The first point to be clear about when assessing what is now the aftermath of the Danish Cartoon Furore (the reactions seem to have overwhelmed the initial issues and have now become themselves the issue) is that under no circumstances can anyone of good will not unequivocally condemn violence, whether in the name of religion or not. Such violence stands condemned without any reservation. And violence in the name of religion has always been with us, and still is going on in many parts of the world where it attracts little coverage - for instance violence against Christians in India in the name of Hinduism, and the often caste related or racially tinged attacks on Catholics in India. I use this example, because India is also a country where secular values are radically under threat and indeed one, where it’s become increasingly obvious since events in Gujarat in 2002, the second largest Muslim population in the world faces a political movement which at its extremes is effectively genocidal. My point? We need consistency in condemning violence perpetrated against innocent people in the name of religion wherever it occurs, just as there have been calls for consistency in defending the right to freedom of speech in recent days.
The other argument that follows from this is that there is always a cultural context for religiously motivated violence. What’s interested me is the reasons for the differing reactions by American and English govermnents and European ones, as well as the strong reluctance of English-language newspapers to republish the Danish cartoons compared to the preparedness of European newspapers. We need to be attentive to the specific context of Danish politics - some of which is covered in this article and some of which was discussed on an earlier thread. Far from being a liberal nation where rights are respected, Denmark is home to xenophobic movements with significant political clout. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t defend the rights of Danish newspapers to lampoon religion. It might mean that reasonable questions can be raised about their motivations. It should also mean that we should understand that continental Europe has a long tradition of anti-clericalism, reaching far back beyond the Enlightenment (where anti-religious speech was equated with freedom of speech) back to the anti-Catholic polemics of the Reformation, whose point was often strikingly made through cartoons for the illiterate population. Europe is now largely secularised. As Tariq Ramadan argues, the most religious populations in Europe now are often Muslim. The traditional anti-religious ethos of many left and liberal and indeed far right political trends on the continent (which explains why the Vatican is condemning the publication of the cartoons) combines with newer social strains to produce events such as those we’ve witnessed. By contrast, English-speaking countries have never had a record of the violent separation of Church and state such as the foundational revolutions of secular Europe, and indeed the 1990s saw a number of debates in the United Kingdom about extending the protection of the anti-blasphemy laws (still occasionally invoked) to Islam as well as to the Christian God of the Established Church.
So much for the context. What I’m trying to suggest is that issues of freedom of speech, like the assertion of any other rights, are always context-bound and never as clear cut as political or legal theory would have us believe. This doesn’t make them any less worth fighting for, and my position has always been that the State should err very strongly on the side of allowing speech, and avoiding censoring or criminalising it, and it’s one I’ll hold to consistently with regard to publication of the cartoons. But freedom of speech isn’t absolute, and as with any right, it has concomitant duties and responsibilities appertaining to it. I doubt that the cartoons (which I personally find unfunny and tasteless and needlessly offensive, a position I can hold completely consistently with defending their publication) are the right flag around which to rally a defence of this precious freedom. But things, as I’ve been suggesting, have moved on. The impasse we now find ourselves in, as rhetoric swirls around us, and abhorrent acts of violence continue to be perpetrated, is one which we cannot allow ourselves to be caught in. There is no doubt that the reaction must be so severe because the Islamic world feels itself to be trampled under the heels of the West, as Eugene Robinson argues well. There is also no doubt that the lack of civil and political freedoms in many Islamic countries, often aided and abbetted by support for totalitarian regimes such as those in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, is not conducive to developing a cultural understanding of both the freedom of speech and its limits (and the publication of vile anti-Semitic representations offers proof of this). I’d be as loathe to argue that some sort of violent essence resides in Hinduism as in Islam, despite evidence to the contrary which seems telling. But I think we are seeing a sort of cultural clash, if not one of civilisations, where both sides are simply refusing to understand the reasons for each others’ actions (many of which can be traced to culture, politics and history). And in that context, as the Danish academic Tabish Khair cogently says, moderate voices everywhere are reduced to effective silence amidst the sound and fury. I think there are no easy answers. But I also think we have to try to find some. Yes, condemn violence uneqivocally. Yes, defend freedom of speech. But remember also that responsible action should aim to defuse violence rather than further inflame it.
Elsewhere: Lots of discussion going on all round the ’sphere, too many posts to list, but I did want to highlight this very thoughtful one by Tim Dunlop.
Loosely related information FYI.
As we know, 3 of the images used by the Danish Imams to manufacture the present Muslim rioting, embassy burnings etc were never published by Jyllands-Posten. They were the 3 most grossly offensive, added to ’spice up’ their little tales.
