The Left, Denmark, Cartoon & Mahommet

[August1991]

Individual "Leftists" have different opinions and support different causes. But I think the Left fits a certain generalization.

The Left likes to champion the rights of the oppressed against dominant forces.

Once, this meant nationalizing the economy and creating socialism. The purpose was to protect exploited workers against rich capitalists. Now, for example, the modern Left has taken up social liberal causes - the defense of minority gays and others against majority social conservatives.

This cartoon business poses a contradiction for the Left.

The Left wants to defend the oppressed minority of Muslims against the dominant philosophy of Western liberal values. To do this however, the Left looks absurd defending the rank social conservatism and sheer ignorance of the mullahs - in direct contradiction of its support for oppressed women, for example.

The core problem here is that "dominant" and "oppressed" are arbitrary terms. The Left's language of "power politics" and "class relations" is hollow. An individual can be a member of a so-called dominant group in one circumstance and a member of a so-called oppressed group in another.

These cartoons, and the reaction to them, have made it difficult for the Left to decide who is the underdog, and so the Left doesn't know who to defend, or how. It is almost comical reading the various contortions some Leftists have taken trying to justify a viewpoint. Many have simply avoided the issue, or simply ignored the obvious contradiction.

An ideology based on group behaviour (and not individual behaviour) is bound to lead to contradictions since groups don't act, individuals do. Basing an ideology on such an ill-defined, arbitrary group as "oppressed people" will quickly be fraught with incoherence.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

A rather pathetic post, I am surprised at you.

An individual can be a member of a so-called dominant group in one circumstance and a member of a so-called oppressed group in another.

Let's take David Geffen, for example (as Joni Mitchell did in her song "Free Man in Paris"), who is rich, white and gay. You seem to be suggesting that 'the left' only supports Geffen's right to marry another man because it is a fashionably 'underdog' thing to do, but would think twice of Geffen's situation because the rest of him fits a 'conservative' mold. I support same-sex marriage regardless of who is involved (so long as it is consenting, sane adults).

These cartoons, and the reaction to them, have made it difficult for the Left to decide who is the underdog, and so the Left doesn't know who to defend, or how. It is almost comical reading the various contortions some Leftists have taken trying to justify a viewpoint. Many have simply avoided the issue, or simply ignored the obvious contradiction.

As I have said in another thread, Muslims should have the right to boycott goods, or stage demonstrations, or even print Holocaust cartoons, but should not have the right to resort to violence. Violence should only be legitimized if they so choose to declare war over the issue.

[Liam]

These cartoons, and the reaction to them, have made it difficult for the Left to decide who is the underdog, and so the Left doesn't know who to defend, or how. It is almost comical reading the various contortions some Leftists have taken trying to justify a viewpoint. Many have simply avoided the issue, or simply ignored the obvious contradiction.

I have yet to see one "Leftist" opinion (or "Rightist" opinion, for that matter) on the Mohammed/Denmark cartoon issue. If anything, silence on the Left is not the result of confusion, but rather a lack of understanding of a practice the Right has long ago learned and applied: that you shout out about what is so clearly wrong. If you don't, you can be accused with either being confused or woefully out of touch.

The Left often assumes the public is smart enough to know when something's wrong when it sees it (rioting, violence in the name of religion, rallies against artistic freedom or freedom of the press, mindless adherence to clearly improper government activity... the list is endless), yet the Right hops on its soapbox on every issue -- and is often the most vocal when right and wrong are so clearly and easily separated into two camps. As far as this cartoon issue goes, you haven't heard from the Left all that much because it's so obvious to us that the rioters are in the wrong.

[geoffrey]

These cartoons, and the reaction to them, have made it difficult for the Left to decide who is the underdog, and so the Left doesn't know who to defend, or how. It is almost comical reading the various contortions some Leftists have taken trying to justify a viewpoint. Many have simply avoided the issue, or simply ignored the obvious contradiction.

