Thursday, February 02, 2006
EU offices closed over cartoons
Members of the defeated Fatah faction in Palestine have closed the EU offices in Gaza as part of a protest against three European papers which have published what some Muslims regard as blasphemous representations of the prophet Muhammad in cartoon form. The issue blogging here.
Mick Fealty @ 12:58 PM
Harry,
I have seen the cartoons and nothing you have said has convinced me that they are not racist. As I pointed out, they can’t be separated from the wider political context which has fuelled the reaction to them, a context which has severe racist overtones emanating from both sides.
Racism, in its earliest forms, made the argument that humanity was divided into biologically distinct groups called races. People argued, and some still do, that reproduction between people of different ‘races’ produced inferior human beings.
Thankfully that notion has been well and truly disproved. As early as the late 1940s a United Nations scientific report stated that there is no biological evidence to prove that biologically distinct races exist. The onset of the field of genetics has provided new and seemingly unassailable evidence to disprove it.
The biological argument, however, remained in vogue for many years amongst the right, but in the 1970s the nature of racism began to change. Rather than making the biological argument for ‘racial’ segregation, the focus switched to cultural differences.
This change coincided, to a large degree, with the growing concept of ethnicity, which explained the differences in the human family in terms of ethnic factors, rather than race.
The factors which are considered to make up an ethnic group are, for example, language, skin colour, religion, a shared sense of history, a link to a particular geographical area and others.
Racists began to argue that people should not mingle as the mixing of cultures was detrimental to the peoples involved. Rather than preserving the purity of racial bloodlines, we were told by many on the right that we needed to protect ‘our way of life’.
We often hear the discussions about cultural differences between the West centering on issues such as the treatment of women and the excercising of ‘democracy’. We often hear about the stonings and lynching and the beheadings which are practiced in state judical systems in Islamic countries and these differences are often used to drive a wedge between us.
One difference which we don’t hear a great deal about, but which I think informs much of the West’s attitude to Islam is the Islamic ban on usury, or money lending, which is a central component to capitalism.
All of the above is the modern context into which these cartoons have dropped. The ‘clash of cultures’ which we hear about so often in relation to the conflict between the West and Islam is soaked in racism.
Therefore I continue to argue that these cartoons are indeed racist.
Posted by on Feb 04, 2006 @ 06:23 AMGee thanks Dualta for that long boring exposition on what constitutes racism. So what you’re basically saying is that “racism” hasn’t actually got anything to do with hating other races (the heretofore accepted definition of the word) but in fact is now defined as anything that is critical of anyone else. Hmmmm, not sure that’s going to work.
“Racism” is just a handy debate silencer, when someone says something in an argument you don’t like but you can’t disprove you can always howl “racist!” and he’ll have to shut up. You say you’ve seen the cartoons but in a previous statement you said “every one of them depicted Muslims and Mohammed as scowling slavering bestial Arabs”, now would you like to look at them again and see if you can stand over that assertion. Only one of them remotely comes near that description, the rest are fairly inocuous cartoons.
This is a big world and while we are allowed to criticise the United States military, the British Tory party, the Catholic church, Sinn Fein, the Womens’ Institute or anything else for that matter then we are fully entitled to criticise Islam too without being shouted down as Islamophobic or racist, look up the word “Voltaire” in Google, you might find it interesting.
PS Dualta, will you ever get a grip about Muslims not being involved in money lending, that’s a joke right? If not, you really need to get out more and actually meet some Muslims, take it from me my friend, I live in a predominantly Muslim society and they lend money with interest, you better believe they do!
Posted by on Feb 04, 2006 @ 08:58 AM‘’I live here in Canada, and I have friends of various faiths and no faith at all. But we all at least respect each others faiths and don’t do anything that we know would upset those friends of another faith.’’
I take your point Harpo, and I agree that everyone should have their faith (or lack of it) respected and tolerated. Sadly Islam does not take such a humanitarian stance.
