So it would seem that its OK for some European newspapers to publish cartoons of Islam's Holy Prophet in, what they call, an exercise of free speech.
I wonder what would happen if they published cartoons about, say,the Holocaust, in the same, denigrating way? Would Jews be OK with that?
Its also quite confusing to note that the same Western countries that are condemning the cartoons, are also the biggest advocates of freedom of expression and coincidentally, the same countries slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Muslims.
I haven't seen the cartoons. The papers here seem more interested in investigating latent and blatant homosexuality among politicians and footballers.
#09 February 2006
Comments...
Well, since you ask ... the quasi-official Iranian newspaper Hamshahri is holding a cartoon contest, inviting readers to contribute shocking and offensive cartoons directed at Westerners, so those of us living in wicked secular nations "will understand how we feel." One of the cartoons published so far depicts Adolf Hitler in bed with Anne Frank. "Be sure to put this in your diary," he tells her.
Does anybody care? Are you shocked and offended? Do you feel like setting fire to the Iranian Embassy, boycotting all products from Iran, stoning people who look like they *might* be Iranian, rioting in the streets, or vowing to avenge in blood this grievous insult to your values? My guess, Ken, is that you do not.
The point is not whether the original cartoon was obnoxious and offensive. People say and write and draw obnoxious, offensive things every day. The question is whether a little newspaper in Denmark -- or you, in this little blog -- has the right to publish freely regardless of whether some readers, somewhere, might take offense. Certainly Muslims are within their rights to express their anger at the cartoon in question (despite the fact that it was printed in a tiny newspaper in a tolerant nation where very few people saw it). Nobody is asking Muslims to be "okay with that," any more than people expects Jews to be "okay" with blatant anti-Semitism.
On the other hand, try as I might, I cannot remember a single incident in which mass uprisings of Jews, encouraged by radical Jewish militants, have resulted in the torching of foreign legations just because a tiny newspaper, somewhere in another country, has printed an anti-Semitic slur. If such things happened, there would likely be no embassies left standing anywhere, in any capital of the world.
Your point about Western countries killing Muslims is, to an extent, worth making -- though by "Western countries" you presumably mean the United States, and "slaughtering hundreds of thousands" is going a bit over the top. Nonetheless, those of us who have for years been deploring the nightmarish misdeeds of the Bush regime cannot help seeing further proof here of what a deadly game these right-wing idiots are playing.
Posted by: wyneken | 2:06pm 9 February 2006
yeah.
i think everything is about context. the point is not that the muslim protesters have overreacted and that these things happen all the time.
the point is WHY have they over-reacted? he answer is the political and cultural context that we live in today has made muslims FEEL vulnerable and persecuted. and there is evidence that shows there has been a rise in islamophobia since 9/11, suggesting muslims ARE more vulerable and increasingly persecuted.
So comparing and contrasting how two different social groups behave is irrelevant as it all depends on the social context. so, it makes sense that white europeans who are not victims of persectution or racial abuse find it easier to freely mock religion and challenge plotical correctness.
take chris morris. hilarious, taboo, challenging. he is white, male, british, educated etc. it is his social context that enables him to find sick shit funny. and so do i. but i have to understand that people from a different cultural and social background will react very differently.
Posted by: | 3:13pm 9 February 2006
To answer your question, I would not feel that way. Firstly because I'm not Jewish. And secondly, and more importantly, as you say, I don't care. I've not put my view forward as I've not seen the drawings, but I don't think it would sway my beliefs in the slightest. I believe in Freedom Of Speech. If you don't like what I say, you can use your own freedom to argue against me. That's the beauty of it. In this case though, I've made no argument, just asked whether the reactions would have been the same had the cartoons targeted a different ethnic/religious group.
You're right about one thing though, its not hundreds of thousands of Muslims who have been slaughtered, but probably more in the region of a million if you take into account the West's policy of laissez-faire in the decade-long Iran-Iraq war (and by the West, I bunch up USA, its close allies, Europe's major players and of course, Israel).
But don't take my word for it, I just write in this 'little blog'. The Lancet published figures for the death toll, just in Iraq, since the 2003 invasion. Here is a link to a BBC article about the research. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
Posted by: ken | 4:44pm 9 February 2006
There are other considerations when it comes to this supposed "outburst" in the Muslim countries. The cartoons were published in September (count it, that was now almost four months ago), yet the reactions have only started a few weeks ago, under the goading of political leaders seeing an opportunity (this isn't my take on the issue, but an Iranian friend of mine's who's very concerned about what is going on both in his country and accross the middle east--according to him and his sources in Middle eastern media, alot of the riots were started through the paying of poor muslims and arabs with the intent of creating an image of a wave of discontent, which obviously has worked).
I have seen cartoons in the west that have made fun of Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Vishnu, Shiva, Krishna, Peter, Paul and Joseph. None resulted in the burning of the newspaper or its country's embassies. Why? Because like most cartoons in newspapers, these were detailing political satire. Satire in politics has always been fairgame, and when religion lends itself to political ideologies and actions, it needs to expect a cerain level of satire leveled its way.
What was the cartoon in question (for those who haven't seen it)? It was a caricature of Mohamed on a cloud looking down saying "you better tell them to cool it with the bombings, we're running out of Virgins." Is this offensive? Of course, as is all satire when you are the brunt of the joke. But the fact remains that terrorists and freedom fighters do use their religion as part of their justification, and therefore bring it into the realm of politics. Nothing should be sacrosanct in politics, else you close the door of debate, just like Bush and Christian fundamentalists are doing with their language of "good and evil". But both Bush and his fanatical supporters have been made fun of in Newspapers, and not just in caricature, but in editorials and full fledged articles...
Now, you do have a point on the Holocaust issue, but you are still allowed to make satirical comments about it, no matter how controversial (which may or may not make your life difficult). What you are not allowed to do by western law (and this will get you arrested) is to deny its existance, which is what the leader of Iran has been saying the last few months, and calling for the mass extermination of jews...
Posted by: Lemonn3 | 9:32pm 11 February 2006
damn son! Good to see you active!
Posted by: ken | 10:10am 13 February 2006
My time has come! And gone...but there will be more!
Posted by: Lemonn3 | 9:17pm 13 February 2006