Muslim Rage Over Cartoon

[Argus]

Since when did a cherished belief place a topic beyond discussion? And since when did a mere cartoon justify invading embassies and threatening physical harm to people?

It doesn't. However, anyone with half a brain should have understood how Muslims would react to such things. I think it is pretty pathetic to hide behind the 'free speach' banner on this one.

So because certain groups are violently intollerent we should censor ourselves so as to not offend them?

What if talking about freedom invokes a violent reaction (it does)? Should we not talk about that either? What if criticising Muslim behaviour invokes violent response (It does). Should we never complain about that? Hell, what if talking about the weather causes muslims to turn into bloodthirsty fanatics. For all I know it does. Do we sit mute and frightened in case some loony bunch of religious wackos take offence?

And of course, the gross hypocrisy of Muslims on this - and every other issue - invokes no sympathy. Their own news media and cartoons are deliberately grossly insulting to everyone not a Muslim. Some of what i've seen make Nazi propaganda seem gentle, by comparison.

No, the answer is to ignore them, express ourselves however we want. If they object; tough. If they object violently - kill them.

[Argus]

Look, Sparhawk, we are witnessing the kind of ignorant behaviour common in medieval Europe. Why should we be dragged back to those debates of several hundred years ago?

Not at all. But how did those cartoons help promote western ideals in Islamic circles?

Is that what they were designed to do, being printed in a Danish newspaper?

If anything, they simply re-enforced their fear of western values and made it less likely that they will join the 21th century. This was an avoidable incident and should have been avoided.

If Muslims are ever going to crawl out of the sixth century they have to cast away their veneration for their idols, to learn to take criticism without blowing up (literally), and to respect the fact that others have different beliefs than they do, and they can't affect that. So yes, in a sense, being free to criticise the glorious Allah is a demonstration of the freedom we enjoy here in the West. Or as George Bernard Shaw said: "All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship."

I would take a different position if the offense was accidental on the part of the cartoonist. In this case, the cartoonist was intending to offend and that is why I feel the cartoonist should have not published the cartoons.

And if Americans became violently offended by cartoon insults of George Bush, would you similarly denounce cartooniests throughout the world for offending Americans' delicate sensibilities? Somehow I think not. You would instead denounce those intollerent Americans and sneer at their lack of respect for freedom.

I could have shown my Grandmother a picture of two men kissing and it would have provoked some pretty unreasonable reactions. What is provocative is in the eye of the beholder. We live in a world composed of many cultures - we all have an obligation to be sensitive to what provokes others if we hope to get along.

Your commitment to freedom of speech thrills me. We can say anything we want as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Swell.

[YankAbroad]

we all have an obligation to be sensitive to what provokes others if we hope to get along

With that standard, anyone who doesn't like any content or point of view can censor it and shut it down by clutching her pearls and claiming "offence."

[Riverwind]

Your commitment to freedom of speech thrills me. We can say anything we want as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Swell.

We don't have absolute freedom of speech on this forum. Greg strictly limits what we can say in the name of having a civilized discourse - however, that does not prevent anyone from saying what they want to say. It just means they have to do in a respectful way. I see no difference between here and a wider forum of the media: restraint and respect towards others encourages civilized discourse.

The G&M cartoonist had some very valid points to make:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../International/

By definition, a scoundrel's actions in the world are fair satirical game, regardless of the religious beliefs he is proclaiming. If a market is bombed in Belfast during a Christian sectarian struggle and the bomber chooses to explain the motive by quoting a verse from the Bible, then, using this system, tomorrow's cartoon will be on the bomber's hypocrisy and not the scriptures he used as his excuse.

[YankAbroad]

Sparhawk, all that politically correct bullshit you're pushing ties the hands of free people and allows dictators to run society.

Do you think that the leaders of these fanatics give two hoots that they're offending Jews, Americans, Christians, gays, Hindus, or other people in their periodicals?

When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks which explain to students that it's OK to kill or injure non-Muslims, is that OK?

When Iran decapitates gay men in the public square (even as Europe and North America continue to work to deny them asylum), is that OK?

When the Egyptian government invests in publishing houses which reproduce copies of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (one of the Mid East's perennial best sellers), is that OK?

What if the USA "took offence" and boycotted them, or surrounded their embassies with armed militiamen? Would such activities get the excuses which are tossed out today? Of course not.

