Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: Entsuropi on February 03, 2006, 11:16:40 AM
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
Several months ago a Danish newspaper published some satirical cartoons of Mohammed. This was in response to the fact that a picture book author was unable to get cartoonists to draw Mohammed for her book. In Islam, depictions of Mohammed are banned in order to prevent him becoming a false idol.
This has resulted in a huge international melee, with the Islamic world (11 countries, including most of the middle east and Pakistan) calling for the governments of Denmark and Norway (a Norweigan paper re-printed the cartoons soon after they first appeared in the Danish paper). Several cartoonists have gone into hiding. The newspaper has had to beef up security among death threats. The governments of both countries have said, effectively, 'sorry your offended' but refuse to take concrete action on the grounds of freedom of speech and the fact that they don't control the press. Denmark has a large muslim minority, and has had considerable tensions even before the newspaper cartoons between the main white population and the muslim community, who generally live in their own districts.
The EU has had a foreign minister meeting, and has declared that the governments of Denmark and Norway has the full support of the EU, does not accept that the newspaper should be prosecuted, and that the boycots of Danish and Norweigan produce in Saudi Arabia and other places is unacceptable and will, if the EU thinks the governments of those countries are involved, be brought before the WTO. However other EU officials have started saying that it was bad for the newspaper to publish them. It's kind of mixed atm in terms of how the EU is responding.
Basically, it's all a giant furball D: It's interesting to see Europe and the muslim world go toe to toe. It's high time the muslim countries stopped trying to impose religious ideals on post-enlightenment Europe and learned what seperation of state and church actually means.
-
On the one hand, it was pretty tacky of the newspaper to print the images. Arguing against that is a bit foolish.
On the other, hello, not a country run by Islamists! A country that supports freedom of the press! I may not think what they said was good and decent, but they had a right to say it.
-
That's rather funny knowing that the Catholic/Christian God is constantly being charicatured by cartoons like Family Guy and the Simpsons.
-
It all seems so ironic - the newspaper publishes the cartoons as a result of people being afraid to draw mohammed, and the results cause the editor to say 'I wouldn't have published them If I knew the results', and 'I do not think anyone will publish pictures of Mohammed again in my generation'.
-
Freedom of Speech comes with Freedom to Face the Consequences.
Course, death threats are a little too much.
-
Freedom of speech/expression should also be used with discretion. Just because some can say something doesn't mean they should. I'm sure that the newspaper is learning their lesson.
-
I do have to observe, however, that this is an interesting response. According to most sources (granted, they're all western, so they could be entirely wrong) the most offensive image is the one with MOhammed with a bomb in his turban, because it associates Islam with terrorism. Perhaps a better way to remove that association would be for the Muslim world to stop giving death threats and celebrating when acts of terrorism are carried out.
No, not all Muslims do this. Maybe not even a majority. But while there are a few voices (primarily western Muslims) in Islam decrying terrorism using Islam to justify itself, there are celebrations throughout the middle east when the WTC goes down. There are riots and violence throughout all of Asia when someone decides to print a picture. Really, which is doing more to create the association? Seems like there's a better place to focus energies than on a newspaper in a small country.
Again, I do have to underline that this observation was made using western (probably non-Muslim) interpretations of what's stoking the fires in the images. I reckon that there are more reasons than the terrorist association that is making people so mad.
And that editor is retarded for thinking that there would have been any other reaction to printing this. Why the heck did he think people wouldn't illustrate the book in the first place? Seriously, what is this guy doing thinking he can be a good judge of what information to dispense and how.
-
I think the newspaper was wrong. They took something important to a large group of people and mocked it. I think the newspaper should have had more respect. To me, this isn't an issue of freedom of the press but of mocking others' values that they don't agree with.
-
That's not what the article was about at all. They printed a selection of cartoon drawings from their staff artists, a couple of which were even complimentary, or at least benign. It wasn't about saying that Muslims or dumb or that Mohammed was a jerk. It was an article ABOUT freedom of the press. SO yeah, like I said, it was a tacky way to go about it, but I think discounting it being an issue of freedom of speach is ignoring both the context and the issues.