One of the images (touted by the Imams as ‘Mohammed with a pig-snout’ has now been tracked to its source.
See: http://www.neandernews.com/?p=54
MarkL
Canberra
MarkL, thanks, I was wondering if anyone had traced the three spurious (i.e. non-JL cartoons).
Enough with the cartoons already.
“We need consistency in condemning violence perpetrated against innocent people in the name of religion”
Some of us are, Mark. However we have also been condemned for showing this up by people normally associated with the left side of politics.
It just so happens that there a religion around that has developed a nasty habit of killing people. Only a little while ago they were making snuff movies and putting them out on their cable news service.
Won’t mention the name of course. Shouldn’t you be talking to them as I haven’t seen a great many Westerners or Jews braying for blood these days.
Mark,
Whilst I agree with the concept of fairness and parity of choice and government when it comes to religion, you can’t argue this away by saying we have to have some kind of interfaith negotiations about how to handle the present crisis. The issues with hindus etc seem to be over protecting what they see as ‘their territory’, and whilst no one condones violence or their actions, it should be the governments of affected nations, such as, in this case, India, which deal with the internal problems of those nations with religious tensions.
What we have here with this Islamic debacle is a worldwide struggle by certain elements within Islam, which is prepared to use any means available, including force, mayhem and murder to bring about a world of frightened people. They are currently pressurising Governments worldwide, not just in Denmark, to bow to their demands to never so much as satirise their movements or leaders. They are saying leave our beliefs alone while we infiltrate, through death, destruction and intimidation, your lives and homes day by day, moment by moment.
Even their moderates are in fear, or if they speak out, silenced, or imprisoned for being intelligent and wise. It happened this very week, Mark, but where is our outcry at the imprisonment of the editors of the Jordanian newspaper which dared say, “Let’s be calm!”? Why can’t we hear the sound of Foreign Ministers and Ambassadors everywhere shouting, “Foul!” while these men are rotting in jail for speaking oput for moderation? What do we do? We analise, while they are scandalised.
And who is the ‘us’ we are saying ‘Let’s be calm’ to? Is it the West? Is it the governments of nations being threatened by these thugs?no they seem to be so clm they’re frightened to speak out, apart from few European newspaper editors, who put their jobs on the line and their lives at risk, wow, what for? A handful of useless cartoons! Leunig is more dangerous than this lot!
Who needs to be calm? The thousands of Muslims on the streets, burning embassies. The imams stirring them up, when they had the opportunity over Friday prayers to tell them to be sensible and go home after the meeting.
Now what needs to happen here? Muslims everwhere need to take stock of what they are doing. Moderates need to have the protection of the UN, of our Foreign Ministries, our Ambassadors, our press our media, our overseas investors. There needs to be outcry from non-Muslim national governments about the imprisonment of moderates, of the scare tactics by militants, and of the sacking of editors who dare to publish cartoons. There needs to be public outcry about the now exposed false cartoons provided by the Danish imam. He needs to be brought to account.
This isn’t really a time for a softly, softly, lets’s be fair to all religions diplomatic approach. There needs to be a loud noise coming from the world in support of moderate Islam, if it truly exists.
Denmark is full of drunks. There was child pornography in dirty book shops there right up until the 1980’s.
I saw brothels in Tehran at around that time, but no drunks and no porn at all.
When it comes to a puritan takeover some societies have more to lose than others. America would lose Hollywood. Broadway too.
The stock exchange, and lots more.
RH
Good points you raise.
Tell us how do you equate child porn with the stock exchange? Yes, I know Playboy is a listed stock but not on the NYSEand I thought all palyboy girls ghave to be over 18 to show off their assets.
I don’t know that there are many child abusers who work on the stock exchange over there, but you never know. Sure there’s plenty of drunks but you can’t have everything, I guess.
Your points though are very well taken. Child porn makes the Western world go round.
Look on the bright side everyone. So far less people have died in this kerfuffle than in the 19th New York riot over competing Shakespearean actors where 23 people were killed. Now that’s art criticism with a vengence.
(I feel fairly certain no one was expected this particular interjection.)
RH
I heard the brothels in Tehran are just great. How would you rate themk to the Danish ones?
There is no such thing as “context” when defending freedom from a criminal totalitarian conspiracy, and the fact that Denmark might have “unsavoury elements” or even *GASP* racists within the city walls is of no practical interest to anyone. If we concede that sovereign peoples have the right to self-determination, it really doesn’t matter how they justify themselves to the world, nor that they might have “incorrect” motivations, so long as they do not apply aggressive or coercive measures to other sovereign peoples.