I have yet to see one "Leftist" opinion (or "Rightist" opinion, for that matter) on the Mohammed/Denmark cartoon issue. If anything, silence on the Left is not the result of confusion, but rather a lack of understanding of a practice the Right has long ago learned and applied: that you shout out about what is so clearly wrong. If you don't, you can be accused with either being confused or woefully out of touch.

The Left often assumes the public is smart enough to know when something's wrong when it sees it (rioting, violence in the name of religion, rallies against artistic freedom or freedom of the press, mindless adherence to clearly improper government activity... the list is endless), yet the Right hops on its soapbox on every issue -- and is often the most vocal when right and wrong are so clearly and easily separated into two camps. As far as this cartoon issue goes, you haven't heard from the Left all that much because it's so obvious to us that the rioters are in the wrong.

Heres a small-l liberal point of view. Publish whatever you want to publish. If you don't like what you see, don't read the damned thing.

[August1991]

Let's take David Geffen, for example (as Joni Mitchell did in her song "Free Man in Paris"), who is rich, white and gay. You seem to be suggesting that 'the left' only supports Geffen's right to marry another man because it is a fashionably 'underdog' thing to do, but would think twice of Geffen's situation because the rest of him fits a 'conservative' mold.

Well, the Left certainly wants to tax the bejeesus out of Geffen and I don't think he's going to benefit from any affirmative action policies anytime soon. So, yeah, gay is it. Conrad Black is rich, white and straight - and we know what the Left thinks of him.

Seriously though Thelonious, the North American Left has migrated over the past 20 years or so from "socialism" (ie. nationalization of the economy) to social issues such as gay rights and abortion. I suspect the Left knows it has lost the economic arguments so it now seeks support, particularly among young people, on libertarian ideals.

As I have said in another thread, Muslims should have the right to boycott goods, or stage demonstrations, or even print Holocaust cartoons, but should not have the right to resort to violence. Violence should only be legitimized if they so choose to declare war over the issue.

But Thelonious, how do you, yourself, feel about the cartoons? Do you think the Prophet deserves to be mocked and ridiculed?

Dear August1991,

A rather pathetic post, I am surprised at you.

I thought it was one of my better efforts, although I could have explained my idea with better style.

[August1991]

I have yet to see one "Leftist" opinion (or "Rightist" opinion, for that matter) on the Mohammed/Denmark cartoon issue. If anything, silence on the Left is not the result of confusion, but rather a lack of understanding of a practice the Right has long ago learned and applied: that you shout out about what is so clearly wrong. If you don't, you can be accused with either being confused or woefully out of touch.

The Left often assumes the public is smart enough to know when something's wrong when it sees it (rioting, violence in the name of religion, rallies against artistic freedom or freedom of the press, mindless adherence to clearly improper government activity... the list is endless), yet the Right hops on its soapbox on every issue -- and is often the most vocal when right and wrong are so clearly and easily separated into two camps. As far as this cartoon issue goes, you haven't heard from the Left all that much because it's so obvious to us that the rioters are in the wrong.

You're joking, right? Zerbias, Siddiqui and Kinsella have all stated that it was wrong and provocative to publish the cartoons and that it should be illegal to publish such cartoons in Canada. You can go to rabble where there are numerous threads arguing that the "context" of the cartoons justifies Muslim's reactions since Europeans are Imperialists. In those threads, you will find a few people debating but many posters not participating on either side - teh same posters who readily describe Bush Jnr as a knuckle-dragging born again ape.

To say the Left (or the Right) never jumps on a soapbox is absurd.

And jumping on a soapbox now, let me say that the rioters are one thing; the publication of the cartoons another. I say "question authority" at all times. "Speak Truth to Power". Ridicule authority if need be.

----

I believe this cartoon business has put the Left in a quandary and I have suggested above an analysis of why this is so. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Left is just a modern version of the 1930s French socialists.

IMV, the Left should not make an ideology out of defending oppressed people. If it does so, it will find that the exact same people, in another situation, are very dominant - and the Left will look silly or incoherent.

I frankly think the Left should pursue the protection of the environment angle, combined with a pragmatic recognition of what governments do well. But that's not for me to decide.