-
And that editor is retarded for thinking that there would have been any other reaction to printing this.
LOL. I'll say!
It definitely wasn't a "safe" topic to use as a means of exploring free speech. Of course, freedom of speech is primarily about having the ability to present dissenting viewpoints, thus it wouldn't make sense to choose a really "accepted" idea to talk about, I suppose. STILL, the editor is a dodo.
-
Since when are newspaper editors expected to just do the safe things? I thought many of the most respected journalists were those who pushed the boundaries and did what people were scared to do (ie, warzone reporting is one).
-
I'm with Entropy on this. The rebel journalist in me says that "they don't want me to do this, so I will" is kind of a cool reason to print something.
-
Who cares if the editor was an idiot? Unfavorable cartoons are printed about all sorts of groups all the time. It doesn't matter whether or not printing the cartoons was right or wrong, death threats and financial retribution are even more wrong. And last I checked getting vengeance on something that was wrong by doing something even more wrong wasn't an acceptable course of action.
-
The thing I find ironic is that they take offense at a cartoon commenting on violence by issuing death threats and pleas to behead the cartoonist. It's like saying, "Stop saying we're violent or we'll kill you!"
-
haha. Too true, too true. :D
And I only echoed e's comment about the editor's mental capacity b/c the guy seemed so surprised that the cartoons would create a ruckus.
-
What gets me is that the crux of the anger is centering aound a ban meant to prevent an image of the prophet from being made into a false idol.
It reminds me of a Zen story where two monks are at a muddy crossroads when a beautiful lady in a Kimono appears on the other side. She cannot cross the road because it is so muddy so one of the monks walks over to her picks her up and carries her across (which is expressly forbidden by his strict order) he and the other monk continue on in silence for hours until finally fed up the other monk explodes and begins chastising the first monk for his actions. "we are forbidden to touch women, you are to frivalous with your vows" he yells and yells and finally stops. The first monk waits a breath and serenely answers. " You are upset about that woman... I dont understand, I left her at the crossroads. Why didnt you?"
Certainly there should be a measure of respect and reverence to other cultures. but resorting to violence because of a cartoon is just asanine.
-
Wars usually start over cultural differences.
The U.S. is by far the most culturally tolerant country I know of, and we still have lots of cultural conflicts. In fact, many people who study societal structures firmly believe that in order for one culture to thrive another culture must be oppressed.
As I see it, the muslims in northern Europe probably already feel oppressed, especially since Northern Europe isn't exactly embracing of religions. So the cartoon being printed is just a symbol to the muslims of how they are feared and disliked. They probably already feel that the governments of Denmark and Norway are just a step away from ordering the execution of all Muslims. So making death threats when you think you are already being threatened with violence isn't such a stretch.
The editor was just thinking that he has a right to do something so he ought to do it. I guess when you have a fire you have every right to throw more fuel on it.
-
Things aren't getting better: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10705393/
Here's one reporters attempt to explain things: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11164199/
The Freedom of Expression/Speech argument seems to be adding insult to injury.
-
"Free speech is to a great people what winds are to oceans and malarial regions, which waft away the elements of disease and bring new elements of health; and where free speech is stopped, miasma is bred, and death comes fast."
Henry Ward BEECHER
American Congregational preacher, orator, and lecturer (1813-1887)
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning."
Frederick DOUGLASS
American abolitionist, author, orator (1817-1895)
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
Francois Marie Arouet VOLTAIRE
The Friends of Voltaire, 1907
French philosopher and writer (1694-1778)
That about sums it up for me. Quotes taken from here (http://www.ifla.org/faife/litter/subject/speech.htm).
-
Frederick Douglass has a good point about the whole agitation thing.
See, I don't really see the issue as being about free speech anymore. I see it about two cultures miscommunicating with each other.
To me, there is a lot of defensive posturing going on. One side will either have to forgive the other, or one side will have to violently force the other into submission.
I think it would be a lot easier just to offer a blatant apology to the Islamic world, then place the editor/illustrator in protective custody (hiding) for awhile until the death threats subside.
The other option is to escalate violence against the Islamic world in attempt to force them to accept free speech and other foreign values like freedom of religion. Maybe that is what's best overall, but are we willing to accept the casualties.