In this case, a sovereign people has been assailed by a cabal of foreign despots (on the grounds that “our feelings are hurt”), many of whom do not even apply a modicum of civility to their own domestic press, especially where the hated Jews are in question. Now that a group of Islamic governments set themselves up as the unquestionable aggressors we needn’t place any obstacles in the way of replying in kind - perhaps by abolishing all foreign aid and support to said regimes (which we should have done already). They must be exposed as rank hypocrites, emperors without clothes.
Of course, I forgot to mention the strange double standard whereby Muslims seem to be less offended by other Muslims terminating the lives of innocent people in the name of Islam than they are by a bunch of Danes drawing pictures of Mohammad thousands of miles away.
What gives?
Nabs
Nothing’s changed on Broadway.
5 odd years ago Giuliani misses starred in the vagina monlogues. We later found out she was in the play to get back at Rudi for shacking up with Judy Nathan in Gracie mansion
Like RH here we thought it was a brothel with a difference in that you got the Mayors misses for a few hours.
It was nothing of the sort. Man, were we pissed off! So we started rioting outside the theatre and sure enough 10 people died as a result.
I blame that entirely on false advertising.
“So we started rioting outside the theatre and sure enough 10 people died as a result.”
You must felt like a right cunt.
Naaa
Just a dick.
BTW - I haven’t commented on the recent decision by the Iranians to establish a committee of inquiry into the truth of the holocaust. As an opponent of any and all legislation (in line with the First Amendment) that pertains to the freedom of speech, naturally, I defend without any qualification the right of Iranians (or anyone else for that matter) to deny or revise the holocaust if that’s what they want to do. Hopefully, those who have defended the sovereignty of Denmark will do the same for Iran, just as I hope that those who have been silent on Iran and hostile to Denmark will revise both of those stances in light of each other. Of course, millions of people will find Iran’s actions highly offensive, which makes Iran’s outburst over Denmark’s cartoon fiasco all the more puzzling.
JC. Learn to read. Where did I talk about porn on the stock exchange?
I don’t know about the brothels in Denmark bigshot, because I only went to Tehran’s little palaces. They were cheap, but maybe more than your good self could afford, because it takes more than money to be alive.
I’m running a bit late for most of the country but Phillip Adams on Late Night Live tonight will be/is talking to a Danish political scientist about what is going on in Denmark to help us understand the original context of the cartoons affair.
The program is podcast and will be repeated at 4pm tomorrow, 6pm in the West.
Apologies RH. You’re right!
You may want to ask Mark if you can do a travel thingi about the cheap lil palaces as I’m sure he would oblige.
Meanwhile, The Age and the Herald Sun today published (suspiciously?) similar editorials saying, amongst other things, that they wouldn’t publish the cartoons because they failed to meet minimum standards of funnyness.
Some interesting movements around in media land, with pro-cartoon elements looking a trifle exposed.
Hey, don’t try to be clever, you’re not up to it.
But thanks, good idea. And you’d all be interested too. I’m very happy to oblige.
R.H. Play nice. This is not a thread to discuss your opinions of Danish sex workers. Same goes for you too, Joe. Please keep contributions on topic and don’t say things like:
Kim
If you look carefully, it wasn’t me that hijacked the site discussing about the “pros” and cons of sex workers in Western vs Muslim countries. I simply asked an off topic question, that’s all.
In a way though, RH was helping try to mend relationships between the civilizations by showing us that Tehrani sex workers are “good and cheap” compared to drunken Danish sex workers (typical bloody European workers- no work ethic).
Hey it ain’t much in the way of reconciling bad feelings but at least it a start.
So in way I disagree with you, Kim, I won’t raise it again but RH’s comments are certainly about to mending fences here.
He addressed three comments in a row at me.
All of them ridiculous. He was looking for trouble.
I’m never the first to be rude. Not to anyone.
It was two in a row, RH.
I can just see R.H and JC toe to toe to the tune of “Is that all there is?”
While we’re talking about riots, in 1964 a riot after a World Cup qualifying match claimed the lives of some 300 soccer fans in Lima, Peru. (It was Argentina v. Peru if anyone cares.)
While googling for this astounding fact, I came across this fascinating page detailing all the deaths due to soccer riots! How fascinating.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/africa/05/09/soccer.chronology/
I think banning soccer is the only answer.
Oh, I get it…”pros and cons”…
Kate
Don’t get me started on that cause (a pet one of many I have).