I will add that I think the Left has lost support in the West on this issue. Centrist, thinking Europeans and North Americans can see what is at stake here, and the Left is obscure and hypocritical. For those centrists who see this in "us" vs "them" terms, the Left just looks undependable.

----

Lastly, we must find a way to stand up to these radical Islamic fundamentalists who have travelled in time from the 14th century to the modern day. Ridicule is often the best way to deal with fanatics because they are so earnest and self-obsessed, they can only understand sarcasm but rarely irony.

There are many secular, educated Muslims who are silenced now:

I only saw these images of Muslim protestors in London today. For the life of me, I cannot understand how the British police let those demonstrators get away with it. The protestors are blasting free speech in Europe, yet they are using that same free speech to call for murder and bloodshed. I would strongly support deporting those people back to the miserable societies they originally came from.

Healing Iraq blog

You know that those cartoons were published for the 1st time months ago and we here in the Middle East have tonnes of jokes about Allah, the prophets and the angels that are way more offensive, funny and obscene than those poorly-made cartoons, yet no one ever got shot for telling one of those jokes or at least we had never seen rallies and protests against those infidel joke-tellers.

Another Blog

A good link with more cartoons.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

I suspect the Left knows it has lost the economic arguments so it now seeks support, particularly among young people, on libertarian ideals.

No, the 'left' has not lost the economic arguments, they will continue for a long time to come. Canada, as well as many other socialist countries, continue to have far more equtiable and generally high standards of living compared to most other countries. ( I can go to a local farmer's market, and/or to some Hutterites, and get a month's worth of potatoes or onions for less than 1% of my paycheque)

I frankly think the Left should pursue the protection of the environment angle, combined with a pragmatic recognition of what governments do well.

We also do that. Often, admittedly, not pragmatically enought...but this applies to both sides.

There was another point you had made towards Liam, but I either cannot see it or my recollection is bad...did you edit it at all?

[Riverwind]

You can go to rabble where there are numerous threads arguing that the "context" of the cartoons justifies Muslim's reactions since Europeans are Imperialists.

There are different shades of opinion. No matter what the (non-violent) provocation is violence is never an acceptable response. However, the appalling reaction of Muslims does not mean the cartoonists were right to print to cartoons in the first place.

I have noticed a striking similarity between the anti-Japanese protests in China over a Japanese text book and the current protests over the cartoon. In both cases, citizens in countries where political protest is normally strictly controlled are allowed to go wild protesting 'foreigners'. Embassies are attacked. Innocent people hurt and property destroyed. In both cases, these protests are quietly encouraged by the authorities because they know letting the population get mad at foreigners means the population won't care too much about the abuses of the local authorities.

The biggest difference is China cracked down once it realized that the protests were damaging its trade relationship with Japan. No such incentive exists in Muslims countries so the authorities see no reason to restrain the protests.

The scale and scope of these protests lead me to believe that they are not rooted in any real outrage over the cartoons but they are simply a result of political opportunism.

[geoffrey]

Freedom of expression and the press is a the cornerstone of democracy. Just because someone doesn't like it doens't mean we have to undermine our system. No one is forced to look at anything, change the channel, turn the page.

Go ahead newspapers! Publish away!!

Don't these Muslims realise they are just adding to the stereotypes when they go torching embassies and shooting people in massive riots?

[Liam]

Freedom of expression and the press is a the cornerstone of democracy. Just because someone doesn't like it doens't mean we have to undermine our system. No one is forced to look at anything, change the channel, turn the page.

Go ahead newspapers! Publish away!!

Don't these Muslims realise they are just adding to the stereotypes when they go torching embassies and shooting people in massive riots?

Agreed.

[YankAbroad]

As a libertarian, I have to take issue with this statist concept, on both the left and the right, that a cartoon, article, book or film can be a "provocation" which justifies violence to any degree.

That's a control tactic and justification of criminal activity, plain and simple.

Americans are bashed in cartoons and articles all the time. Does that give us the "right" to nuke critics?