-
I think that, either way, this will be viewed in the future as some sort of catalyst point. I don't think the Western world will offer a full apology to the Muslim countries; we went through too much in our history to give up the Free Speech thing.
The BBC did an article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4678220.stm) saying that it's not really the ban on images that is causing the issue: it's the satirical nature of them, and the perception of a European hatred of Islam. Another article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4677976.stm) offers some dissenting views within the muslim world.
I think that, deep down, it's about the Muslim world and the European (and, by extension, the American) world clashing. To a lot of people here in Europe, this argument is something that highlights the problem of Muslim communities in Europe - that they stick to the values of a society that is radically different from Europe, one where religion retains a role it hasn't had here for centuries. It's unlikely many people in Europe will feel we should back down, since it's hitting close to home. And the Muslim world seems to feel under fire, after the war on terror, and views this as an attack.
Bad stuff. It'll probably end up entering the history books as being one of the things that led to something bad.
-
The other option is to escalate violence against the Islamic world in attempt to force them to accept free speech and other foreign values like freedom of religion. Maybe that is what's best overall, but are we willing to accept the casualties.
I can see where this method of dealing with the problem comes from, but the idea of forcing people to accept freedom really seems like a contradiction to me. I mean, if we really believe in freedom, shouldn't we believe in the freedom of other cultures to disagree with that freedom? But then, can they disagree with that freedom when it is the freedom itself that allows them the opportunity to disagree?
On the other hand, arguments like that are probably more of a philosophical excercise than anything practical.
-
The whole thing is eerily reminiscent of the Crusades.
-
There's a terrifying thought.
-
Mention of the Crusades is interesting because Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity. But Islam is also going through this "Crusader" stage in a difficult time in history when the world is getting much smaller because of communications and advanced travel. With all the influence that the Western world inadvertantly exerts upon the Middle East, a lot of Muslims fear for their way of life and are trying to figure out how their religion fits into an advanced, smaller, technological world.
It's sad to see how people react, but at the same time it's very interesting from a historical standpoint.
-
Something new. (http://www.comcast.net/news/international/index.jsp?cat=INTERNATIONAL&fn=/2006/02/06/319872.html)
Things are definitely not getting better.
-
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a statement that the resentment over the caricatures "cannot justify violence, least of all when directed at people who have no responsibility for, or control over, the publications in question."
This says it all for me.
-
Ferry Passenger Families Lash Out in Egypt
FEBRUARY 06, 2006
Relatives of passengers on a ferry that sank in the Red Sea attacked the offices of the ship's owners Monday, throwing furniture into the street and burning the company's sign. Riot police fired tear gas to restore order.
I'm starting to see a pattern here...
-
I don't care that the editor was retarded. I was just pointing out that whatever decision he made, he's a moron for not realizing that exactly what's happening is not only possibly, but the LIKELY result of printing something inflamatory like that.
Yes, we need to accept that bad things, mean things, will be said when we allow freedom of speach. However, I have to repeat 42, "The editor was just thinking that he has a right to do something so he ought to do it. I guess when you have a fire you have every right to throw more fuel on it." Neither 42 nor I are or have stated that the editor had no right to say what he said. He did. In no uncertain terms, the newspaper was well within it's legal and civil rights to publish those cartoons. They should not be punished for what they did.
However, they knew it would be inflammatory as well (or, if as the editor claims, they didn't think of it, they're complete idiots who really shouldn't be running a newspaper), and thus really shouldn't be indignant that there's fallout over it. They made their bed, they should sleep in it. It was tacky and tasteless. In short, just because you have a right to do something, doesn't mean that you have a duty to do so. THe intelligent exercise of your freedoms makes the world a better place than the recklessly abandoned abuse of them. It's because people do things like this that some countries don't want to allow freedom of speech.
The answer, obviously, is not to rein in freedom of speech. That would be dumb. The answer IS for individuals to be a bit less stupid about how they use the freedoms they have. This would show these countries that freedom of speech and the press can be used for desirable ends.
I, for one, would like it if there had been considerably less killing or anger just because of one unwisely edited newspaper article.