SERIOUSLY, 95% of the world’s problems would be solved if we just simply bannned that fucking game. It kills people, it’s boring and it’s the worst sort of wog ball ever imagined.
I have been running a soft, modulated campaign for years to ban that fucking “sport”.
It’s the worst example of British inventiveness. The equivalent of Britsih leyland of sport.
Ban it before it causes nuclear war.
Keep repaeating this whenever you can and always within earhsot of as many people as possible. ” a game was palyed and people died”. When they ask you just tell it’s aprotest against soc..er (can’t say it) Pretty soon we’ll convert the no-war crowd into a no-wogabll crowd. Please help!
I prefer you straight up, Joe.
Might be a good time to consider why Jim Davis still has a job.
Deft, Kate. Do you play chess, perchance?
(I don’t think anyone has ever been killed in a chess riot, BTW.)
Pav’s Cat - I play chess. Wanna game?
“I don’t think anyone has ever been killed in a chess riot”
Only ‘cos FIDA banned Bobby Fischer from taking a concealed, sawn-off 12 gauge Marlin onstage at Reykjavik.
Wot? That’s yer sole move on LP lately young Nick G? Castling with the babes?
Kids, don’t forget to watch al-Jazeera’s pre-Olympic special, Wide World of Wahhabic Sports!
I always suspected that the genesis of the Danish cartoons affair had a lot to do with local issues and politics. This was confirmed, I think, by Phillip Adams’ discussion with Jytte Klausen, Professor of Political Science at Brandeis University and author of ‘The Islamic Challenge: Politics and Religion in Western Europe’ (OUP, 2005)
One interesting bit of new (for me) information came out. The Muhammad with a bomb in the turban drawing was a likeness of a real imam in Copenhagen. This character, much loathed and with reason it seems, is a political refugee from Morocco, doesn’t speak Danish, is not a Danish citizen and could legally be sent back to where he came from. This self-same man is the one who took the roadshow to the Arab states, with the three additional highly offensive cartoons.
It seems to me that choices made bythis man, more than any other single factor, have got us where we are today.
The paper is apparently a provincial family-oriented paper with a religious and right-wing character. The very same editor refused to publish a caricature of Christ on the cross in April 2003 because it “would cause an uproar.” Since their values prevent them from publishing pics of scantilly-clad females as standard fare, the paper instead routinely gets stuck into Muslims, according to Klausen, presumably to boost circulation.
This fits in with some of the cartoonists seeing the exercise as a publicity stunt.
Klausen believes that the PM acted in an extroadinary manner when he refused to see 11 Arab ambassadors in October. This is without precedent in Denmark. She believes the PM was playing to the Danish Peoples Part constituency, on whom he depends to retain power and govern.
Klausen says the Danes are used to being regarded as the good guys around the world. They will now always be walking uphill, she says. For example a Dutch photographer was recently bashed (in Beirut, I think) when he was mistaken for a Dane.
Klausen says moderate Muslim opinion in Denmark is calling for calm and for foreign Muslim powers to butt out.
This morning on the Religion Report Stephen Crittenden interviewed a prof at the American University in Beirut, who said that the attacks on embassies in Syria would have been government orchestrated, and the embassies were not defended. He saw it as an execrcise by an authoritarian government to boost their own power.
In Beirut, he said there was evidence that the attack was orchestrated by Syrians and Islamic fundies from the north who would have come 140k to protest. The Lebanese govt was scared to defend the embassy too much. The purpose, the prof said, was to destabilise the Lebanese government rather than any concern about the cartoons as such.
I can’t defend the riots, violence, crowd mismanagement, ethnic hatred, racism and stupidity which have caused so many embarrassing problems for football over the years. But the balance on the other side of the ledger is not to be ignored. The beautiful game, if you have ever watched it, played it, been entranced by it, is something that transcends humanity. It can bring nations together, it makes heroes out of men and women, of all shapes and sizes. It is beguiling in its simplicity but as complex as the universe itself. It requires a ball and players, that is all. No special equipment. This is not ice hockey, nor polo, nor darts, nor biathlon. Just a ball, feet, a rough sense of balance and the sporting world is yours. And a level playing field - a rare commodity in most walks of life. Who can but marvel at the sport that can pacify and delight the USA and Iran, can bring peace to a civil war, can cause grown Australian men to break down in tears and embrace their fellows in some random pub in London, that can make Koreans sing outside of a karaoke context and make the Germans seem exciting? Watch a short, fat, fallible Argentine take the ball in the middle of the field. Watch him dance a little triangle around three opponents, and then accelerate. See him take the ball wide, around another, then cut inside and leap forward, speeding up again, yet all the time with the ball as if on a string, always under command. Watch as he ducks into the penalty area, past another two hapless defenders, and dink the ball past an onrushing keeper into the net. Then learn that this display is regarded as the finest World Cup play of all time. Not just by the Argentines, but also by the opponents of the little man that day - England. And this after ‘Dieguto’ had committed possibly the most blatant piece of cheating in WC history. You can ban our speech, you can take our liberty. You can set us to work in salt mines or torture us. But take away football and you take away our existence, our passion, the greatest thing and the worst thing, the source of our joy and our agony. It is not to be done.
