On Feb. 9, the Daily Illini, the student newspaper of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ran six of the 12 Danish cartoons depicting Mohammad. These were accompanied by a column from the editor-in-chief of that newspaper, saying, in part,
This puzzled some readers, as the editorial on the page seemed to contradict the EIC’s column, saying that the newspaper was a place for readers to get local news and see how national news has affected the local community, rather than to get the latest national news story. (the editorial)
As you would expect, this unleashed a flurry of letters to the paper on Friday, including one by the Chancellor disagreeing with the decision to print the cartoons.
On Monday, it was revealed in the pages of the newspaper that the decision to run the cartoons was made by the editor-in-chief and the opinion page editor with no input or consultations with other members of the editorial board. These members wrote an editorial in Monday’s paper, including:
My thought is that as soon as people started using violence to crush freedom of expression ever paper in the free world should have published those cartoons as a show of solidarity, and as an example to the Muslim world that we have our own values and that we will fight to defend them.
It is a scary road you go down when you allow other people to define what they find offensive and then prevent you from expressing yourself. This is the path that leads to religious police and blasphemy laws. It worries me that when we express one of our most basic values, freedom of expression, and another culture says it conflicts with theirs, our gut reaction is to grovel and apologize and offer to throw our values out the window in appeasement. That is the sign of a tired culture in decline.
I’ve said elsewhere on this board that I support printing the cartoons in the interest of letting the public know what the uproar is all about. (This isn’t something I think should be done constantly or our newspapers and TV programs will just become bullhorns for the most bigoted elements in society.) I’m glad somebody bothered to do this, and a college paper is probably the best place for it to happen.
That said, this sounds like a shitty way to run a newspaper. I think the rest of the editorial board deserved to be informed that this was going to happen, and if they were not, they’d have every right to be furious. (The editorial doesn’t say they were all informed- just that everybody who was present was told and didn’t object.)
Well, my very first post after lurking since forever … but this is important to me. On my papers I have to declare any affiliations that might affect the evaluation of the claims … so to my everlasting shame I must admit, I am a cartoonist.
Oh, I’ve been to groups, I’ve tried all the self-help classes. I stayed with “Cartoonists Anonymous” for a while, but I just couldn’t remember the 12 steps … no matter what I’ve tried, I can’t kick the habit. The only thing that keeps me going is the “Living with Cartoonism” series of behaviour modification tapes …
Not only that … but in solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, I’ve drawn my own 12 cartoons of the Prophet (PBUH).
For this “crime”, someone halfway around the world threatens to have my hand cut off. Cut off my hand, suckers? Get real … so as you might think, the Cartoon War is PERSONAL with me, I’m fighting on the front lines.
I applaud, approve of, and recommend the action of the Illini editors unreservedly. The issue is not about us being nice to our neighbours. The issue is our neighbours threatening us, the issue is intimidation:
I agree with the editors about being intimidated, and I thought long and hard before drawing my 12 cartoons, the threats are frightening, but I will not be deterred. Muslims have to understand that people will laugh at them. Sorry, that’s how it is – people have the right to laugh at kings and prophets, queens and gods, and you and me.
The action of publishing the 12 cartoons is courageous and praiseworthy. The best way to stop these fools is to laugh at them, so long and so hard that they get used to the fact that it’s not the 7th century any longer.
These cartoons are hate speech, and intentionally insulting even towards Muslims who oppose violence. If some African Americans riotted because of a reprinting of The Turner Diaries, would we then be justified in printing it in every paper? Should we ask papers to reprint Iran’s Holocaust cartoons?
I agree that they should be shown so people know what we’re talking about, but they have to be handled very carefully. Not because they could cause violence, but because they are deliberately inflammatory and insulting to Muslims.
Menocchio, thank you for the post. Remember that these cartoons were a response by the Danish paper to finding out that the illustrators had been so terrorized that someone who had written a book on Muhammad couldn’t find anyone to illustrate it.
The issue is not “should we avoid offending our neighbours?” Of course we should, we agree on that.
The issue is “what should we do when our neighbours threaten us?” It’s not the riots that frighten me. It’s the threat to cut off my hand.