In the immediate aftermath of 7/7 here, the silence from ordinary muslims was deafening. You might have expected massive protest marches, boycotting and ostrasciation of radical mosques and immams, but all we got was a few ‘tut-tuts’ and ‘yes buts’. The contrast with the frankly hysterical and childish reaction to a few frankly childish cartoons could hardly be more marked.What us horrible western secularists want is a level playing field. Jews, Roman Catholics, Hindus and Buddhists can take a joke, so what’s the problem with Muslims? Do they expect us to tacitly accept that their belief system is somehow more valid than ours? If their beliefs are so strong and their God is so just, they should realise that it is their own actions that matter, not those of others. The ‘infidels’ will presumably be punished in some afterlife, while they will receive their eternal reward for their faith. Ridiculing others is a basic if unpleasant human trait, and no group is, or should be exempt, particularly when a radical section of that group has declared a holy war on everyone else.
I seem to recall a recent news article on Canada where sharia law was to be allowed to run in certain parts of the country. Do you think it would be possible for western law to be practiced in selected parts of Iran? Could you build a church or chapel there?
Islam is based on intolerance—intolerance of women’s rights, gay rights, free speech and other faiths. If you allow Islam to have one law for itself and total freedom from ridicule, you are giving it an unjustified higher status and the presumed assumption that you are too weak to argue. Muslims have a right to practice their faith, but it is no better than anyone else’s and if they’re too precious to take a joke, that’s their problem not ours.Posted by on Feb 04, 2006 @ 10:00 AMHarry,
So what you’re basically saying is that “racism” hasn’t actually got anything to do with hating other races (the heretofore accepted definition of the word) but in fact is now defined as anything that is critical of anyone else. Hmmmm, not sure that’s going to work.
That’s is absolutely nothing approximating what I just posted Harry and I’ll not restate it seeing that you would be even more bored having to read it a second time, but please do me the courtesy of reading my posts properly before shooting from the hip.
This is a big world and while we are allowed to criticise the United States military, the British Tory party, the Catholic church, Sinn Fein, the Womens’ Institute or anything else for that matter then we are fully entitled to criticise Islam too without being shouted down as Islamophobic or racist
As I posted before in this thread Harry, criticising people’s behaviour and insulting their religious beliefs are two different things entirely. I do not believe is is justified to depict Christ, Bhudda, Mohammed or any other diety in a way which is disrespectful to the private beliefs of individuals.
I do, however, as I have posted before in this thread, consider it perfectly acceptable to take issue, through satire or other means, with the behaviour of religionists. I’ll qualify that by stating that behaviour which is fair game should not be the private kind, such as praying, but which has an effect on wider society.
Posted by on Feb 04, 2006 @ 10:16 AMOn another point Harry,
I never said anywhere in anything that I have posted before that Muslims do not get involved in money lending. What I posted is that Islam prohibits it.The Christian faith prohibits murder, adultery, theft and a whole plethora of activities, but as sure as the sun shines from on high, some Christian people are guilty of many of the above.
So you can rest assured Harry that I have no need whatsoever to ‘get a grip’ about the issue of some Muslims being involved in usury.
I’m sure many of them are, but that does not diminish my argument one jot, or enhance yours.
Posted by on Feb 04, 2006 @ 10:30 AMHow many more Western institutions have to be attacked, and razed to the ground before its governments, media, and populations see the utter stupidity of what they are allowing in the name of free expression and press freedom?
Posted by on Feb 06, 2006 @ 08:49 AMDualta
I do not believe is is justified to depict Christ, Bhudda, Mohammed or any other diety in a way which is disrespectful to the private beliefs of individuals.
That’s fine but the question is do you think your belief should be the last word on the subject. If someone disagees and makes such a depiction are they not entitled to the protection of our concept of free speech?
Because if your view is the principle then debate becomes an impossibility on a whole range of subjects. I hold a private belief that the 1916 rising was a good thing and have debated the subject here. But on the basis of what your saying I could not bother with the debate and simply claim all criticism of the rising to be disrespectful. People might laugh at first but slaughter a few journalists and the rest would come into line fairly fast. That’s how it’s working for Islam.