Now, I'm sure I'll be jumped on for all that, so let me clarify. I abhor anyone who makes a death threat for most any reason. The language of hatred is extremely widespread in the Muslim world right now. That is, in my mind, an evil thing they have allowed to take root. Those individuals participating in violent demonstrations and death threats and so forth really need to shut it and get over themselves. The opinion they believe is being stated by the cartoons is only being reinforced by this behavior. I'll bet that 90% of them haven't even seen the cartoons and are just acting out because someone told them that the Danes are publishing things that make them look bad. Disgustingly ignorant.
However, I think I have a much better chance (even though that hope is still slim -- perhaps that makes me a pessimist) of reaching those supporting the editor and helping them act rationally (we do, after all, share a similar culture and civil point of view) than the folks waving pitchforks and torches from a completely different culture. That is why the majority of my language is focussed on the irresponsibility of the newspaper. NOt because I think they committed a worse action (they were just dumb), but because I can possibly communicate with them.
-
The whole thing is eerily reminiscent of the Crusades.
What it's really reminiscent of is what the "muslims" did prior to the western crusades, which was conquer and pillage as much as they could of the world and enforce their religious laws on the indigenous populations while at the same time treating those who did not belong to their religion as fourth class citizens.
If it hadn't been for a french general/king named Martel Europe, probably including England and therefore all of the New World, would now be exactly like what the middle-east would be like if the West didn't exist. That's scary.
What did Martel do? He fought the encroaching Muslim hordes to a stand-still just this side of the Pyrennese.
Now that the world is so small the fanatical-militant-islamist hordes are being fought to a standstill in many different places and running rampant where they are not.
I've lived in countries where Sharia was the law and I'm glad I don't live their now.
The question of forcibly installing freedom is a tricky one. It's obviously not acceptable to do nothing when a country is threatening you and killing your citizens and/or allies, especially not in this day and age of NBC weapons. But it is also just as obviously not acceptable to go around forcing people that you have no connection with to adopt your style of government.
So that leaves the question, when you attack a country and remove from power the government that was responsible for threatening you, what government do you set up in its place. To leave nothing means either violent chaos or an immediate return to power by the people you just threw out. If all your concerned about is that country not attacking you any more the best bet is to set up a puppet dictatorship, but that's just plain wrong. So what can you do besides set up the best, most equitable, tolerant and most prosperous kind of government you know about? Today that best government is obviously a democracy.
The current leaders in the middle-east, be they terrorist or state leaders, are not against Ameican installed democracy because they think their way would be better for the people. They are against it because solid entrenched democracies are ridiculously hard to "rule with an iron fist" and are remarkably resistant to being turned back into dictatorships. They view rule "by and for the people" as a cancer that will eat them out of power and privilege. Osam bin Laden's desire to set up a world wide Islamic empire has nothing to do with a desire to install a system that will be good for everybody, he just wants one that would be good for him and his cronies. Whether that means giving him the power to have all the women wine and song he wants or simply the knowledge that everyone is forced to live according to his moral ideas is immaterial.
At the same time the U.S. policy of installing democracy is only partially rooted in a desire to give the people in Iraq and Afghanistan freedom. The other big part is a desire to keep 9-11 or anything worse from ever happening again. Peope who are more concerned with making money, buying cars, and getting their kids through college (as happens in a democracy) are much better neighbors than people who live in oppressed and uneducated squalor (as happens under Sharia). People who live in oppressed and uneducated squalor are easily persuaded to blow themselves up in crowded restaurants and fly planes into buildings. People who have actual control over their own lives and hope for the future are not.
-
However, they knew it would be inflammatory as well (or, if as the editor claims, they didn't think of it, they're complete idiots who really shouldn't be running a newspaper), and thus really shouldn't be indignant that there's fallout over it.
I can understand not being indignant over fallout. But even fallout has a statute of limitations. Protests I could understand. Unreasonable demands I could understand. Death threats and riots? I don't think anyone is stupid for not expecting those as a response to printing some cartoons.
-
thats because your to young to remember the Snoopy Riots of 1982.
/me shudders to remember
-
hello?! have you been around any of the last 60 years?
