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