When this fuss dies down the outcome will be that no such cartoon will ever be published again. We have lost a bit of our freedom this week and we have shown that we can be intimidated.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2006 @ 09:08 AMHow much longer, Henry 94 et al., are you going to go on with your drivel about defending free speech regarding the outrageous cartoons when people are now dying over the results of their repeated publication which are just expanding terrorism?
You are simply madmen in the global theatre who are spreading panic by your provocative demands.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2006 @ 09:37 AMThis post has raced away very quickly but actually I have called on Mick Fealty to cover this issue a week ago, and I could not figure out why it was not being posted here. Just the biggest and most significant story certainly since Rushdie.
I still cannot figure out Fealty’s reluctance and what lies behind it.
And while this was raging around the world and I was searching his site to see his coverage he actually posted the following:
“The Impartial Reporter carries an appeal for stories of smuggling and border life in general. And not necessarily controversial contemporary stories, but ones which chart an important part of border life from 1921 up to the present day.”
Do I have to comment!
I think that what has happened is that the story has become just too big that Fealty and his cohorts could not pass. But it looks to me just from the evidence that his inclination WAS to pass. I may be wrong and there is another explanation but I can only go on what I see covered in Slugger.
Anyway now that he covers the issue and the comments race ahead I will add what I think.
This is the biggest issue I can remember for a long time.
It touches just about every aspect of politics today. For example there are these 2 incidents.
1. The US State Department criticised the cartoons. (It is supposed to stand for freedom)and 2. I read in this mornings newspaper that one of the foreign ministers calling for the boycott of Denmark was the foreign minister of IRAQ. Yes Iraq!
You see what I am getting at. We have been told that the war in Iraq was for freedom and democracy. Now the result of that is the overthrow of butcher Saddam (good idea by the way)and the putting in place of an obvious islamofascist regime.
Two other points directed against Biffo Dualta and Throwbridge.
1. It is now too late to save Dhimmi Europe. They are running scared of the Islamofascists and this is shown as much as anything in the reaction of the Press and of the Labour Government of Blair and it is pretty clear where you three stand on this. And this is why this issue is so important.
2. The correct name for this phenomenon is Islamofascism. It is correct because it is indeed fascism.This fascism represents a political tendency inside the Muslim masses, but it is not to be confused with the Muslim masses.
When men (should we call them men) bury a Muslim woman up to her neck in Iran and stone the poor creature to death over a long period of time, with eventually her face unrecognisable and reduced to pulp, this is fascism and is directed also at the subjection of the Muslim masses.
(And what is worst of all as far as we are concerned is the SILENCE of the neolefts about it. What the feminist writer Dr Phyllis Coulter calls the Palestine syndrome where people do not speak out because they are partial to the Palestine cause)
It is indeed as Harry points out the same fascism that is widespread in Palestine when men carry out honor killings, the murder of their own sisters and other poor women on a regular basis.
This is FEMICIDE carried out by Islamofascists. As far as I am aware the Irish feminist movement has been silent.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2006 @ 11:33 AMHenry,
Your question is a good one insofar as it has really challenged me to think about the statement of mine which you reproduced. Dealing in universals is always hard to defend and here I need to elaborate.For example, if I make the statement that I do not believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God I may stand accused by some of depicting Christ in a disrespectful way and, therefore offending them, yet I do not see anything wrong with making that statement.
If, however, (and I’ll use an example I used earlier in the thread) in criticising the activities of the Shankill Butchers I was to produce an image of Christ with a meat cleaver, I would rightfully be accused by other Christians of showing disrespect to their individual faith.
Now, on the issue of the cartoons, it seems to me that there are two arguments coming out of the broad Muslim community across the world.
The first is that any depiction of the Prophet Mohammed is in violation of the laws of Islam and that the cartoons are offensive on that basis.
Secondly, that the cartoons are gross misrepresentations of the Prophet Mohammed and, therefore, the Muslim faith as murderous and vicious. There are many Muslims who are taking serious issue with this and who have made their opposition to the use of ‘terrorism’ clear in the past, for example, the Muslim Council of Britain.