They blow themselves up in discotheques. They offer rewards of millions of dollars to kill someone for writing a book. They crash airplanes into buildings over general discontentment with a foreign power.
You're telling me you couldn't predict death threats from the people who commit that sort of behavior?
-
No, I'm saying it's not stupid to not print something because of the possible reaction of a group of people. Isn't that what people who try to force behavior with violence *want*? That's the whole point of death threats--to frighten people into giving up their freedoms willingly. Whether it was right or wrong to print the cartoons, I'm reallly glad someone did, because if no one uses free speech it's the same as not having it.
On the other hand, I do see your point. And I wish that the newspaper had handled things differently. But I still don't think they're at fault.
hello?! have you been around any of the last 60 years?
And there's no need to be insulting.
-
Children don't make me step in and separate you two.
-
Wait, wait. Since when is Spriggan the peace maker?
Excuse me while I step back and reevaluate my entire world schema.
-
Wait, wait. Since when is Spriggan the peace maker?
Ever since my avatar got a pipe, it make one more Mature.
-
That explains so many things. ;)
-
indeed
-
You're right. That first line was out of line. I'm sorry.
But I didn't claim it was stupid to print something because someone wouldn't like it or would have a response to it. I was saying that editor was stupid because he said he wouldn't have printed it if he had known the details of the response. As a major newspaper editor, he should be well-informed enough to be able to predict something very close to this. thus, yes, he is stupid.
-
Okay, yeah, he's trying to be a fence-sitter then, and that's stupid.
-
Give it a mustache, and Spriggan will truely be the grand vizer pretending to be making peace, but really setting the stage for a bloody religious civil war and coup followed by 200 years of vile leadership under a succession of plantpots.
Good job that man.
-
Little Thelma comes home from first grade and tells her father that they learned about the history of Valentine's Day. And, "Since Valentine's Day is for a Christian saint and we're Jewish," she asks, "will God get mad at me for giving someone a valentine?
Thelma's father thinks a bit, then says "No, I don't think God would get mad. Who do you want to give a valentine to?"
"Osama Bin Laden," she says.
"Why Osama Bin Laden?" her father asks in shock.
"Well," she says, "I thought that if a little American Jewish girl could have enough love to give Osama a valentine, he might start to think that maybe we're not all bad, and maybe start loving people a little bit. And if other kids saw what I did and then they sent valentines to Osama, he'd love everyone a lot. And then he'd start going all over the place tell everyone how much he loved them and how he didn't hate anyone anymore."
Her father's heart swells and he looks at his daughter with newfound pride. "Thelma, that's the most wonderful thing I've ever heard."
"I know," Thelma says, "and once that gets him out in the open, the Marines could blow the **** out of him."
-
Warning: Old and rather tasteless joke to follow:
Grampa and little Jim are on a vacation in New York. They see the sights. The spaceport. The Nanofactories. The AI sports colisseum and so on.
One afternoon Grampa takes Little Jim to a small memorial in Manhattan. The plaque reads "World Trade Center: September 11, 2001."
Grampa gazes at the plaque, tears up and squeezes Little Jim's hand.
Jim has never heard of this monument and so he asks, "Grampa, what happened in 2001?"
Grampa kneels down and explains to the little boy "Well Jim, this was where some arabs crashed planes into two huge buildings, knocking them down and killing everyone inside. This plaque is here so we don't forget what happened that day."
"Oh," little Jim replies. After a moment he looks puzzled and asks another question.
"Grampa, what's an arab?"
-
That is both funny and frightening at the same time. I love it.
-
I heard a good comment this morning about this issue on the news, being, Muslims are violently protesting over a defamatory comic and yet, when radical Muslims groups were beheading innocent civilians, there was no protesting over how the beheading placed Muslims and Arabs in a negative light. I have to start thinking that the Muslim/Arab community needs to think a little bit more about what issues will enrage it.
-
Well, looks like Iran found a better way to protest. Tasteless, but a better way.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/07/cartoon.protests/index.html
-
This is disturbing.
If you postulate that the muslims of the world, in general, are of the opinion that anyone who is not a muslim of the right stripe is sub-human it explains both those reactions.
