory, and gleefully encouraging of so-called crises of religion. A liberal democracy enforces its own standards only enough to maintain the semblances of democracy to ensure the survival of a capitalist system. That’s the point.
Sectarianisms are part and parcel of liberal democracy. In the earliest bits of the twentieth century in Australia it was the Catholics and the Jews, then it was just the Catholics. For a while in the eighties and nineties there was an anti-Asian interlude while everybody figured out which organised religion of whom to be scared, and now it’s come back to the Muslims.
May the funny cartoonists be the only survivors of liberal democracy!
“Does it kick in here? Obviously there are different views. For mine, the ‘others’ I feel it’s important to ‘regard’ these volatile days are peace loving Muslims of good will, and surely this just makes their relations harder, setting off the nutters in their margins. Is a cartoonist devoid of all social responsibility?”
Are you?
It’s Western appeasement that makes life harder for moderate Muslims. They are the first victims of Jihadist aggression.
We have reached a new outer level for appeasement. It used to happen before the war started. Now its happening when the war is in progress.
“Liberal democracy is by definition non-placatory, and gleefully encouraging of so-called crises of religion. A liberal democracy enforces its own standards only enough to maintain the semblances of democracy to ensure the survival of a capitalist system. That’s the point.”
The point of what, Liam?
OK, Geoff, the point is this. You argued about the cartooning scandal that:
I argue that the whole point of liberal democracy is to stretch and to run out conflicts of society into religious and non-economic ones, in order to maintain an ascendancy of capitalism.
Yes, I seem to recall one Alexander Downer carrying on about “appeasement” of Iraq when the “Old Europe” refused to endorse military action against Iraq and its Wheat (sorry, Weapons) of Mass Destruction, preferring sanctions etc. Boy he carried on with that one, like it was clever or something.
Just for the record: turned out they didnt have any WMDs(which is precisely the weapons inspectors had said); and furthermore, that sanctions were largely ineffective because they were being busted willy-nilly by several parties, most notably the Aussie Wheat Board, with the keen assistance of Alexander’s department, and bankrolled by you and me – who became unwitting supporters of Saddam Husseian, thanks to the Howard regime.
Suffice to say, “Appeasement” is a fairly discredited discourse round about now.
“I argue that the whole point of liberal democracy is to stretch and to run out conflicts of society into religious and non-economic ones, in order to maintain an ascendancy of capitalism.’
Right, Liam. You watch those matches round that straw man, you hear?
Liam, mate, you’re starting to sound like Gnome Chomsky.
Liberal democracy defuses and ameliorates underlying sectarian conflicts. Sure, it takes time, but in time, it works.
Flute , you look like whyisitso. Are you related?
Whyisitso is pretty jovial, but you seem confused. “If a cartoon is funny, then no subject is taboo.”
Is that so? Well golly me, maybe it is in the bank manager world you live in.
But there are other worlds. You should know that flute.
And roseg old chum, why the snide remark?
Did I offend you? How?
Tell daddy.
R.H.
How long have you been wandering the multiverse RH?
What’s that mean oracle?
I’ll tell you what, Geoff. I’ll watch my matches around the totally unburnable straw man of industrial capitalism if you watch yours around the highly inflammable, Muslim, cartoon-protesting, Canterbury-supporting, fatwa-reading straw man.
Fair’s fair.
Michael
That’s my point – there’s no essence of Islam that somehow encourages violence, in my view.
Similarly, while freedom of speech is an important principle, I would see no justification for publishing material offensive to Muslims just to be offensive, or to provoke a reaction. Note that I’m not calling for censorship, but arguing that there’s no reason why anyone should seek to offend others for the sake of it.
I think they’re missing your jokes, chairman. Problem with humour, as we’re discovering. Good night last night, buddy?
For mine, in the interest of keeping the debate at least half sensible, anyone who mentions the word ‘appeasement’ should change their medication.
I just heard an interview on 3RN with Christopher Hitchens and Ahmed Younis of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.
Christopher was at his outraged best and asked the salient question of how can Islamic religious leaders condemn these cartoons while at the same time failing to condemn Arab newspapers which regularly feature repulsive caricatures of Jews, holocaust denialist articles and stinging attacks on the “cross worshipers”, ie Christians. Such wanton hyprocisy.
p.s. I think Liam might be among like minds over at the Green Left site.