From their website:
Muslims respect and love the Prophet as being dearer to them than their own families. We should not allow our valued freedoms in Europe to be abused by those deliberately seeking to provoke hatred and division between communities,” said Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.At the same time, the MCB regards the violent threats made against Danish and EU citizens by some groups in the Muslim world as completely unacceptable and displaying an utter disregard of basic Islamic injunctions on how to resolve disagreements and differences.
On the first argument I don’t think that it is right for religionists of any faith to demand that others obey the law of their faith. It’s as simple as that for me. They have no case here.
I think that the reasonable objection to the cartoons rests on the argument that they are a gross misrepresentation of the Prophet Mohammed and of Islam as a whole. The offence felt by many Muslims the world over is justifed.
So I agree with you about the need to defend free speech, particularly when people are trying to engage in constructive, rational discourse, but I still don’t believe that the cartoons added anything to any debate and were insulting, insensitive and racist and that they should not have been printed.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2006 @ 12:39 PMDualta
What this debate shows is that we are all in favour of free speech in the abstract but when it comes to the specifics we need to think about it.
Mark Steyn notes
“When Tony-winning author Terence McNally writes a Broadway play in which Jesus has gay sex with Judas, the New York Times and Co. rush to garland him with praise for how “brave” and “challenging” he is. The rule for “brave” “transgressive” “artists” is a simple one: If you’re going to be provocative, it’s best to do it with people who can’t be provoked.”
There is not now a free debate over where the line is on free-speech. There is a debate on how to avoid provoking Islamic violence. That will prove a movable feast. It has already. Film makers, writers and artists are already self-censoring. Newspapers and politicans too. Our free speech is now subject to an Islamic veto. Most of the time we won’t notice. For now.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2006 @ 01:06 PMSurely the point here is that the cartoons are not lampooning Mohammed or the Muslim faith but are instead attacking those individuals who are dragging Islam through the gutter.
Were there not ‘similar’ cartoons depicting Christ in relation to our own religious bigotry during the last 30 years - and we would have been good value for it.
As someone has pointed out the greatest offence to Allah and Mohammed is putting some defenceless man on video and mercilessly cutting off his head - in the name of Allah and apparently based on the teaching of Mohammed.
The lack of outrage at these acts among moderate Islam is as shocking as their hypocracy.
Middle Eastern Newspapers are reguarly filled with Fagin like Jews with hooked noses.Anyhow God does do satire - Balaam’s donkey is a case in point in the Old Testament where the story shows someone acting the ass being met and talked to by one.
Islam has lost both its sense of perspective as well as its sense of humour
Posted by on Feb 06, 2006 @ 01:35 PMHenry,
We’re really getting somewhere with this discussion.The whole issue of freedom of speech is one laden with dilemmas, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Those of us concerned with discussion and debate for the sake of education and political, economic, social and cultural progress hold the principle of free speech dear.
Yet there are some things which are said in public which, I will argue, blatantly work against the good of society.
Libel and slander are good examples of free speech which many feel should be curbed by law.
Incitement to racial hatred is considered another good reason for restricting freedom of speech.
Maybe the test for these cartoons is, do they actually contribute anything to the issues confronting us today or are they incitements to hatred and/or just plain racist? Maybe we need to look at each one individually and judge them.
When thinking about them I tend to focus on the one depicting the Prophet Muhammed with bomb for a head as being the worst. This particular cartoon, for me, adds nothing to any debate other than claiming that Islam is a faith which preaches terrorism.
Now if someone wants to make such as argument, do so with the appropriate scriptural evidence, not some blunt instrument of a cartoon which goes no further than being a mere statement.
Furthermore, Mark Steyn makes a very good point, but I’ll say again that the cartoons cannot be taken out of the context of the already horrendous conflict taking place between some Western governments and parts of the Muslim world. A conflict I may add in which the aggressors are very definately the Westerners, i.e. Palestine, Iraq and Afganistan.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2006 @ 03:21 PMDualta
Maybe the test for these cartoons is, do they actually contribute anything to the issues confronting us today or are they incitements to hatred and/or just plain racist?