This whole issue of "hypocrisy" and "not offending people" is ridiculous, stupid and offensive in and of itself. As a free person in a free society, I refuse to have the content of my speech or writing dictated by hypocrites, especially religious fundamentalists who are attempting to shove their mystical beliefs into the limelight and refuse to have them critically evaluated or panned.

[Black Dog]

The silence of the Left on this issue is deafening.

Aw, bullcrap.

What's really sad to me is that we've handed anotehr cudgel to the mullahs, the dictators, the radicals and the other people who's power and very existence depends on the oppression and suppression of their people. That's not to say the cartoons were wrong, or that free speech should be censored in western countries in the name of tolerance, but, if bringing the Muslim world into the 21st Century is what we're after, this thing is like shooting ourselves in the foot.

[Riverwind]

Sparhawk, all that politically correct bullshit you're pushing ties the hands of free people and allows dictators to run society.

Typical of right wing reactionaries: if you don't like what you hear simply accuse the speaker of supporting dictators.

This whole issue of "hypocrisy" and "not offending people" is ridiculous, stupid and offensive in and of itself. As a free person in a free society, I refuse to have the content of my speech or writing dictated by hypocrites, especially religious fundamentalists who are attempting to shove their mystical beliefs into the limelight and refuse to have them critically evaluated or panned.

You just don't get it. You can say what ever you want - no one will stop you. But if you choose to say things that are deliberately provocative then don't be surprised if you get an even more provocative reaction. If you don't like those consequences then you should rethink your words.

Given a choice, I would rather choose words that express my opinion but do not provoke extreme reaction. That way my words are more likely to be heard. Choosing deliberately provocative and/or offensive words simply ensures that I am talking to myself. All those people screaming about 'political correctness' and 'free speech' are guilty of the same extremism that they criticize muslims of.

[Black Dog]

Typical of right wing reactionaries: if you don't like what you hear simply accuse the speaker of supporting dictators.

Dude: I think YA has been pretty explicit in his political orientation (liberatarian), nor do I think he was saying you support dictators.. I don't think labelling someone a right-wing reactionary because they disagree with you helps your cause.

You just don't get it. You can say what ever you want - no one will stop you. But if you choose to say things that are deliberately provocative then don't be surprised if you get an even more provocative reaction. If you don't like those consequences then you should rethink your words.

Given a choice, I would rather choose words that express my opinion but do not provoke extreme reaction. That way my words are more likely to be heard. Choosing deliberately provocative and/or offensive words simply ensures that I am talking to myself. All those people screaming about 'political correctness' and 'free speech' are guilty of the same extremism that they criticize muslims of.

Self censorship is still censorship.

[YankAbroad]

if you choose to say things that are deliberately provocative then don't be surprised if you get an even more provocative reaction

OK.

Homosexuals deserve all the rights under the law which anyone else receives, are not "perverted or sick," and are hardworking productive members of society.

That opinion would be "deliberately provocative" in all of those countries and could land me in jail -- or decapitated. Just like being homosexual would also get me executed in most of those countries.

I guess I'll go back into the closet, in the interests of "diversity."

Not.

Honestly, the upper-middle-class socialist calls for "diversity" don't even demonstrate a basic understanding of the word.

[moderateamericain]

When are people gonna realize you cant stop a tank with a fountain pen? Liberal, conservative, or anything in between, i hope you know how to shoot a gun. Because those who dont still can die from them.

[August1991]

The silence of the Left on this issue is deafening.

Aw, bullcrap.

What's really sad to me is that we've handed anotehr cudgel to the mullahs, the dictators, the radicals and the other people who's power and very existence depends on the oppression and suppression of their people. That's not to say the cartoons were wrong, or that free speech should be censored in western countries in the name of tolerance, but, if bringing the Muslim world into the 21st Century is what we're after, this thing is like shooting ourselves in the foot.

Coming from you BD, that's rich. You are one the most provocative posters here.

[Aw, bullcrap? Aren't you yourself shooting your own foot by that provocative expression?]

It is not as if there is an Organized Western Conspiracy here. Some cartoonists (probably Leftist Social Liberal types) drew some cartoons. In a liberal democracy, things just happen because, well, individuals are free to choose. If it hadn't been this group, it would have been something else.