I am weighing late into this debate and to be honest I haven’t looked this long thread to see if others have touched on this subject.
This issue about these cartoons has a long history. The point that makes it very disturbing is the way the West has handled these sorts of problems in the past.
The very first of these threats coming out of Islam was over Rusdie’s book sometime in the mid 80’s. Rather than confront the issue head- where a citizen of a western country was threatened with his life over the publication of a book- by the leadership of another nation (Iran) was really quite disturbing. We didn’t confront it! We ran.
The next problem we had was when the Dutch political figure was killed in the parking lot after doing an interview about the dangers he saw with continued Muslim immigration in Holland. Following on from that was the murder of Van Gogh also in Holland over a movie that was supposed to depict Islam in a bad light.
It seems that whenever Muslims feel their religion is disparaged in one way or another someone dies as a result.
In Victoria Muslims aided and abetted by “Equal Opportunity Commission� was able to successfully prosecute to Christian Ministers for “portraying Islam in a bad light�. What they did was to recite certain passages of the Koran that were funny and then ask the congregation the pray for all Muslims.
The problem as I see it is that has become obvious that the West and Muslims are finding it increasingly difficult to live in close proximity to one another without Muslims being offended in some fashion by our way of life. However taking offense seems that Westerners lives are increasingly been threatened. This is not something that can continue in its present form.
It is becoming obvious to blind Feddy that Westerners and Muslims seem to be unable to co-exist in close quarters to each other. And let’s face it, it Westerners who are continually being threatened.
I believe that in a short time what was thought to be too difficult in the past will become to pass. This is that the best outcome for all involved is that Muslims need to live in Muslims lands and not be allowed to move freely in Western countries.
JC, you need to grow up.
I’m not Muslim and I have defended the Danish cartoonists, however I do not see why my Muslim mates, and I have a couple, should be sent home due to your intolerance.
Hell, I even dated a Muslim once. I was never threatened with Jihad no matter how naughty I was.
The usual thing, she called me a skinflint and a hobo, and lots more besides. And kept it up on the tram, all the way back to Coburg.
I’m gonna team this one up with whyisitso. It’ll put him in a straight jacket for six months, listening to the ABC.
JC could always relocate himself to Denmark and join the Danish People’s Party which advocates forced repatriation.
On the tram! Hate that.
“Similarly, while freedom of speech is an important principle, I would see no justification for publishing material offensive to Muslims just to be offensive, or to provoke a reaction. Note that I’m not calling for censorship, but arguing that there’s no reason why anyone should seek to offend others for the sake of it”.
Mark,
I’m sorry but you statement would have held true if it was an isolated incident. It isn’t as my case history has shown.
The problem with your approach is that you are now saying, like Victoria’s Bracks, yes free speech is ok but we are going to outlaw certain parts of it because it may offend. Well you know what, it doesn’t work that way. Your idea that “ you shouldn’t offend others for the sake of it� is so open and full of holes that living in such a world doesn’t bear thinking about. In other words your opinion of what I find offensive is quite different to mine.
I wasn’t offended by the “Smellydeadjesus� moniker and neither were you it seems. I simply found it to be distasteful. However your defense in why you left it in the open thread is illustrative of why your argument was pretty weak. It was open to opinion as the whether it should have been removed. However, it seems you are bending the other way over these cartoons. Would you have done the same over Rusdie’s book?
You see when we get to the issue of what is offensive in Western culture is not the same in Muslim culture. However, taking offense may mean someone life is shortened as a result.
Kim says: “JC could always relocate himself to Denmark and join the Danish People’s Party which advocates forced repatriation.”
Actually I’m thinking about starting an Australian People’s Party. Our sole policy will be exiling all RWDBs to Texas. I’m sure George and Jeb will make them feel right at home.
Ok Steve and others
This then is where the rubber meets the road.
Continued Muslim immigration to Western countries will mean that accomodation will most probably result in such things as curtailment of free speech.
Stopping this migration will mean the opposite or at least we will maintian these basic freedoms
It’s getting on time that we in the West decided which fork in the road we are going to take.