I would allow no such tests for a cartoon. They represent the expression of a point of view and are therefore entitled to protection as free speech.
This particular cartoon, for me, adds nothing to any debate other than claiming that Islam is a faith which preaches terrorism.
<i>Now if someone wants to make such as argument, do so with the appropriate scriptural evidence, not some blunt instrument of a cartoon</i>
That’s not how cartoons work. Islam is a faith associated with terrorism not because of cartoons but because of Islamic terrorists. Cartoonists are entitled to reflect that in a free society. They don’t have an obligation to be fair to all concerned. One cartoonists used to constantly draw John Major with his y-fronts outside his pants. Do you think he should have been required to prove that Major dressed like that?
Do you think Major was entitled to burn down his house?
It’s what cartoons do.
Of course you don’t have to like it and you are entitled to be offended but there are a range of legitimate responses from letters to the editor to boycotting the paper. Burnings lootings and shootings are beyond what is legitimate.
They are a denial of the principle of free speech.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2006 @ 04:00 PMHenry94’s unlimited scope for free expression is dangerous, hypocritical, and lacking in any sense of proportion.
He constantly fails to appreciate the effect free expression may have on public safety, community relations, international relations, public discourse, etc. He believes anything goes, and if you don’t like it, write a letter to an editor or boycott the offending paper!
Yet, everyone should know that Western media constantly censors critical comments about all sorts of things. The censorship is usually self-censorship - e. g., we just don’t print serious complaints about how Britain has been policing Northern Ireland for the last 30 years through ambushes, collusion in massive sectarian killings, and the like.
I, for example, have been writing letters for the past generation, expressing my complaints of the matter, and none have been published, even any by others expressing similar opinions. And I have rarely bought the offending papers. These so-called safeguards are simply bogus.
There are limits of a political, social, and psychological nature on free expression, unless one wants to inflame communal unrest, civil disorder, international confrontation, and eventual war, and one must stop talking about the right in unlimited, imprudent, and hypocritical ways or we shall soon have all of these things and more, thanks to the clash of civilizations that the West - yes, the totally hypocrtical West - is trying to impose on the Middle East and beyond.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2006 @ 07:07 PMThrowbridge
The right to free speech does not include the right to get your letters published. But it is only through a free press and free speech that any restraint can be placed on the actions of government. The British in Ireland got away with what they could. I have no doubt whatsoever that newspaper editors were encouraged to play down stories about it.
How that is an argument for less free speech escapes me. I would draw the opposite conclusion.
It is when you hand up to the state the right to declare what can be printed or not that you put freedom at risk.
Every despot dictator and Marxist criminal kleptocrat who ever suppressed freedom had a litany of excuses for doing it. Public safety is a favourite.
So what are you proposing? That no cartoon be published that may be considered offensive by any religion? Or just Islam because they are the ones who react violently?
Posted by on Feb 06, 2006 @ 07:34 PMFive people killed so far as the Muslims try to kill free speech. Terrible. Some people are calling this a clash of civilizations. It’s not, it’s civilization vs. barbarism. The barbarians are truly at the gates and it’s going to get much worse. Shame that the U.S. and the U.K. were too cowardly to show solidarity on this one.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2006 @ 08:10 PMSo, these so-called legitimate responses to censorship, especially by a self-censoring,Western media - like writing critical letters and withholding subscriptions - are just empty jestures after all. This shows the hypocrisy of the Western media and their governments - what you are defending.
I have never advocated state-censorship. I have advocated citizens, editors, and reporters to exercise discretion, prudence, and self-censorship only when publishing causes civil unrest, violence, growing international hatred, and the prospect of much more - what is clearly happening in this case which just resulted in holding up Muslims to ridicule while helping recruit terrorists and suicide bombers among their ranks.
I am advocating that private citizens and organizations show some sense in these regards rather than waving the red flag as if it were their licence and duty.