We have already had the experience of Rushdie, and there are bound to be more in the future. Many of the provocations will come from the Western Left, or more precisely the sh**disturber variant of modern Leftism.

But I will agree BD with your underlying point. These cartoons are a direct attack on the mullahs and other religious dictators. There are many, many people in the Middle East who are not enamoured with sharia law or an Islamic republic. We rarely if ever hear from them because their voices are silenced.

But this is neither here nor there. Anyone who appreciates civilized society would not spend two seconds reflecting on the supposed conflict between the principle of "freedom of speech" and the principle of "respect for God". In the West, this was decided about 300 years ago and God lost - or at least, the God defended by mullahs and priests.

[August1991]

Given a choice, I would rather choose words that express my opinion but do not provoke extreme reaction. That way my words are more likely to be heard. Choosing deliberately provocative and/or offensive words simply ensures that I am talking to myself. All those people screaming about 'political correctness' and 'free speech' are guilty of the same extremism that they criticize muslims of.

Sparhawk, I think you misunderstand what we are up against. I suggest you read Berthold Brecht's The Life of Galileo.

These people believe that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. It is impossible to avoid a confrontation. We cannot have a polite discussion in which we will agree to disagree, or seek some reasonable way to arrive at a consensus.

Stockwell Day may be against same sex marriage but he is a product of a western liberal education. If you find Stockwell Day intolerant, then you have not seen intolerance of the kind that existed several hundred years ago in Europe, or exists now in Saudi Arabia, for example.

[Black Dog]

Coming from you BD, that's rich. You are one the most provocative posters here.

Certainly, a sweeping statement like "the silence on the left is deafening" deserves some examination: who is this "left" that's supposed to be speaking up, but isn't? (I like to think of my visits to rabble as a good way to take the pulse of the left: there, the mood is overwhelmingly negative towards the Muslim reaction to the cartoons).

This is very interesting:

The Jyllands-Posten Cartoons

The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten created the furor over depictions of Mohammed by publishing a series of 12 drawings after a local author said he was unable to find any artist willing to depict Mohammed for his upcoming illustrated book. The publication of the images in Jyllands-Posten has been condemned around the Islamic world, and has led to calls for a boycott of Denmark by Muslim nations.

...

Furthermore, when a delegation of Danish imams went to the Middle East to discuss the issue of the cartoons with senior officials and prominent Islamic scholars, the imams openly distributed a booklet that showed not only the original 12 cartoons, but three fraudulent anti-Mohammed depictions that were much more offensive than the ones published in Denmark. It is now thought that these three bonus images are what ignited the outrage in the Muslim world. The newspaper Ekstra Bladet obtained a copy of the booklet and presented the three offensive images on its Web site (though not in an easy-to-find place). All look like low-quality photocopies.

link

[August1991]

Certainly, a sweeping statement like "the silence on the left is deafening" deserves some examination: who is this "left" that's supposed to be speaking up, but isn't? (I like to think of my visits to rabble as a good way to take the pulse of the left: there, the mood is overwhelmingly negative towards the Muslim reaction to the cartoons).

Well, I did flip through the rabble thread on this topic and I was rather appalled by the number of posters finding absurd ways to say that the cartoons are offensive, or racist, or shouldn't have been published, or are part of some grand scheme to enslave Muslims, or are the work of Bush to promote American Imperialism or whatever. But references to Xians, or how the Pope is a closet Nazi are perfectly acceptable.

The Left likes to champion the rights of the oppressed against dominant forces. After having largely lost the socialist argument against free markets, the modern Left has taken up social liberal causes - the defense of gays and others against social conservatives.

This cartoon business poses a contradiction for the Left. The Left feels uncomfortable defending the dominant philosophy of Western liberal values, but looks absurd defending the rank social conservatism and sheer ignorance of the mullahs.

-----

I saw that link elsewhere (in fact, that's how I found the link to the 12 cartoons). True, the link has more offensive drawings but nothing more offensive than similar drawings of Western icons.

I don't know how to describe in a few words what constitutes western liberal thought. After long reflection, I have come to the conclusion that the "scientific method" is the best demarcation. A western liberal understands what it is to be an intelligent skeptic, to question authority.