There is no point in ingnoring the facts because like bad debt, we will get a knock at the door.
No, you’ve misread me, Joe. I’m not on balance, a supporter of the Victorian legislation.
And blogs aren’t public spaces, but private ones.
JC, I think it would be wise to slow Muslim immigration to a trickle in these troubled times and encourage greater assimilation.
One method of promoting assimilation would be the cessation of public funding of religious schools- Islamic, Catholic and whatever else.
Mark
I agree that Blogs are pivate spaces and all that. However one can’t escape the fact that you made a choice as to which one you found the most offensive by taking action and leaving the other less “oderous” moniker on the page. That’s your choice as you own he blog site.
However, the point is that your earlier comment shows where the “selectiveness” option towards free speech falls down. It is you opinion as to which moniker you found offensive. I may have a different opinion, but I believe you ought to have the right to make that choice.
But let me ask you all something.
Wouldn’t it show more compassion towards Muslims and Islam if we didn’t subject them to ways of life thay would find objectionable? Why bring them into a Western country where they are unable to assimilate feel alienated and angry towards us.
In other words why subject people to an unhappy existence?
I have as yet hear a “Muslim leader” express happiness in living here. All I hear is a defensive posture and an attempt to either explain the “needs of the Muslims” and the ocassional apology. It is an us against them posture that I constantly hear. Neither group seems to be happy in co-exitence.
Have any of you heard a Muslim leader express happiness in the Australian way of life. It’s not working for anyone in a larger context.
Steve, I don’t think anyone is saying that all Muslims should be repatriated. I hope not.
But there is a case for saying something like this (the list is incomplete):
The ‘yes to any or all’ vote would be miniscule, I suspect. But we have to find a way of dealing with them.
NB: the same would apply to any culture, not just Islam.
Mark,
‘It’s not too difficult to think of examples of religiously motivated violence on the part of some Christians. For instance, death threats against doctors who perform abortions, bombing clinics etc.’
And how many death threats? How many bombed clinics? I think you’re stretching things. And are Christians around the world condoning and encouraging such stupidity? Hardly. Out of two billion Christians worldwide there are bound to be some nutters, but this Islamic stirring seems to be being taken up by more than a minority, is being encouraged in several Muslin nations, and includes comments of support made by people like the King of Jordan.
Notice that the threat to nations where papers are allowing these cartoons was stepped up several notches after Friday prayers. Why do you think this is? And why threaten the entire nation when it was the press which was being controversial? Is it just the cartoons, or any excuse to flex muscles? Were the cartoons merely incidental?
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, FaceLift.
JC, it is clear from the way you speak of Muslims that you do not know any. They are all individuals, just like you and me. The ones I know like it here and don’t consider the “Muslim Leaders” you refer to as their leaders anymore than the average Christian thinks of the Rev Fred Nile is his/her leader.
Take the scales off your eyes JC.
JC just did, Rob. And he’s said it before, as I recall.
You are wrong Rob. JC has called for his own version of final solution:
“I believe that in a short time what was thought to be too difficult in the past will become to pass. This is that the best outcome for all involved is that Muslims need to live in Muslims lands and not be allowed to move freely in Western countries. ”
Chilling stuff.
In defence of Facelift, I do think the Arab dictators cynically manipulate events like the Danish cartoons to stay in power.
It is chilling, as quoted, and reflects an inversion of the Wahhabist position that infidels should not set foot in the daar al-Islam.
However, I stand by the rest of my comment.
“Wouldn’t it show more compassion towards Muslims and Islam if we didn’t subject them to ways of life thay would find objectionable?”
For a minute there I thought you were talking about cluster-bombing of civilians in Iraq, or the systematic policy of civilian disposession and destruction of homes undertaken by Israeli tanks under the guise of “self-defence”. Or propping up despotic regimes that oppress them so we can sell our friggin arms, or friggin wheat.
I was thinking – almost starting to get it… but no, just the same old playschool-level clash of cultures thesis shit.
“if you’re Judeo-Christian and you know it, clap yer hands….”
So, Mark, the escalation after Friday prayers was coincidental?