And my name is Trowbridge.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2006 @ 09:05 PMTrowbridge
My apologies for misspelling you name.
It is not an empty gesture to write a letter or to refuse to subscribe to a paper. But yes they can ignore you. Tough. There’s always slugger.
This shows the hypocrisy of the Western media and their governments - what you are defending.
I’m defending only the right to free speech. I have been a critic of the media on many occasion. But not to the point of violence.
But give me western media and governments any day rather than the the media and governments of Iran and Syria for example. If you believe there is a better form of government than western democracy then it is unsurprising that freedom of speech is not a priority with you.
If you are serious in your view that anybody should refrain from publishing cartoon for fear of violence from extremists then there is no common ground for us. If accepted your view would encourage anyone who felt “offended” to respond violently.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2006 @ 09:46 PMI shall try one last time.
This argument has nothing to do with what governments and media are to be preferred, but what policy the West should allow in dealing with the Muslim world in a growing time of war - when censorship is expected and necessary.
I believe that the Western media should refrain from publishing cartoons which depict Muslims, Mohammad, and their God as terrorists because it just helps promote it, the enemy. The self-censorship should not be exercised because of a fear of violence from extremists but that it will only make more of them, and more violent ones at that.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2006 @ 10:16 PMI believe that the Western media should refrain from publishing cartoons which depict Muslims, Mohammad, and their God as terrorists because it just helps promote it, the enemy.
That’s a very reasonable position. You could even convince me to agree with you. But I would still maintain that any newspaper is entitled to ignore our advice and publish any cartoon they choose.
Just as Salman Rushdie was entitled to write his novel The Satanic Verses. These are examples of free expression and require no permission from anybody in a dmocracy.
The self-censorship should not be exercised because of a fear of violence from extremists but that it will only make more of them, and more violent ones at that.
I think islamist extremists are set on a course that makes violence inevitable. One excuse is as good as another.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2006 @ 11:50 PMHenry,
Taking the piss out of a politician and calling all peoples of one faith terrorists are two completely different things entirely.Mind you, I always thought the cartoons depicting Major in that way were needlessly, and wantonly, insulting. The man is on record saying that he was very offended by them and that he considered them seriously detrimental to his political career. They were hardly constructive criticism were they? Pretty low-grade cartoons actually.
Now the argument is running around in circles with each of us basically restating basic positions.
I will make one last point, however. In judging these cartoons, maybe we shouldn’t be looking to the responses of the fundamentalists, which were entirely predictable.
We should be taking into consideration the views and reactions of moderate Muslims in judging whether or not these cartoons are valuable expressions of ideas.
They are a vile misrepresentation of an entire faith of people. They should never have been printed, not because of the threat of violence, but because they are downright insulting.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2006 @ 12:23 AMJill said:
Five people killed so far as the Muslims try to kill free speech. Terrible. Some people are calling this a clash of civilizations. It’s not, it’s civilization vs. barbarism. The barbarians are truly at the gates and it’s going to get much worse. Shame that the U.S. and the U.K. were too cowardly to show solidarity on this one.Jill, please educate yourself about the terrible crimes against humanity being perpetrated by the ‘civilised’ West against the Palestinian and Iraqi peoples.
Both conflicts are illegal under international law and both are the foreign policies of Western nations. The US and UK governments and their forces are guilty of terrible barbarism in these places, and others. Have you ever even heard of East Temor?
Posted by on Feb 07, 2006 @ 12:31 AMAll of this cartoon bullsh1t is a manipulation, designed to create the reaction that it is currently getting on both sides.
It is part of the groundwork for the iran invasion and subsequent wars.
If only all the clever people highlighting their indignation at the terrible attack on the bastion of free speech could wake up and see the obvious, maybe something could be done to stop the upcoming madness.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2006 @ 12:44 AMSorry to be a thread hog, but here’s a link to an article by John Simpson on the BBC’s site. It’s worth a read for sure.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4685886.stm
Posted by on Feb 07, 2006 @ 12:48 AM