And I haven’t even mentioned Brazil.
Meanwhile, back on topic…
What Mark said at the top of the thread.
Also, to pick up on one of Tim Dunlop’s points:
That seems right, Brian. A long lag between the original publication and the current furore. A self-aggrandising Danish imam, armed with additional spurious - and grossly more offensive - cartoons, arriving in the ME at a sensitive time, could account for much of it.
Brian Bahnisch
Did the PM give a reason why he didn’t see the Arab ambassadors?
I suppose he could have just told them that censoring the press over something like this is not negotiable
Gary, not as far as I know, but he delivered that selfsame massage to the populace instead. In other words he decided to answer them in public while refusing to hear what they actually had to stay.
And who knows what they were going to tell him. Quite possibly they were going to advise him about how the incidenent was being received and reacted to in their home countries. This knowledge would have done him no harm. Instead, it seems, he chose a public snub.
I originally picked this one up from a commentary by Osama Al-Habahbeh at Deutsche Welle. He’s a Danish Muslim and a long-time reporter based in Denmark who seems to be very moderate and sensible. In his view the PM missed a possibility to head this thing off at the pass at that point.
Who knows, but Prof Klausen seemed to agree with him.
Brian, thank you not only for the enlightening info but also for the timely reminder of the importance of context in any meaningful discussion of any cartoon. It reminded me of a 1999 Bill Leak classic around the time of the East Timor referendum — at which time John Howard’s refusal to make a formal apology to the Aboriginal people was still something people cared about.
From memory, the cartoon showed Howard and then-President of Indonesia, BJ Habibie, sitting on a park bench in the jungle, with the sketchy, shadowy ghosts of dead Aboriginal and East Timorese people peering out from under the bench and through the jungle fronds.
Both Howard and Habibie are oblivious to the ghosts, but Habibie is clearly spooked by Howard, and is looking very apprehensive and startled as the PM leans forward and whispers to him conspiratorially: ‘Whatever you do, don’t tell them you’re sorry!’
So utterly have all things changed since then that I wonder just how many (or how few) punters would recognise and understand every aspect of this cartoon in 2006. It’s got to make you wonder how much there is about the Danish cartoons that we just don’t know.
Gary, there’s a link here but when you look at it closely it’s not completely clear that the request was directly related to the JL cartoons.
The problem that I see that come out of this cartoon issue is that Muslims don’t want anything critical ever to be published about Islam. Ever!
This not how we conduct our society in the West. Hence the problem that will not go away.
Come on, Pavlov’s Cat! Of all the Autralian leaders who bear ‘resonsibility’ for what happened to the East Timorese, John Howard is easily the least culpable, and probably the most laudable!
However, I’m missing your point about the cartoon itself and the ones under consideration here.
More excellent commentary at Harry’s Place.
Gary — So far as I know, the reason the Danish PM gave for not meeting with the ambassadors was that it was “not necessary” — insofar as (and I quote imperfectly) “I do not have any official power to control our press… nor do I want it.”
While it’s fair play to speculate that the PM was ‘playing politics’ to the internal Danish scene (of which I know virtually squat), it’s also fair to suppose that he was trying to avoid setting a precedent for foreign diplomatic accountability in what he viewed as a purely internal affair. And rightly so. Imagine if foreign ambassadors could ’summon’ the PM of a sovereign state to make an account to them, every time they were peeved about tiny events like cartoons in a newspaper. This is the sort of thing that the European Powers did to Imperial China, at the height of their arrogance and exploitation of it. One might be excused for declining to accept the thin edge of the wedge. (There’s an old Arabic saying (bad transalation): “One begins by nibbling with the front teeth, and ends by chomping with the molars.”)
On the general notion of the ‘historical context’ of this whole affair (and you’re all correct, the context is crucial). The context is the murder of Theo van Gogh. The context is the illustrators of children’s books (children’s books!) too terrified to accept a paying gig. The context is the endless round of Islamic threats, and Islamic special pleading, backed up by threats. Everything else is simply staying well-informed.