I see gays ripped apart in cartoons, articles, etc. all over the world. Do I and 5,000 other gays have the right to torch the Iranian embassy in Ottawa to show our rage? Would we have people rushing to the fore to condemn Iran for its "insensitive" words on gays and systematic execution of thousands of gay people over the last two years? Doubtful.

The price of a free society is that, often, people will express opinions, ideas or concepts which make you uncomfortable. If you assert a "right not to be offended," then you also assert a right for anyone else to deem you offensive and restrict your liberties -- ergo, you automatically sentence yourself and society to existence in an unfree world.

[August1991]

No, the 'left' has not lost the economic arguments, they will continue for a long time to come. Canada, as well as many other socialist countries, continue to have far more equtiable and generally high standards of living compared to most other countries. ( I can go to a local farmer's market, and/or to some Hutterites, and get a month's worth of potatoes or onions for less than 1% of my paycheque)

We don't hear anymore about "commanding heights" of the economy. No one wants to create another Petro-Canada. Parents want to be able to choose a school for their kids. And of course, the Soviet Union collapsed.

Thelonious, the Left has lost the economic argument.

[August1991]

You can go to rabble where there are numerous threads arguing that the "context" of the cartoons justifies Muslim's reactions since Europeans are Imperialists.

There are different shades of opinion. No matter what the (non-violent) provocation is violence is never an acceptable response. However, the appalling reaction of Muslims does not mean the cartoonists were right to print to cartoons in the first place.

On rabble now, there is a thread debating whether "honour-killings" are a legitimate form of cultural expression and why we in the West should be "sensitive" to the "context" of "oppressed" peoples who, having suffered from Western imperialism and domination, deserve to have their culture respected.

IOW, this old-Left has not only lost the economic argument, it is also clueless.

Fortunately, this old-Left only teaches in universities and posts on Internet forums. Most university students roll their eyes while placating the professors; the Internet forums are erudite, feel-good pubs for participants - and sources of comedy for others, if politically-inclined.

In crass political terms, the NDP and the US Democrats are permanently down - IMO - about 5% because of this cartoon nonsense, and the North American Left's reaction to it.

I have noticed a striking similarity between the anti-Japanese protests in China over a Japanese text book and the current protests over the cartoon.

According to you, in your scenario, who is China and who is Japan?

The scale and scope of these protests lead me to believe that they are not rooted in any real outrage over the cartoons but they are simply a result of political opportunism.

Maybe, but probably not. IMO, the frustration you see on newsreports is genuine, and not a product of regime-manufactured political opportunism. But if you look carefully at the news reports or photographs, you will see no women.

For a westerner, the striking feature of a walk down any ordinary street in Tehran, Amman or Riyadh, even Damascus or Beirut or Cairo, is the absence of women. Some Western women and men find this ennervating but most find it irritating. It is certainly not normal. IMO, a society that hides one sex from view is likely to be sexually frustrated.

[Liam]

You're joking, right? Zerbias, Siddiqui and Kinsella have all stated that it was wrong and provocative to publish the cartoons and that it should be illegal to publish such cartoons in Canada.

Not being Canadian, I don't know who those individuals are. I should have made more clear that my comments re: the Left were with regard to "the Left" here in the US, which is probably more akin to the middle of the road in Canada. The Canadian "Left"?... nah, I'm not even going to go there.

[Black Dog]

I wonder, August, how the conciliatory tone adopted by conservative leaders in places like the U.S., Australia and even Denmark jives with your version of leftist mollycoddling. The Bush administration's statements, for example, are awash in the language of cultural sensitivity and iolerance that you'd expect from a group of Berkley young Marxists not the POTUSA.

[Riverwind]

I have noticed a striking similarity between the anti-Japanese protests in China over a Japanese text book and the current protests over the cartoon.

According to you, in your scenario, who is China and who is Japan?

I thought it was obvious. A single text book out of many has a few passages that offend the Chinese. The Chinese respond with violent protests. The Japanese defend themselves by saying the Chinese have no business trying to control what is in Japanese text books and point out that Chinese text books are not shining examples of objectivity either.