[YankAbroad]

Some of the signs from the poor, peaceful, offended Muslim protestors in London today (which I saw on the BBC News a couple minutes ago):

KILL THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM

CUT OFF THEIR HEADS

DEATH TO NORWAY

EUROPE IS A CANCER, ISLAM IS THE ANSWER

NOBODY WHO INSULTS THE PROPHET MAY LIVE

JUSTICE FOR US OR BLOOD SHALL RUN IN THE STREETS

Yes, sounds like a nice sentiment to me.

Imagine if, every time the Iranians executed a gay man or a Muslim leader said something anti-gay, we gays marched in the street with similar placards expressing those awful views towards Muslims.

Well, in Britain, it would get you arrested. Something to think about.

[August1991]

IME, when vulgar epithets are translated into another language, they usually sound either humourous or chilling.

Diferent people express their passion in different ways, and these are just words.

[Black Dog]

Well, I did flip through the rabble thread on this topic and I was rather appalled by the number of posters finding absurd ways to say that the cartoons are offensive, or racist, or shouldn't have been published, or are part of some grand scheme to enslave Muslims, or are the work of Bush to promote American Imperialism or whatever. But references to Xians, or how the Pope is a closet Nazi are perfectly acceptable.

I read thethread in question and saw exactly one poster make the argument above and one othe rone make some pretty mealy mouthed anti-censorship/anti-hate speech statements. But the vast majority are on teh side of freedom of speech.

The Left likes to champion the rights of the oppressed against dominant forces. After having largely lost the socialist argument against free markets, the modern Left has taken up social liberal causes - the defense of gays and others against social conservatives.

This cartoon business poses a contradiction for the Left. The Left feels uncomfortable defending the dominant philosophy of Western liberal values, but looks absurd defending the rank social conservatism and sheer ignorance of the mullahs.

You have this weird tendancy to make statements-nay! proclimations-about the nature of the "Left" as though the left were a monolithic and easily pigeonholed entity with uniform goals and beliefs. It's a total strawman, you know. (Seriously: "The Left feels uncomfortable defending the dominant philosophy of Western liberal values"?? WTF? Where do you think those wacky leftist ideas about "social liberal causes" comes from?)

[YankAbroad]

these are just words

They're words which explain the "logic" behind actions ranging from flying planes into skyscrapers to hanging gay men in public to blowing up school busses.

[theloniusfleabag]

I can't imagine a satirical parody of the Holocaust being pooh-poohed...the offender would be forced to apologize, and withdraw the offending materiel. Guaranteed. (as long as they were cartoonist in a 'western culture', mind you).

[Riverwind]

Stockwell Day may be against same sex marriage but he is a product of a western liberal education. If you find Stockwell Day intolerant, then you have not seen intolerance of the kind that existed several hundred years ago in Europe, or exists now in Saudi Arabia, for example.

I do not wish to excuse the violance and the death threats coming from Muslims. I just feel these cartoons are the wrong basis to fight a battle over free speech on - they are too provactive and add nothing to the debate.

Think about what happened 15 or so years ago when a few people in Ontario stomped on a Quebec flag as a way to protest the bi-linguilism polices of their city gov't. Quebequers were appalled by that 'free speech' and made many threaten to create social chaos by breaking up the country. No one suggested that Quebequers reaction was unreasonable and everyone seemed to agree that execising free speech by stomping on a flag crossed a line that should not have been crossed.

I feel the cartoons crossed a line in the same way and we should not be defending them.

[Argus]

Your commitment to freedom of speech thrills me. We can say anything we want as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Swell.

We don't have absolute freedom of speech on this forum. Greg strictly limits what we can say in the name of having a civilized discourse - however, that does not prevent anyone from saying what they want to say. It just means they have to do in a respectful way.

This is a privately owned web site explicitly designed for exchanging political opinions. Greg can do what he wants here. But we have the freedom to say what we want elsewhere. Our cultures in the west are built on a number of very basic shared principles and beliefs, and freedom of speech is among the most important. You are trying to weasel around a poorly thought-out desire to not offend others by suggesting we need only rephrase our speech in order to still have it. That doesn't work. It certainly doesn't work here. No criticism of Muhammed, Allah or Islam are acceptable to Muslims. None. However phrased. In some Muslim countries you can still be killed for daring to try.

I see no difference between here and a wider forum of the media: restraint and respect towards others encourages civilized discourse.