In answer to your question, if a large group of people, African-American or not, seriously threatened to cut off anyone’s hand who published the “Turner Diaries”, yes, I’d publish them.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking these people are not serious with their threats. People remember Salman Rushdie and think, “aw, some old fatwa didn’t hurt him, no big deal”… The fatwa was against the book (“Satanic Verses”) and anyone associated with it. The Japanese translator was killed … the Italian translator was beaten severely.
So while I agree wholeheartedly with you that we should not antagonize people … when a man threatens to cut off my hand if I laugh at him, other factors come into play.
Finally, I have posted the following on another thread, but it bears repeating.
As a cartoonist, I say that what we should do is to resist this extortion by laughter.
What we should not do, on the other hand, is to engage in things like the Iranian newspaper contest for Holocaust cartoons. Why not? After all, if we have the right to laugh at anything, how does their contest differ from laughing at gods and prophets, at cows and presidents, at moms and moonshine?
The difference is simple. The Iranians are laughing at other people’s personal tragedy. In my universe, that’s just not on.
As a cartoonist myself, I defend the Iranians’ right to draw cartoons about, and to laugh at, anything in this crazy, wide world.
But I would not laugh with them about the Holocaust. I feel that it is despicable to make fun of other people’s tragic pain and sorrow in that manner. Laughing at the Prophet, or at Jesus, or Buddha, or Thor, is fundamentally and radically different from making fun of a mother who has lost her child, or laughing at a daughter who has lost her parents. It is a shameful thing to laugh at sorrowful tragedy, whether it is a person’s tragedy, or a people’s tragedy.
So I would say … in addition to prosecuting people caught threatening someone or committing violence about this issue, and in addition to throwing their sorry buns into jail for a long time for religious extortion … in addition to that, I say, we should keep reprinting the old cartoons, and writing new ones, keep laughing, and keep it light.
They can never stop us from laughing, and eventually, the Muslim world will get the message that, while they are welcome to follow their peculiar religious pathways and restrictions, we don’t have to. We are a free people, we even laugh at ourselves.
Were they really terrorized? Or did at least some of the illustrators know that depicting Muhammad, even in a positive context, is forbidden by many Muslims, and that the book would therefore be considered blasphemous and counter-productive to teaching Westerners about Islam? Seriously, I’m asking. It seems silly to write a book teaching about a religion that itself is a sin according to that religion, and I suspect at least some of the artists knew that, and refused out of respect or courtesy rather than fear.
So you’d deliberately publish hate speech, antagonizing and offending even the peaceful members of the target group, just to spite the violent ones? I can’t see how that would help anything. I can’t see how that would make you anything but a jerk.
I’m not saying that the West must remain silent on Islamic matters, even in the face of great protest. Criticism of Sharia law’s treatment of women, to chose but one example, is fair game and musn’t be cowed by threats. These cartoons are not substantial debate. They are not criticism. They are contentless insults against an entire religion. While the violent response to them is unacceptable, repeating the insults doesn’t prove anything either.
I’m not sure that mocking a religion’s core mythology and values is any better than mocking a tragedy. While I’m sure that the Iranian contest is founded mostly on anti-Semitism, they do have a point. The holocaust is probably the only issue in Europe that is as offensive to them as the Muhammad cartoons were to Muslims. If Europe was serious about free speech, they’d print them as readily as they did the Muhammad cartoons. Yet, if I’m not mistaken, such cartoons may be actually illegal in some of these countries.
Are they really free to follow their religion? It seems obvious to me that the West does want them to adopt Western-style democratic secular governments, and will intervene militarily to make this happen. I’m not even saying that we’re wrong to do so. Even I, who has nothing but disdain for current US foriegn policy, wish they’d choose to do so of their own accord, and I’d support diplomatic means of encouraging this. But we have to recognize that the West, which is more powerful than the Muslim world both in terms of economics and of military might, is seeking to impose its values on them. When we’re laughing at them at the same time, it starts to look awfully threatening.
I’ll also note that there’s no way this is just about cartoons. The Muslim world has a litany of complaints against the West, real and imagined, and these cartoons are merely the latest and one of the more tangible.
The issue I have with the DI editors is not journalistic responsibility, but following the processes of the organization they belong to. Some papers have published a cartoon, some have just described it. However, I expect all the papers that published it did it with the approval of whatever bodies are in place to review controversial decisions. It sounds like that wasn’t done in this case, but it depends on the procedures in place. The DI is old enough I’m sure they exist.