The parallels are there. The only difference is both sides had a vested interest in resolving the issue peacefully as soon as possible. In the West-Muslim dispute too many people have too much to gain by inflaming the issue as much as possible.

[August1991]

I wonder, August, how the conciliatory tone adopted by conservative leaders in places like the U.S., Australia and even Denmark jives with your version of leftist mollycoddling. The Bush administration's statements, for example, are awash in the language of cultural sensitivity and iolerance that you'd expect from a group of Berkley young Marxists not the POTUSA.

BD, it is rather ironic to see rabble agree with Bush, no?

You make a good point.

----

I saw remarks from the State Department, Jack Straw and our own new MFA, Mackay.

If I understand properly, the comments said nothing about freedom of speech but merely asked people to be polite or respectful to one another.

I think this just reiterates what the US Constitution says: Congress should do nothing to hinder free speech. It is up to individuals to decide what is acceptable speech or not.

Nevertheless, I pine for the clear thinking of a Margaret Thatcher. I suspect that Bush et al don't want to provoke a situation now but would prefer to deal with it at a time of their choosing. That is almost an admission of the success of the extortion: Stop insulting our prophet or you'll suffer the consequences.

Bush could also be just a fundamentalist-type who views insults to religion as, well, blasphemous. Dunno.

----

The reaction of different people to this story is interesting. In Quebec, the opinion has been largely unanimous. Le Devoir, alone among Canadian newspapers, published all 12 cartoons.

[August1991]

A single text book out of many has a few passages that offend the Chinese. The Chinese respond with violent protests. The Japanese defend themselves by saying the Chinese have no business trying to control what is in Japanese text books and point out that Chinese text books are not shining examples of objectivity either.

A fascist, aggressive Japan attacked China in the 1930s, committing untold atrocities in such cities as Nanking, with a goal to creating a "Co-Prosperity Zone".

I see no parallel between Denmark and any Islamic country. If anything, the Europeans assisted in the liberation of Arabia from Ottoman rule.

In any case, the Chinese just wanted the Japanese to teach all sides of the story. I don't think that's a problem in Denmark, or Canada.

The radical Islamic fundamentalists want us to shut up. The Chinese want the Japanese to speak.

[Michael Hardner]

Thelonious, the Left has lost the economic argument.

Sorry, August, but the Conservative party is far to the left of any government in power during the depression, when socialism started to take off. For that matter, the NDP is fiscally to the right of many right-wing parties from 40-50 years ago.

All mainstream parties are today converging on a hybrid, a political "sweet spot" wherein a social safety net exists, but business and success is encouraged.

[Riverwind]

I see no parallel between Denmark and any Islamic country.

Japan is a peaceful democratic country that fully embraces the principle of free speech. China is hostile tolitarian state that has an almost psychotic obession with preventing free speech.

A fascist, aggressive Japan attacked China in the 1930s, committing untold atrocities in such cities as Nanking, with a goal to creating a "Co-Prosperity Zone".

The Chinese gov't is not interested in seeing an objective history written because that history would have to note that the Japanese Army had the co-operation of the Chinese Communists who were already fighting with Chinese govt at the time. The Chinese govt also does not teach it students about the millions of Chinese massacred by the Communists.

If anything, the Europeans assisted in the liberation of Arabia from Ottoman rule.

The 'liberation' from Ottoman rule is not seen as a good thing in any Muslim country. Quite the reverse actually - it is seen as yet another humilation of Muslims at the hands of the infidels from Europe.

In any case, the Chinese just wanted the Japanese to teach all sides of the story.

That statement is laughable. The Chinese have absolute no interest in teaching all sides of the story. The Chinese govt is notorious for rewritting its own history books to suit its pursposes. Furthermore, the text book in question was used in a no more than 1% of Japanese schools and was a subject of controvesy in Japan even before it made headlines around the world. It is quite likely the text would have been changed simply because of healthy political dissent within Japan.

The international attention was insulting to many Japanese because they felt they should have been left to deal with it themselves.