Oh it does, does it? So what kind of "punishment" would you give to media which refused to go along with your sweeping censorship laws? And who would enforce these laws? And if one can't offend Muslims, surely one can't be permitted to offend Christians either, or Mormons, or Scientologists, or Moonies, or agonostics or Conservatives or Socialists, or bald people, or fat people, or dumb people.

And what causes offence? Why, offence is in the eye of the beholder, clearly. So how do we adjust our censorship laws for that? As Benjamin Franklin said ""If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed."

But a more appropriate comment comes from Salman Rushdie. You may have heard of him. He said "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."

[Argus]

The silence of the Left on this issue is deafening.

Aw, bullcrap.

What's really sad to me is that we've handed anotehr cudgel to the mullahs, the dictators, the radicals and the other people who's power and very existence depends on the oppression and suppression of their people. That's not to say the cartoons were wrong, or that free speech should be censored in western countries in the name of tolerance, but, if bringing the Muslim world into the 21st Century is what we're after, this thing is like shooting ourselves in the foot.

I disagree. The reason the Muslim world is so backward is because of the inability of the people, or even intellectuals, to challenge or question the long-held interpretations of Islamic religious thought. One of the reasons the Muslim world is so outraged is because so many of those relatively unsophisticated people can hardly comprehend that anyone would DARE say anything or draw anything unflattering of Muhammed. If the Muslim world is ever to progress people need to start questioning. They at least need to start considering the possibility that one can treat Isalmic icons with something less than 100% reverence. What, did Muhammed have no sense of humour when he was raping women, stacking up piles of heads and burning down cities?

[Argus]

Sparhawk, all that politically correct bullshit you're pushing ties the hands of free people and allows dictators to run society.

Typical of right wing reactionaries: if you don't like what you hear simply accuse the speaker of supporting dictators.

Oh yes, YA is such a wild assed conservative. Next thing you know he'll be demanding we kill all homos.

You just don't get it. You can say what ever you want - no one will stop you. But if you choose to say things that are deliberately provocative then don't be surprised if you get an even more provocative reaction. If you don't like those consequences then you should rethink your words.

What's that supposed to mean? If I don't like what you say I can punch you in the face? And you deserve it for daring to say things which offend me? No matter how innofensive your statement was? You seem to lack any kind of understanding of what freedom of speech means, or how applying some kind of "offense" censorship, even self-censorship, damages us all as a society and culture. You know, in Farenheit 451, Ray Bradbury's commentary on censorship, books were banned and burned because their stories were considered harmful to the public good. They got people riled up, made them angry about things, discontented with their lot in life. Much better to preserve order and peace by not allowing anything which might, well, offend or disturb people. Incredibly, it sounds to me like you'd be happier in such a world.

Given a choice, I would rather choose words that express my opinion but do not provoke extreme reaction. That way my words are more likely to be heard. Choosing deliberately provocative and/or offensive words simply ensures that I am talking to myself. All those people screaming about 'political correctness' and 'free speech' are guilty of the same extremism that they criticize muslims of.

Oh come on! People defending freedom of speech as are guilty as Muslims who want to kill people who draw cartoons which offend them? How do you equate the desire to be able to express your beliefs and opinions freely with the desire to prohibit people from expressing beliefs and opinions which they find offensive - by murder, if neccessary?

[Riverwind]

Oh it does, does it? So what kind of "punishment" would you give to media which refused to go along with your sweeping censorship laws? And who would enforce these laws?

Where did I call for censorship laws? All I said was the Danish cartoonist should take some responsibility for what happened.

There are lines that should not be crossed. In our culture, almost everyone respects the lines that our culture sets. However, we seem to have a complete blind spot when it comes to lines set by other cultures. I see think this blindness a hypocritical.

[Argus]

...

Furthermore, when a delegation of Danish imams went to the Middle East to discuss the issue of the cartoons with senior officials and prominent Islamic scholars, the imams openly distributed a booklet that showed not only the original 12 cartoons, but three fraudulent anti-Mohammed depictions that were much more offensive than the ones published in Denmark. It is now thought that these three bonus images are what ignited the outrage in the Muslim world. The newspaper Ekstra Bladet obtained a copy of the booklet and presented the three offensive images on its Web site (though not in an easy-to-find place). All look like low-quality photocopies.

link

If true, this would demonstrate a level of treachery and unscrupulous hypocrisy that even the most suspicious of Muslims would have doubted possible on the part of Muslim "citizens" of the west.