I wouldn’t have the faintest, FaceLift. I haven’t been following developments that closely. I would say that it seems that the temperature has been rising for a while, and you shouldn’t necessarily infer anything just because of coincidence in time.
Sorry RH – didn’t mean to be snide.
Note to all: thanks for the fascinating discussion, even you right wing demony types. So much of what I see on the Net is just depressing garbage and/or human foghorns. This conversation has taught me much, challenged my ideas, shown me other angles and generally been very enjoyable (well, as enjoyable as a discussion about this topic can be…). It has been really useful and worthwhile. Cheers.
Kim
I am not actually saying they should be forcibly sent home. I am far more humane than. My suggestion would be a voluntary net out migration program.
We would compensate Muslims to repatriate by giving them a certain amount and allow a tax free holiday for the last year the lived here. We could pay them 100 to 150k per family and no tax liability for the last year.
Again it would be purely voluntary and the deal would last only 2 years.
This would explain our mistake to these people- for enticing them to come here in the first place.
There were mobs on the streets after Friday prayers, Mark, baying for blood! I was asking why you thought this was the case! Ah, well, maybe you’re being fair to the imams, and they actually said nothing to incite the mobs http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/index/press.php?pr=101.
Your link says that Imams urged people to sign petitions to parliament, and to attend demonstrations. I see nothing there about “mobs” or “baying for blood”, FaceLift.
What’s your point exactly?
Maybe Aljazeera is a more reliable source of information about the reaction after Friday prayers http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/66C40F25-F870-4981-A722-83C87FE12134.htm.
You’re being very confusing, FaceLift. Your first link suggested you were talking about England. Anyway, what are you trying to get at?
It was interesting to note Condoleeza Rice’s comments at the bottom of that article. The US State Department gets it about right, I think.
I’d also endorse what roseg said about the thread in general.
“I’d also endorse what roseg said about the thread in general.”
Unfortunately it’s just hit midnight in the NT and I can revert to type.
Can’t you sort it out for yourself, Facelift?
There seems to me to be a persistent contradiction running through the thread. Actually, no doubt there are many. But I’ll try to pick up on one political contradiction, using the conventional, albeit inherently crude, left/right descriptors.
The relevant general context within which these drawings should be placed, it seems to me, is the present security problem with militant islamic terrorists. This is a problem that the world has an immediate interest in solving. Crucial in this is maximising the support of the Muslim countries. Crucial to this, in turn, is the framing of the conflict as the world versus terrorists; not as christian versus islam, the latter which has the counter-productive result of forcing peaceful muslim nations to choose.
In the important interest of (me) staying alive and being able to once more wander the world in peace and leisure, not to mention getting rid of all the ever encroaching state powers infringing on (my) privacy and (my) other liberties and so much else, I would condemn the friggin’ editors for publishing the drawings (although not necessarily condemn their right to do so). Everything that tends to frame the problem as religion versus religion, instead of the world versus terrorists, should be condemned, imo.
The political contradiction that keeps popping up (not always – the reverse and between and the other is also around), is that historically it has been the right that has urged the importance of the ‘war on terror’, and the left that has sought to preserve liberties etc. Now, when I try to urge the importance of the terrorist problem as the frame, I run into rightwingers effectively saying, if I can exaggerate to make the point: “hang the friggin’ war on terror, I reckon we should be able to offend Muslims at will and laugh as much as we want, and I will die in the ditch to do so, and get angry at them if they don’t laugh too”.
In other words, it seems to me that the only right the right (not all – apologies to the sensible and otherwise) is really getting angry and serious about standing up for here is the right to shitstir in a way that increases my security risks.
What’s to like in that?
Sorry, cs, the only bit of that I understood was:
“Crucial to this, in turn, is the framing of the conflict as the world versus terrorists; not as christian versus islam”
….which is what Bush, Howard et al have said from the very start.
Well, why doesn’t the right stay on message this time?
Otherwise, can’t help with the comprehension. Best of luck.
Liam sez:
“Geoff Honnor, Rob, let’s be honest all with ourselves. Liberal democracy is by definition non-placatory, and gleefully encouraging of so-called crises of religion.”
