Those Cartoons Again
Feb. 8th, 2006 01:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynSo, here's my take on the Danish newspaper's cartoons and the responses to it.
*insert random frothing at the mouth about the importance of free speech to a free society here*
...
No, really. When I first heard about it, I considered the tastefulness of making a point by deliberately violating one of the tenets of Islam. But by now I've heard enough people dissing the cartoonists that I no longer feel any need to. Now I want to draw a picture of Mohammad myself. I don't know how I can draw a guy who's been dead for over a millenia and who was deliberately never depicted while alive, but hey, I'm willing to try! By all means, let me offend you!
*insert more frothing here*
Anyway, I read the White House press briefing on the subject, which wasn't nearly as bad as I'd been led to expect, so I'm going to reproduce the relevant portion here.
So, okay, Mr. McClellan does note that 'hate speech = bad' (although I note that he doesn't quite make the leap of saying the cartoons in question were hate speech, mmm, governmentese, read what you like in it) and that "we understand fully why Muslims find the cartoons offensive". But at least he also says the most important part:
In a free society, people have the right to express their views, even when they are offensive and wrong.
Yeah. And you know what? Those people boycotting Danish products and stomping on Danish flags and threatening Danish tourists and burning Danish embassies? Their message is, uniformly, not merely "I find these cartoons offensive" but rather "The Danish government should have stopped them from being published."
And no FREAKIN' way do I have any sympathy for that.
*concluding frothing here*
*insert random frothing at the mouth about the importance of free speech to a free society here*
...
No, really. When I first heard about it, I considered the tastefulness of making a point by deliberately violating one of the tenets of Islam. But by now I've heard enough people dissing the cartoonists that I no longer feel any need to. Now I want to draw a picture of Mohammad myself. I don't know how I can draw a guy who's been dead for over a millenia and who was deliberately never depicted while alive, but hey, I'm willing to try! By all means, let me offend you!
*insert more frothing here*
Anyway, I read the White House press briefing on the subject, which wasn't nearly as bad as I'd been led to expect, so I'm going to reproduce the relevant portion here.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I haven't seen what the regime in Iran has said. I think we've made our views very clear when it comes to the regime. But in terms of the issue relating to the cartoons, we have spoken out about this very issue. We condemn the acts of violence that have taken place. There simply is no justification to engage in violence. We call for constructive and peaceful dialogue based on respect for all religious faiths. Those who disagree with the views have the right to express their views, but they should do so in a peaceful manner. And we urge all governments to take steps to lower tensions and prevent violence, including against diplomatic premises, businesses and individuals.
And let me just make a couple other important comments. We have talked about the need for tolerance and respect for people of all communities and of all faiths. And that's important for everyone to heed. We have also said that we understand fully why Muslims find the cartoons offensive, and we have spoken out about that. In a free society, people have the right to express their views, even when they are offensive and wrong. We support and respect the freedom of press, but there are also important responsibilities that come with that freedom. And that's why we continue to urge tolerant respect for people of all faiths.
We also urge all those who are criticizing or critical of the cartoons to forcefully speak out against all forms of hateful speech, including cartoons and articles that frequently have appeared in the Arab world espousing anti-Semitic and anti-Christian views. So I think those are the points that we would emphasize when it comes to this very issue.
So, okay, Mr. McClellan does note that 'hate speech = bad' (although I note that he doesn't quite make the leap of saying the cartoons in question were hate speech, mmm, governmentese, read what you like in it) and that "we understand fully why Muslims find the cartoons offensive". But at least he also says the most important part:
In a free society, people have the right to express their views, even when they are offensive and wrong.
Yeah. And you know what? Those people boycotting Danish products and stomping on Danish flags and threatening Danish tourists and burning Danish embassies? Their message is, uniformly, not merely "I find these cartoons offensive" but rather "The Danish government should have stopped them from being published."
And no FREAKIN' way do I have any sympathy for that.
*concluding frothing here*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 08:21 pm (UTC)By all means, let them protest, and let them boycott. I have a right to boycott whomever I please, for whatever petty or noble reason I can dream up. Threatening people and burning somebody else's property, though, that's just plain wrong. (Stomping on Danish flags - well, "flag-burning" is an issue I don't really want to get into.)
I would note that several articles on the topic have indicated a general confusion on the part of many of these protesting Muslims, suggesting that they don't understand that the Danish government DID NOT sanction or sponsor any of this. I think some of them have this idea that newspapers are voicepieces for governments or somesuch. (Surely they couldn't have gotten such an idea from any of the free press in certain Middle Eastern countries.)