Perhaps it might strike you differently if it were** your **hand that they were threatening to cut off, not for any crime, but for doing what you do every day … my cartoons about the Prophet are by no means “hate speech”. They are funny, philosophical, and relevant to important issues.
And the question is not whether we should do things “in the face of great protest” as you say. If all the Muslim world had done was protest peacefully, I would agree with your totally. Protest I don’t mind, hey, I’m a cartoonist. But they have resorted to death threats against me and my fellow cartoonists … you can see the difference, I’m sure.
I would not publish anything to “spite” someone, as you say. I have no interest in “spiting” anyone.
The question is whether we should bow to extortion and terror … I say no.
Why is Sharia law’s treatment of women any different from that? I agree completely that we should not be deterred by threats from discussing the treatment of women under Sharia law. However, as you point out, this discussion of women will undoubtedly have the effect of:
In fact, a serious discussion of their treatment of women will likely disturb them more than a cartoon of the Prophet (PBUH) … if, as you point out, it is valid to discuss womens rights under Sharia law and offend a whole bunch of peaceful people in the process, why should the cartoons be any different?
The issue is not offense. As I said, you, and I, and most everyone agrees that it is not a good thing to offend one’s neighbours, and we should avoid offending people gratuitously.
The issue is what to do when your neighbours threaten to kill you if you don’t follow their weird religious rules … what then?
I’ve seen the original set of cartoons. I don’t know if I’ve seen yours, but of the ones I’ve seen, several were deliberately insulting to the religion (the infamous Bomb in Turban). To be fair, others weren’t (the one of Muhammad containing the star and crescent). Still others refused to play the newspaper’s game of journalistic trolling (the schoolboy named Muhammad and the guy with the orange [which I admit I don’t get but I’m told is a real kneeslapper if you’re a Dane]). The last group I praise.
I maintain that the mere act of drawing the prophet is at best ignorant and insensitive, and at worst an insult and hate speech. It’s too inflammatory to accomplish anything in the way meaningful dialogue, so why do it?
It’s different from substantial criticism, as such criticism is based on arguments about human rights, or morality, or politics, or something other than mocking their religion. There can be discussion there.
I also think the violence and threats can be condemned merely by condemning the violence and threats (and backing that up by diplomacy, boycotts, and if truly necessary, military force). Publishing the cartoons (in a defiant context, rather than a informative one letting people know what the fuss is about) or drawing new ones just further inflames things. Just because the other guy’s reaction is unacceptable doesn’t mean you should keep doing it.
I’d suggest that some consideration should be taken into account of the weird religious rules when it’s their weird religion you are portraying.
Remember, the cartoons were commissioned because the editor was outraged that illustrators declined to work on a book about a religion that was inherently blasphemous to that same religion.
The cartoons were of course a deliberate provocation, and incited the (presumably) predicted reaction, although I’m sure the editor didn’t realise how far it would spread.
But let’s be honest, unless your location means you live in Indonesia: the rioters are not your neighbours. Do you seriously believe that fanatic over the other side of the world who “threatened to cut off your hand” would actually do it? They’d fly over to where you live and slice your hand off? (Sure, if you were there right next to him, you would probably get beaten to death, perhaps minus hand, but then so might I were I to dress as Osama and burn a stars and stripes at Ground Zero.)
Do you seriously believe that some idiot mouthing off in the street thousands of miles away is good enough reason to further inflame the situation by insulting moderates closer to you?
(By the way, I fully support the right of the Danish paper and others to publish the cartoons, but I think it is courteous not to.)
Thanks again for psoting, Menocchio. Curiously, the “Bomb in Turban” cartoon, which has caused the most reaction, is the truest of them all. This is because Muhammad was in fact a terrorist. He took several thousand guys and attacked the Jewish village next door. When they surrendered, he supervised the killing of every male with pubic hair, enslaved the women and children, and divided the women among his followers (including taking one for himself).
These are historical facts, and these facts are accepted by both Islamic and non-Islamic historians. Why? Because the story is related both in the Koran and the Hadiths. (The Hadiths are the collected recollections of the Prophet’s companions). Many of them went on the raid, so we have a variety of eyewitness accounts of the terrorism.