The radical Islamic fundamentalists want us to shut up. The Chinese want the Japanese to speak.

Chinese want Japan to say only things that China approves of. China does not want Japanese to say things that challange the version of history that the Chinese govt finds convenient. It is no different than what the Muslims are trying to do.

[August1991]

Look, Sparhawk, I won't be drawn into an argument about the merits of China's case. As I understand it, the Japanese have not fully admitted the atrocities committed in the past in the same way that, say, the Germans have. It is not only the Chinese who were victims of Japanese aggression.

More pertinently, you seem to be drawing some kind of parallel, China=Middle East and Japan=Denmark. (Have I got that right?) I am saying that the parallel doesn't exist.

I gather that you want to draw this parallel to support the argument that, well, what is your argument?

----

The heart of the issue here is that a privately-owned Danish newspaper printed some cartoons. Some radical Islamic fundamentalists threatened to kill the cartoonists and so the cartoonists have gone into hiding, fearing for their lives. Others are now fearful to speak freely.

I am not quite certain how this is related to China and Japan except that people in different countries have been offended by publications elewhere.

[August1991]

Thelonious, the Left has lost the economic argument.

Sorry, August, but the Conservative party is far to the left of any government in power during the depression, when socialism started to take off. For that matter, the NDP is fiscally to the right of many right-wing parties from 40-50 years ago.

All mainstream parties are today converging on a hybrid, a political "sweet spot" wherein a social safety net exists, but business and success is encouraged.

I was referring to the old-Left argument, circa Harold Wilson, of the State owning and managing all the means of production. It was referred to as nationalizing all major industries. The Soviet Union achieved that.

Edward Heath and Valery Giscard d'Estaing, both Conservatives, were dirigiste in a way that, say, Stephen Harper is not. David Lewis pushed for nationalizing industries. Jack Layton does not. (As I noted above, Layton defends gay rights and pro-choice feminists. He has spoken about "protecting" public health care.)

But, as I say, the best evidence is that the collapse of the Soviet Union largely destroyed the old Left economic argument.

----

BTW, I never said that governments should not exist. Governments have an important role to play in an economy. I am not a Libertarian.

IMV, we are still struggling to determine what governments should do and how they should do it.

[Riverwind]

As I understand it, the Japanese have not fully admitted the atrocities committed in the past in the same way that, say, the Germans have.

This is a falsehood that has been created by the same biased media that you accuse of being apologists for Muslims. We can leave that debate for another day.

More pertinently, you seem to be drawing some kind of parallel, China=Middle East and Japan=Denmark. (Have I got that right?) I am saying that the parallel doesn't exist.

Violant protests as a result of words printed in another country and demands that freedom of speech be limited in order to avoid offending others. You may disagree with what was written in the Japanese text books but to be consistent you would have to defend the right of the Japanese to print what they want and condemn the Chinese for not accepting the Japanese right to express themselves.

[Michael Hardner]

But, as I say, the best evidence is that the collapse of the Soviet Union largely destroyed the old Left economic argument.

----

BTW, I never said that governments should not exist. Governments have an important role to play in an economy. I am not a Libertarian.

IMV, we are still struggling to determine what governments should do and how they should do it.

Indeed, let "us" struggle together, having learned that the extremes of left- and right- belong to the past. Let's find ways that we can bring more people into a pragmatic discussion of what is the best course.

Thank you !

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

Indeed, let "us" struggle together, having learned that the extremes of left- and right- belong to the past. Let's find ways that we can bring more people into a pragmatic discussion of what is the best course.

Well said. Indeed, virtually every society is 'economically and socio-morally blended', to various degrees.

I was going to argue to August1991 that the Left has not 'lost the economic argument', since no 'pure' experiment has taken place. Further, many societies, including Canada's vehemently support things that are left economically', including health care, regulated energy prices, and state-owned or arbitrated easement.

I do believe that you and August1991 are both right, that extremes and absolutes are now moot, but that leaves us with another conundrum...if 'too many cooks spoil the broth', whom should be head chef?