And I doubt that many of them are really thinking out who should have stopped the cartoons from being published. What they are protesting is that they got published - which would imply, of course, that they would rather they did NOT get published, because they are offended by their existence.
And I'd rather that the "**** Christ" so-called piece of artwork did not exist. (You know, the one with the crucifix in a certain amber-colored liquid.) I'm not going to burn down any embassies or issue death threats against the artist, though. (And contrary to what Ted Rall might think, I don't think that the majority of Christians would do such a thing.)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-09 12:14 am (UTC)Of course I don't think it should be illegal for people to boycott products or to stomp on flags. If they want to boycott Danish products, I'm not going to stop them or suggest that anyone else should make them stop. Whereas threatening people, beating people up, burning embassies, etc, are all acts which should not be tolerated.
But my point is that I don't think any of the responses above are appropriate ways of expressing that the cartoons were offensive. If I do something that offends your sensibilities or your religion, your ire should be directed at me. It should not be directed at my government or my fellow citizens for their failure to prevent my offending you. Boycotting the paper, or the paper's sponsors, would be reasonable responses and I could sympathize with such an approach. But by targetting the country as a whole, they're trying to pressure the Danish government into censoring its press. And that is an unacceptable end, in my view.
But point taken about the protesters not understanding what they're protesting. I agree that most of them have little comprehension of the situation and probably do assume that anything that happens in Denmark is specifically sponsored and encouraged by the Danish government.
However, that ignorance of reality doesn't make the protesters any more right in what they're doing.
The thing about irreconcilable differences....
Date: 2006-02-08 10:20 pm (UTC)By the standards of a sizeable portion of the Muslim population, these drawings represent serious blasphemy. And they are in a society where such a deed receives strict censure if not outright punishment. Malaysia still has laws to prosecute apostate Muslims, for instance.
Most Muslims live in a world of state controlled media, and politically ,most belong not to parties, but factions sorted by identity. And I believe the common view is something like: my faction should be on top, other muslim factions should toe our line, and the rest of the world is just plain wrong for not getting with the program. Their society at least to this point does not have a tradition of democracy nor or truly free discourse.
By their values, they're doing what's right. (though of course, arguably, the ones doing violence unless they got a ruling from an Imam or other scholar or authority are probably violating the Shara'a (sp?).) In general terms if not always specific.
And I'll be clear. I don't like Muslim society. To me, the litmus of a religion is not the values it aspires to, but how it schools its followers _in practice_ on how to live them. It seems to me that the ethical dimension of Islam is even _more_ elusive to its believers than that of Christianity is to most Christians. And that's scary, cause truly ethical people are a small minority as it is.
The point is, whether we admit it or not, we're in a struggle with their worldview, because by their views, their philosophy is supposed to be running the planet. The fact that they do not is viewed with more than a little concern and consternation by many Muslims.
Now, I don't think they're really organized in their struggle for supremacy; in fact, I'm pretty sure they're going to lose. But the point is outbursts like this can be managed (if Western and East Asian society is willing to violate _their_ values on some matters with consistency for the sake of Muslim feelings), but not avoided (because there are enough fundamental differences, that only outright conversion would resolve them).
I think since it is strategically wise to let the Muslims stagnate and be bled dry of fervor by modernization, it would be wise to practice _some_ self censorship. But that is _my_ opinion, and I agree that what they are doing is a clear violation of _our_ values too. But I would also argue this self censorship should have pretty sharp limits, because it should be clear to everyone on our side we're doing this to avoid stirring the hornet's nest, and not because we think their values are superior to ours.
And to conclude, I'll note that I consider the relative desirability of Western to Muslim society to be like comparing terminal cancer to ebola. Cancer wins, but it's still disgusting too.
Re: The thing about irreconcilable differences....
Date: 2006-02-09 12:19 am (UTC)Re: The thing about irreconcilable differences....
Date: 2006-02-09 09:35 am (UTC)Yes,it is extremely dangerous to trust the government to exercise this sort of influence and use it +only+ for "the right reason" (itself a highly debatable definition). And US policy in Iraq and Israel is far more inflamatory than any ripples from "offensive cartoons". But I don't see any way to have a policy that allows Israel to exist or that intervenes in Iraqi government (to prevent a civil war, a laudible goal) which _doesn't_ inflame Moslem opinion. The whole situation is a powderkeg while we're still in transition away from oil.
Normally, I don't believe in "sweating the small stuff" on international policy anymore. (yes, quite a shift for me.) But when so much is out of our hands on something this big, I think we have to grasp at the few things we have control over.
However, such measures would _have_ to be paired with some sort of firm and meaningful oversight from someone _not_ connected to the executive branch. Preferably a quasi-independent office of the judiciary would be best, immo.