No that’s nonsense. Its true that liberal democracies are constantly involved in war with non-liberal democracies. But that’s more to do with (ironically) their passive nature that presents difficulties with deterrence. As well their apparent legitimacy is a mortal threat to regimes who do not have it. So that therefore the dictatorships, when not scared witless, are in a constant war to undermine democracies.
Lefty Elitist sez:
“Yes, I seem to recall one Alexander Downer carrying on about “appeasementâ€? of Iraq when the “Old Europeâ€? refused to endorse military action against Iraq and its Wheat (sorry, Weapons) of Mass Destruction, preferring sanctions etc. Boy he carried on with that one, like it was clever or something.”
How is that an argument in favour of appeasement? The Europeans were trading blood for oil. And may have been trying to delay the war in order to hide the weapons they’d helped Saddam with. Do you HAVE an argument in favour of appeasement or not?
Lefty Elitist sez:
“For a minute there I thought you were talking about cluster-bombing of civilians in Iraq…..”
But that never happened. As stated before you are a complete lunatic.
“….. or the systematic policy of civilian disposession and destruction of homes undertaken by Israeli tanks under the guise of “self-defenceâ€?….”
GUISE!!!!! Get help lefty. You shouldn’t be allowed outside.
Fellahs its a pretty established practice of Mullahs to rev these guys up on Friday night prayers. No need to run away from that one.
Steve Munn sez:
“JC, you need to grow up.”
No Steve you do.
Kim sez:
“JC could always relocate himself to Denmark and join the Danish People’s Party which advocates forced repatriation.”
He could. But he didn’t. Nor is there any indication that he might. A very strange comment.
Steve Munn says:
“You are wrong Rob. JC has called for his own version of final solution:”
No Steve you are lying about this.
Kim. The US State Department acted appallingly as usual. They are chock-full of leftists just like the CIA. The unrepresentative lifers in Washington most always manage to muck things up and shift the blame to the out of towners. That is to say the administration.
LE..
The organisation defending churches you refer to is Muhammadiyah (at least I assume thats the one).
May I suggest you do a bit more research on that mob, the moderates lost the battle for that group over three years ago. As for defending churches..its a local joke, they are also ardent supporters of the current regulation which allows the closure of any religious building that does not have a permit approved by the local community (in reality, impossible in muslim dominated area).
As for the church defenders themselves…”its called walking the gaunlet”
Good post cs. I think Australians should set the example by having a debate about freedom of speech, not parading these supposed trophies around.
If someone were to produce a cartoon suggesting that Jesus was sexually abused at a Catholic boarding school – just to show the world that we don’t self-censor in Australia of course – would all the pro-cartoonists come out and publish it as far and wide as possible to show how modern we are?
I’m commented out, folks. See yez all.
The US State Department acted appallingly as usual. They are chock-full of leftists just like the CIA.
I’m stuck for words. Perhaps it needs none.
To all those who seriously think that the cartoons were at the heart of that matter and we should all bend our heads and say sorry and everything would be fine:
Actor Anjasmara and model Isabella were reported to the Jakarta Police on Thursday for allegedly posing nude in a photograph depicting Adam and Eve displayed since Sept. 17 2005 at the Bank Indonesia Museum in Central Jakarta.
FPI member Jafar Sidik alleged that the three 9includes photographer) had insulted Islam by portraying Adam and Eve in the nude. Adam is believed to be a holy prophet by Muslims, which accounts for around 85 percent of Indonesia’s 220 million people.
Music band Dewa was reported to police because FPI thought the group had insulted Islam by using Allah’s name on the cover of its album. Dewa and FPI agreed to settle the case out of court.
FPI also reported Miss Indonesia and Miss Transvestite Indonesia because they deemed them to be an insult to Muslims in Indonesia. Those cases are still being investigated.
Jakarta Post – September 21, 2005
Yuli Tri Suwarni, Bandung — Hundreds of people in West Java vandalized on Monday night houses, mosques and cars belonging to members of the Indonesian Ahmadiyah Congregation (JAI), a Muslim group whose teachings differ from the central tenets of Islam.
In July 05, thousands of people attacked the Ahmadiyah compound in Parung, Bogor, West Java, in a protest against the group’s teachings.