I agree, jpz. It is in any case customary, is it not, for foreign ambassadors to seek an audience with the host country’s foreign minister, if they have concerns to express?
Sorry, Laura, didn’t mean to sound shrill. Time for me to go to bed, now I’ve thrown the cat out.
Pavlov’s Cat, I mean. Don’t even know what I posted five minutes earlier. Definitely bed time.
Thanks Brian,Rob.
Pavlov’s Cat
I don’t get the comparison.
Habibie was PM when East Timorese were getting killed.
Did Howard encourage militias to kill Aboriginals?
Oh c’mon guys, read the post properly, don’t just start fulminating the minute you see Howard’s name. Yes, I’m fully aware of the history of Australia’s less than happy relations with (East) Timor, and of the culpability of Labor. It has little to do with the point I was hoping to make.
The point, which I naively thought I made clear in the first sentence and again in the last, was about the importance of context, any context, in the understanding of cartoons, any cartoons.
I chose the Bill Leak cartoon simply because I remember it so well, and because it seemed to me to be a good illustration of the importance of understanding context. I should have realised what the reaction would be, and picked some memorable and funny right-wing cartoon to make the point instead. Problem is, I couldn’t think of a single one.
(*Meows at window…*)
Your seeing ‘fulminating’ when there isn’t any,Pavlov’s Cat.
“SERIOUSLY, 95% of the world’s problems would be solved if we just simply bannned that fucking game. It kills people, it’s boring and it’s the worst sort of wog ball ever imagined.”
Amazing you should talk about sex that way, JC. Are you really that jaded? Shame you find it boring. It’s a lot more interesting than soccer. More goals scored too!
A propos Brian’s comment above, more and more evidence is surfacing around the blogosphere that the current round of violence was sparked in large part by radical Danish imams hawking the JP cartoons - and the three fake ones - around the ME in an attempt to incite anger against the Danish government. They seem to have succeeded beyond even their own wildest expectations.
One radical Imam in particular, Rob. The caricature of the Prophet with a bomb in his turban is apparently a caricature of him.
Rob, you fail to see that this is not about who started it. And who pulled whose hair first. It’s about how we conduct this goin forward. (And nobody likes a dobber.)
If you care about peace then you sort of stay calm and laugh it off or frown disapprovingly and soon enough the little ones will grow tired of biting each other on the bum and they can all be popped safely into their cots.
Otoh, if you wanna bring on the Famed Clash of Civs, then call out names, point fingers, make youeself heard amongst the ruckus. The more the merrier apparently.
wbb,
You mean, let’s go into some kind of infantile denial about the fear tactics being applied by Islamic militants? OK, let’s be pretend intimidated and say and do nothing about the news people imprisoned in Jordan. Then they might leave us in peace.
Let’s say nothing about their threats against Danes, the French, the Germans, the Jews, the Norwegians (what did they have to do with anything?), and anyone else who moves while they rage and fume. Let’s allow these playground bullies stand over us as we mock cower and creep away into the shadows they create. We’re not really afraid are we? Let’s not push for this warmongering Danish imam to be exposed and repremanded. He’s just one of the naughty boys in the schoolyard who doesn’t know any better. Probably comes from a broken home with a violent background. If we ignore them they might go away! And pigs might fly over Islamic skies.
Staying calm is the problem…for us. Unfortunalety the bully boys are refusing to be calm, and they’re not going away. Time for a bit of courage, wbb, not timidity.
How would you express that courage, FaceLift? It’s a serious question. What exactly are you advocating?
I know Tim Blair’s site is not the favourite of everyone at LP but can I urge you to get across the this thread where proud2be@muslimah is doing some fantastic work turning back the stereotype of Muslim=terrorist in the face of enemy fire. Bloody heroic, I reckon.
If it’s the only time you visit Tim this year it will be worth it.
Mark,
I said it earlier in the thread http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/02/07/danish-cartoons-religion-and-the-limits-of-civility/#comment-50210.
‘Now what needs to happen here? Muslims everwhere need to take stock of what they are doing. Moderates need to have the protection of the UN, of our Foreign Ministries, our Ambassadors, our press our media, our overseas investors. There needs to be outcry from non-Muslim national governments about the imprisonment of moderates, of the scare tactics by militants, and of the sacking of editors who dare to publish cartoons. There needs to be public outcry about the now exposed false cartoons provided by the Danish imam. He needs to be brought to account.