Perhaps I am being unrealistic in assuming a quiet but firm manipulation of publication could be arranged at all; I guess I'm just stating that I don't think many (if any) of the rights in the legal system are _absolute_.
However, it is possible that we're still too immature as a society to create organs to enforce self discipline and prudence in the exercise of deciding what is an exception and how to deal with it.
I suppose much as I hate the State, given that it's not going to go away, I'd prefer it act firmly in the cases where it is obvious the welfare of the State is at stake. And I'm willing to risk mistakes, because our collective behaviour already creates attrocity in the rest of the world; we might as well get the most benefit out of it that we can.
Re: The thing about irreconcilable differences....
Date: 2006-02-09 02:23 am (UTC)This is true for nearly all Muslim nations, as far as I know, and is written specifically into the new Palestinian constitution.
Most Muslims live in a world of state controlled media, and politically ,most belong not to parties, but factions sorted by identity.
Very true. With surprisingly low literacy rates -- I suspect that in that situation, television is a way to instill a state-sponsored way of thinking with little real (and no legal) competition.
And there is another issue tucked into this -- the group of imams who have been stirring this pot for months, calling for these reactions, are fabricating their own much more offensive cartoons (one's real source has already been exposed as being from France and was completely innocent).
And, of course, you have the cartoons that have long appeared in the Muslim state-controlled media you refer to. Methinks they protest too much. ]:-/
And if Muhammed's face cannot be shown -- why did these cartoons appear in a Muslim-controlled Egyptian newspaper months ago?
===|==============/ Level Head
Re: The thing about irreconcilable differences....
Date: 2006-02-09 04:10 am (UTC)I suspect that in that situation, television is a way to instill a state-sponsored way of thinking with little real (and no legal) competition.
We should be totally setting up pirate TV channels and showing Sesame Street and shit, and radio stations playing golden oldies...
Re: The thing about irreconcilable differences....
Date: 2006-02-09 04:54 am (UTC)===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 11:19 pm (UTC)However, no has decided quite what that moral high ground is.
It seems many liberals are condemning free speech as going too far when it comes to criticizing Religeon. (This seems a position that they're unaccustomed to being in.) Others are complaining that the cartoons were censored in the American Press.
It seems Conservatives are defending the right to be offended while decrying the violence as all out of proportion.
It's interesting. I think people are having to think for themselves on this one. It's not an issue that's come up in this way before, and there are no pre-programmed liberal or conservative preconcieved postures to default to.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-09 02:13 am (UTC)I was listening to talk radio, and hating it. They were going on about Google and such. I generally haven't liked the talk shows in a while. Then they got on this subject, and while I entirely disliked how they were saying it, I found I agreed.
One point was that the people who usually have brain anyurisms over Pat Robertson were saying we should be sensitive to the muslim view.
Also, as Prester Scott mentioned, despite claims to respect other people's symbols, the Danish flag is a Christian cross and there is no problem with defileing that.
Very few news sources are telling that the vast majority of these protestors have not seen the cartoons they're against. Also, that a Danish Imam who agreed to help calm things in Dec/Jan went and stirred things up, with pictures that never were printed.
It's like... The whole world is suddenly Canadian. When did the US stop doing the Duke routine with "We've got the Bomb". At least Condalesa Rice called out Syria and Iran for making things worse. These protests suit their local governments, it should be noted that things seem to be quieter in the well adjusted muslim nations.
So far as things seem to be shaking out, the message is this: If you want a non believer to respect your religion, threaten to kill them at every offense. I'm still of the opinion that no Religion gets a veto on non-believer behavior. Everyone that feels otherwise... You don't get to have meat on Fridays anymore.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-09 02:29 am (UTC)It's like... The whole world is suddenly Canadian.
Man, I would never have said that! I've got friends from there! ];-)
I'm still of the opinion that no Religion gets a veto on non-believer behavior.
That, indeed, was the cartoon Muhammed's point in one of the cartoons, the "Relax, guys, he's a non-believer" one.
Everyone that feels otherwise... You don't get to have meat on Fridays anymore. Perhaps it is only meet.
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2006-02-10 02:24 pm (UTC)But yes, it's very obvious that the riots are being encouraged.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-09 04:06 am (UTC)It's got to totally blow to have this be what people are seeing of your culture. Like if some guy was arrested for serial arson of pet shops or something, and he kept saying "I did it becuase I'm a furry!" and with media repetition that's what everyone thought of when they thought of furries. Gah.
A really deep thought
Date: 2006-02-11 08:35 pm (UTC)provides access
Date: 2011-01-18 12:49 pm (UTC)