The attack was condemned by Muslim organizations and leaders, who said that faith differences must not be resolved with violence. However, nobody was arrested for the Parung violence
and on and on and on……………………………
Well what’s the matter CS? Its probably quite natural for them to have this leftist bent. They aren’t subject to electoral challenge. They are tax eaters. When anyone tries to promote someone like Bolton they run a hate campaign against him. And you can’t fire anyone or contradict their judgements without them screaming bloody blue murder.
The CIA is constantly leaking to Walter Pincus and others to undermine the President. If not the nation entire. They seem to have run the Wilson conspiracy to mislead the public and go after the administration. Wilson kicked off his campaign of lies around the leftist circuit and over on Democracy.now. And then there is the idea that young radical leftists might quite naturally seek these careers out.
Mr Bird, with reference to this comment, this is your final notice to behave in a civil fashion.
Tim Blair has published the cartoons on his blog.
From the comments policy:
Administrator, please include your initials at the end of your posts.
Quote from LE
“And as for the appeasement theme, GB, no idea what you’re on about. Im sorry you’re feeling intimidated by a small minority of loonies, far away.”
Well done LE, Could only be written by someone who has never lived in a muslim dominated community…
Rob, just this once, I’ll tell you it wasn’t me. Apologies really. You are a bit of a guinea pig. Customer-responsive as ever, the collective is trialling a new system, in an effort to be more consistent in applying standards of debate etc. The admin will speak for the collective, strictly no discussion, low transaction costs, take it or leave it, etc. who knows? might be better. might be not. we’ll let you know in due course, I imagine. or not. it’s all a bit like that. i don’t think anyone wants to talk about it at this pilot stage. i probably shouldn’t be talking about it. the calumny of the collective may cut my knees off for presuming to break the inside news. Yet, for mine, it would be good if commenters would respect the place and be civilised, no matter how strong they express their differences over issues, so that we never have to use it.
So, no initials. No more discussion. Apologies, but I trust you’ll cope, easily.
Thanks, cs.
What are you guys doing up, anyway? It must be 4 am in the civilised states. I have an excuse. Can’t go to bed for hours yet as I’m on nights from tomorrow.
dk.au says: “If someone were to produce a cartoon suggesting that Jesus was sexually abused at a Catholic boarding school – just to show the world that we don’t self-censor in Australia of course – would all the pro-cartoonists come out and publish it as far and wide as possible to show how modern we are?”
Heck I would.
I note there is in a JesusLovesPorn website with a downloadable file of a masturbating Jesus. As far as I am aware there hasn’t caused nuns and priests to go about rioting.
“If someone were to produce a cartoon suggesting that Jesus was sexually abused at a Catholic boarding school – just to show the world that we don’t self-censor in Australia of course – would all the pro-cartoonists come out and publish it as far and wide as possible to show how modern we are?”
That old cartoon? It’s been done. And lets face it: Jesus is the Son of God. Mohammed – peace be upon him – isn’t even related. He’s the prophet.
A vast array of sexualised Jesus caricatures and cartoons have been published in a host of media – the “Jesus is Cuming” T enjoyed a mercifully brief vogue a while back. Christianity is pilloried and lampooned on a continuing basis; priests caricatured, beliefs and practices turned into comedy. Christians complain to TV stations, to newspapers, to lawmakers etc, usually – thankfully – to no avail. Who would want to pass up the rich satirical motherlode available from the actions of a demented religious nutjob judge in Alabama dragging an illicit one tonne block of marble carved with the Ten Commandments into his courthouse? Who would want to have to be “respectful” towards Scientology? Or forgo the opportunity for bearded poofs to dress up as nuns?
I’ve been listening to a representative of the Lebanese Journo’s Union advise Fran Kelly that she “believes in freedom of speech but there’s such a thing as ethics and good taste.” Unfortunately, Fran passed up the opportunity to test that frequently asserted proposition with Salman Rushdie rather than an undistinguished tabloid cartoon but there you go.
I’ll bet millions of westerners are now saying “where’s my freedom of speech?”
If it is not the clothes we wear, the books we read, the places we attend, the God(s) we pray to, the life we lead its now “art” that causes grievous offence placing westerners in mortal danger.
Is any freedom worth dieing for?
Alright lads and lasses, the thread is now closed.