This isn’t really a time for a softly, softly, lets’s be fair to all religions diplomatic approach. There needs to be a loud noise coming from the world in support of moderate Islam, if it truly exists.’
Ok, fair enough, FaceLift, I hadn’t read the whole thread.
Thanks for the link, Rob, though I find a lot of the other comments there very unpleasant to read.
It seems to have improved in tone towards the end, though.
Thanks Facelift and Rob. I’ll have to look at the Tim Blair thing tomorrow. I’ve just got to go to bed now. But here’s some stuff I’ve just written.
The particular Imam who stirred it up was Ahmad Abu Ladan, leader of The Islamic Society of Denmark, according to Neandernews (link via MarkL). It’s not a source I know but I read it somewhere else as well, so I’m happy to accept it pro tem.
As to the future, you could go down the track suggested by Hirsi Ali and plaster the cartoons everywhere. It won’t happen, though.
Alternatively you might consider the words of Roger Scruton:
To be honest I’m not sure what he means by the last two sentences, but I’m inclined to think the rest of it is spot on.
The Open Democracy link is taking a very long time to load, Brian, but from memory, is he not a conservative philosopher? What he ways is eminently reasonable. I’m also a bit puzzled by the meaning of the last bit.
“The condition of the public discussion that we need is respect. That means that we must respect the icons of the Muslim faith, even if we think them ridiculous, indeed especially if we think them ridiculous.”
Does this requirement for respect apply to Scientology, the Moonies, the Branch Davidians and Pagan nature worshippers?
Satire and ridicule are legitimate tools for attacking ugly ideologies, and that includes the homophobic, misogynistic ideology of Islam.
Theodore Dalrymple has another angle on the ambiguities;
“The weekend edition of Le Monde carried on its front page a startling photograph of a masked protester in London, holding up a placard demanding the death of those who insult Islam. Policemen flanked him on either side, as if protecting him from the vicious assaults of cartoonists.
Nothing could have captured better the cowardly and pusillanimous response of the British government to the crisis deliberately stirred up in many Muslim countries four months after the publication in a Danish newspaper of 12 cartoons depicting Muhammad (only one of which was remotely funny)….”
http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=1946
Theodore Dalrymple.
The-o-dore Dal-rym-ple.
Doesn’t it just roll around the mouth like a single-malt scotch?
Redolent of rolling green hills, the hunt’s bugle in the air, the smell of rotting leather as the manservant brings in one’s freshly ironed copy of The Times.
Much more evocative than plain old Anthony Daniels.
“My point? We need consistency in condemning violence perpetrated against innocent people in the name of religion wherever it occurs,”
Couldn’t agree more!
Thank you Brian for the link to the Der Spiegel interview with Somali born Dutch MP Hirsi Ali.
What struck me once again whas that if a white bloke said the same things as Ms Ali he would immedeiately be labelled an ignorant red-neck.
Three cheers for Hirsi Ali, a truly brave and admirable woman.
I thought future President C Rice put it well,
“Well, let me first say that this has been a difficult period. We are strong proponents of the freedom of the press. It is one of the most fundamental freedoms of democratic development. We also believe that with press freedom comes a certain responsibility. And the United States has been a place where there has been also freedom of religion and that means that people have to exist in the same body and to respect each other’s religious traditions and respect each other’s religious sensibilities and that is also very important.
Now, nothing justifies the violence that has broken out in which many innocent people have been injured. Nothing justifies the burning of diplomatic facilities or threats to diplomatic facilities around the world. This is a time when everyone should urge calm and should urge that there is an atmosphere of respect and understanding.
I think that there have been a lot of governments that have spoken out about this. Note, for instance, Afghanistan and Lebanon, very important comments even by the Ayatollah Sistani about this.
But yes, there are governments that have also used this opportunity to incite violence. I don’t have any doubt that given the control of the Syrian Government in Syria, given the control of the Iranian Government, which, by the way, hasn’t even hidden its hand in this, that Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own purposes. And the world ought to call them on it. All responsible people ought to say that there is no excuse for violence. We all need to respect each other’s religions. We need to respect freedom of the press. But you know, again, with freedom of the press comes responsibility as well.”
I couldn’t agree more with Condi.
Well put!
Here’s the link to Rice’s remarks.
The words of Roger Scruton as quoted above *sound* reasonable, but unfortunately they are (at least in part) based on demonstrably false premises.
He says “The duty of a religious leader is not to inflame anger, but to protest in a spirit of forgiveness.”