I'm not posing that as a serious comment on what muslims are like I'm just pointing out it would be easy to come to that conclusion given recent events.
-
I agree with 42 that this is a better way but also tasteless. I'm also starting to thinks that Muslims aren't use to having their religious beliefs publicly mocked (which is a good thing in my opinion). Maybe if more Muslims attended liberal-American universities, they would be more use to having their religious beliefs scorned and tastless cartoons wouldn't enrage them into violent protests (although they would still have a right to be offended).
-
As I understand it, the protesting Muslims have two issues:
1. The offensive cartoons ahould never have been written or published;
2. Since they were, those responsible for said writing/publishing should be punished.
The Danish government's response is, "We will not censor the printing of legal, offensive material."
The response to this response by certain Muslim individuals has been rioting, killing, and destruction; the response by certain Muslim governments has been to cut off trade with Denmark.
If I have all of that right, what purpose will the printing of Holocaust cartoons serve? Will they call the West hypocrites if we peacefully protest the printings, but do not kill Muslims, attack the embassies of Arab nations, or cut off trade with them? And as far as freedom of press, I assume that the Iranian government will not be censoring the cartoons, so that's a complete non-issue.
-
I'm not sure it's a better way. A lot of Muslim educational systems depict Jews as hated monsters. This would only serve to encourage that behavior.
The root of the problem, as lost one points out, is the inherant hypocrisy. They don't understand what they're doing, I think. They haven't thought about anyone else's position, only their own. It's an innately selfish position that these protesters are taking. That's what I think of anyone who would kill over a cartoon.
-
I don't know if this has been posted yet, I'm not going to read through through the rest of this thread, but several of the cartoons that sparked off the riots weren't even cartoons nor were they ever published in Denmark. One was of a French pig-caller, at a contest, dressed up as a pig, it was the one that the Danish cleric was showing around to incite this.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184174,00.html
about half way into the article
-
I don't think it was in this thread, but it's in the wikipedia article Ent linked to.
-
Even Family Circus? Or Cathy? I could kill over a Cathy cartoon.
Seriously though, I think the bigger issue that most news broadcasts have missed is that these riots are happening because the individual state controls much of the media in the middle east and freedom of the press is almost non existant. For many muslims dealing with the idea of the government not being able to tell the press what to do is unsettling. For the less intelligent or educated it looks like the government told the press to print it and it reinforces the belief that the west has it out for the muslim world. Its a result of cult of personality leadership which incidentally has been fanning the flames for its own ends.
I found myself partially agreeing with the sentiments of the French Press the other day, who have been defiantly reprinting, and discussing the event in a particularly french way. My favorite was the magazine Soir with the headline "Oui, on a le
droit de caricaturer Dieu" or " Yes, we have the right to caricature god". Inside they reprinted the Danish cartoons, and then added a few of their own ridiculing everyone. My favorite has God, Budda, and the Prophet Muhammad sitting on a cloud over the Earth with god saying to Muhammad "Don't complain Mohammed, we've all been caricatured here."
An interesting side note to the anti-Danish crusade in the Middle East is the boycotting of Danish goods including Danish cheese and Danish Insulin made by Novo Nodisk (the worlds largest manufacturer of insulin.)
Honestly, who boycotts essential medicine?
-
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0206/dailyUpdate.html
Seems that the Anglo press is refusing to show the cartoons. The article above lists the reasons given by various papers and the BBC.
-
Im not sure I know how to judge our reactions to the cartoons in the media. Its safe to say that in the US I think papers are scared, and thanks to the Anthrax attacks in congress and multiple bombings and the general attitude of the US in the muslim world I think they decided to be safe. In addition, I think they may be trying in their own small way to protect reporters in the middle east (especially in Iraq and Afganistan) who have a dangerous enough time.
Or as they say it could just be that this story is past that. The real issue isnt the cartoons, but rather the inappropriate reaction to them. Protesting is fine, burning down property and killing people isnt.
-
Danish editor Flemming Rose solicited the drawings precisely because of their sensitive nature. He says Europe is being cowed into self-censorship by Muslims. Publishing the toons plants the flag for free speech.