This would be true, if the assumption were true that the “duty of a religious leader” was always and everywhere the same as the duty of a *Christian* religious leader. (How’s THAT for ethnocentrism w/o even realizing it?) With Islam, however, different rules, and different ‘duties’, apply. Please, all: understand this very simple and historically supported fact: Islam does not have the same rules and assumptions as Christianity. It is not simply Christianity without Jesus. It is quite different, in many very clear ways.
Read the Qu’ran yerselves (I recommend the Pickthal translation). Read any accurate history of Islam. Muslims do not assume the same things that we assume. (There are many points of convergence, naturally, but that’s a topic for very careful and very honest scholarship, of which we have not seen much lately.)
What’s that pointy thing on the flag of Saudi Arabia again? What’s that? A…. sword? Right, then.
Mark re Open Democracy, they have just sent out their newsletter with selected articles, so a lot of new stuff has just gone up on the site. Maybe all their vast readership are trying to get onto their site at once. They are always asking for money so I suppose one should give them some. It’s a bit better tonight, but still crook.
Yes, Scruton is conservative by reputation. I was a bit surprised to see him there.
rog, Condi and George have spoken very well on this issue. I hope, however, they have leaned heavily on their mates in the House of Saud. My understanding is that Saudi Arabia withdrawing their ambassador in Denmark was a critical step in the escalation.
Rob, you mention that it was the foreign minister that the 11 ambassadors should have seen. I think there is probably a short story and a long story on this one. I only note that two informed observers thought it was a mistake. I saw a story (ehich I didn’t follow up) where 22 former Danish ambassadors said it was a mistake. In retrospect it looks like a mistake, but whether it would have made a difference is unknowable.
Jpz reading the Qu’ran is still on the to do list, so I can’t engage on that one. I note that Archbishop Jenkins said the Christians love their enemies, forgive them and turn the other cheek. Whether they do this or not shouldn’t depend on what the other mob are doing, should it?
This idea that Islam is essentially agressive is simplistic. There has been much aggression in the history of Christianity as it spread across the globe as well. Aggression comes from the usual political battles over power, wealth and status. Religious difference is a convenient starting point to put one’s opponents on the back foot.
And whether or not there are today some Muslims who preach with militance this is not at all definitive as to the character of religion which the majority of Islam’s billion adherents practice.
If Islam really was about that pointy thing on the Saudi flag, then with a billion believers running amok we’d be truly in peril.
Malaysia is a perfect example of a relativley peaceful country despite a 60-40 mix between Muslims and others. Those others, while in many senses repressed, do not suffer systematic violent persecution for their beliefs. The oftentimes bigotry of the Muslim majority could be better explained as that normal human intolerance whch is found in most conservative, traditional societies, (eg Wyoming), where tribal identification and social conformity have yet to be displaced by more useful social organising principle such as liberal multi-culturalism.
Steve in this comment you raised the question of what about the Moonies, Scientology etc in relation to Scruton’s statement:
I don’t see that we need public discussion with the Moonies, Scientologists etc in the same way as we do with the Muslims. But if we did we would need to show respect even if we are criticising their beliefs and icons.
It seems to me that respect is a pre-condition of productive dialogue in most cases. I’d make a distinction (one that Scruton doesn’t make) between respect for the interlocutor and respect for their beliefs and icons. But here too there may be a situation where we don’t respect the person, yet negotiation and dialogue may be preferable to an angry shouting match.
In that case it is best, I think, to act as though we do respect the person and see how things work out.
Tactically there may be occasions when it is best to shock in order to gain attention or indicate the seriousness of the situation. I fancy that is how some Muslims would excuse their extreme actions.
Yet that could never excuse violence or exhortation to violence. Legal opinion suggests that crimes were committed in the protests in London, where posters called for others to be killed. I think it would have been appropriate and desirable if the police had intervened and charged some of them.
I note that in Melbourne the police removed an artwork from a public place and are considering pressing charges presumably because the work involved partially burning the Australian flag.
Evil Pundit is across an important development here. It appears the cartoons were published in Egypt during Ramadam (around October) last year. Yet no rioting, no outrage - until the Danish imams arrived with their dog and pony act.
Rob, I think that the causal nexus between the Danish Imams and Middle Eastern government provocation (though Condi ommits the Saudis whose fingers are all over some of this) is becoming pretty clear. I have no doubt that the election of Hamas and the current position of Iran also lurk in the background.
In other news, some on the right continue to react in rather bizarre ways. Now some commenters seem to damn Bush for being soft on Islam. It seems it’s not enough to be against terrorism, you have to be against Islam full stop.
I never thought I’d see the day that George W. Bush was denounced on righty blog threads in this country.