Yes, there's no reason to offend people of any faith arbitrarily. We owe all faiths respect. But the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance--and they have now done so, in abundance.
The above quotes were from the article Entsuropi linked. I find them particularly enlightening. Newspapers all over the world have published cartoons of an equally offensive nature to, for example, Christians and no furor has erupted. And those cartoons have often been widely reprinted.
Why did we not hear or see discussions on why those cartoons should or should not be reprinted? Because there were no fire-bombings, deadly riots or trade embargos that resulted from them.
Reacting with cowed politeness and carefully tiptoeing around Muslim sensibilities (or anything other than the scornful mockery such behavior deserves) in THIS case merely reinforces, for everyone everywhere, the idea that behavior like we have seen, riots and so forth, gets results from the western press. Being "extra-careful" not to offend muslim sensibilities (far more careful than they are about Christian sensibilities) further merely reinforces their current behavior as effective.
I feel confident in saying that everybody in the western world who is following the story wants to see the pictures that are causing the furor, and would probably buy a newspaper or magazine that printed them, just for that. So there's a good business reason to reprint them. Why aren't they? Because of the violent reactions of the muslim world. That's a terrible reason not to print something you normally would and just begs for more violent reactions in the future. If you meekly give the bully your lunch money when he hits you he's going to hit you again the next time he wants your lunch money.
-
At the same time, its an entirely a natural reaction however inappropriate. No one likes being hit by said bully, and even in the schoolyard most kids would rather take it than get into a tussle.
I dont think that its a good reaction, however.
-
Absolutely. It is a natural reaction. It's just not one that's going to convince him to stop hitting you.
-
I think the thing is, in our society getting that angry at a comic is completely alien to us.
Its a shock, and why I think the rioting is more important than the images. Frankly nothing written or drawn trumps the value of human life, I may think its horrid, or in poor taste, or blasphemous but it certainly isnt worth killing over.
In a lot of the Arab world (primarily where the riots are) people have learned to be bullies because thats all people in power respond to. To an extent of course. You didnt see riots like this in Iraq, or nearly the same reaction in Iran which is ironic in some ways (considering the Fatwa they have against Salman Rushdie). But places close to anarchy or where the government has an agenda (Syria for instance where President Al-Asad has been exercising tremendous pressure on his media to print only what he says, especially when it lashes out against the West which is angry about the whole Lebanon thing) are exploding in an orgy of violence. The clear thing is that the rioters are pawns, and desperately in need of the free speech they advocate against.
-
actually, the Fatwa against Rushdie can't be held against the current Iran. It was Khomeni who instituted it, and the current govt has tried to distance themselves from it. They're just religiously unable to repeal the Fatwa. The issuer dying while it's in force makes it permanent or something
-
still I find it ironic that Iran would rather just print holocaust cartoons rather than advocate the death of all Danes.
on that note, I think Im gonna have a Danish.
-
Absolutely. I second that motion. :)
Edit: Originally, I was seconding the free speech for everyone idea. But I'll have a Danish too.
-
http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com/d/20060208.html
-
Hahaha. Good comic, even though, without captions, it is a little hard to tell when the person speaking changes.
-
The cartoons were first printed in September and it's, what, four months after they're printed that the mass riots start. Incidentally, the riots start after the January elections in Muslim countries (Palestine, etc.), because that's when they first were distributed among the middle eastern population.
And, somehow, it coincides with the Danish representative about to take leadership in the UN security council in June.
Coincidence?
-
Absolutely. To argue that people within the Muslim community (or out of it, for that matter) would be deliberately trying to incite anger and resentment within the community for their own personal gain would be irrational. After all, what do they have to gain except power and a great deal of money?
-
I don't see the money angle.
But I don't think you can argue against the power/control thing.
-
* On the February 15, the European Parliament accepts a resolution in which in condemns all cartoon violence. It states that the EU stands in solidarity with Denmark and all other countries that have been affected by the violence. Furthermore it states that Muslims may be offended by the cartoons and that they have the right to protest peacefully. However the freedom of speech is absolute and may not be affected by any form of censorship.[32]