Now as the Islamic folks point out, Muhammad was not unusual in this regard, as this was common practice in the 7th century. It was a harsh time. However, common practice or not … it is still terrorism.
This is why the “bomb in turban” has caused such an uproar … not because it is “insulting” as you claim, but because it is true. Muhammad was a terrorist, and the Islamic world would very much prefer that no one notice, much less mention, this fact.
In fact, they would prefer it so much that they want to kill the man that pointed it out, or chop off his hand … and your suggested response is that we make nice with them? That we don’t “offend” them?
I think that’s going much too far. Drawing Muhammad is an act of hate speech against Muslims? If that’s true, saying “God damn it” is hate speech against Jews and Christians. One of the many sub-issues in this debate is that the Islamic community has no right to expect that non-Muslims will follow their commandments. (That’s separate from the fact that the drawings themselves are insulting to Muhammad.)
The West sure has a subject for an internal dialogue about as a result of this violence.
If they refused to work on the book because they were afraid (as opposed to not wanting to violate Islamic law), the editors were dealing with a real issue there. Is it possible to objectively study a religion in a book that observes the religion’s laws?
Aren’t you forgetting one thing?
The holocaust happened. That’s a proven FACT.
Mohammed might have existed, but whether he was a prophet, or just an old loony, is a matter of opinion, or, if you like: belief.
It is NOT a fact.
I don’t see why Islam has to have a special treatment when cartoons are being made about their religion.
Christians, Jews, Buddhists and believers in Santa Claus, all have made been fun of.
Excuse me?
Is that why we paid for all those mosques being built? All those schools where kids can learn about Islam?
You, my good man, have it the wrong way around.
Some questions:
Is a relatively new religious minority in its right when demanding limits to freedom in its new host country? Can Muslims dictate others on their religious taboos? Do we want to let religious fundamentalists dictate our political agenda?
While what you describe is terrible, I’m reluctant to apply the “terrorist” label to something that happened in the seventh century. It’s academic anyway, since the cartoon is a reference to suicide bombings, not anything that happened 1,300-plus years ago.
“Goddamn it” has become a common part of English vulgarity. Drawing Muhammad isn’t something that Westerners do out of automatic cultural reflex. Nevertheless, if you are asked by a Christian not to say it, and you persist merely to prove that you can, you’re being a jerk at the very least.
Of course it is, or at least it is for Islam. You don’t have to attempt to draw Muhammad to study the origins of the religion. I admit this makes a picture book format difficult, but there’s ways around it.
Of course not, but were we to publish a book for children about Catholicism called “Mary - mother of God or lying whore?”, or one called “Buddha’s a big fat bastard”, embassies, I’m fairly sure, would not be burned - but I suspect eyebrows would be raised.
First, you seem to think that the threats are acceptable because the people doing the threatening may be far away. I didn’t realize that was OK for me to put a bounty on your head as long as I don’t live near you …
Second, curiously, I have plenty of Muslim neighbours here, although they haven’t rioted. And the world is a very small place …
Third, yes, I do think that a fanatic halfway round the world is a danger. Consider the fate of Salman Rushdie’s translators, one in Japan and one in Italy … both of which are halfway 'round the world from Iran …
Finally, the key question. If someone threatened you for doing something that you do every day, what would your response be? As a cartoonist, I poke fun at people, puncture their balloons, expose their inanities, comment on their foolishness. Do I deserve a death sentence for that?
I say again, the question is not whether to be nice to Muslims. I have Muslim neighbours, and I don’t walk into their mosque eating a ham sandwich. It’s disrespectful, it’s not nice to do that.
But when they come into my house and threaten me with death for not following their religious rules, when they want to chop off my hand for laughing at their Prophet … I’m sorry, but at that point nice has to take a back seat. They can follow their religious rules if they want to, but they can’t threaten me with death for not following their religious rules. That’s not on.
w.
PS - the idea that you would have your hand cut off if you “dress as Osama and burn a stars and stripes at Ground Zero” is both doubtful and misses the point.
These are not just threats from the man in the street, or a possible result of being in the middle of a bunch of rioters at the wrong time. They are official threats from the heads of the religion. Saudi Arabia’s top cleric has called for the cartoonists to have their hands cut off. The Pakistani religious party Jamaat-e-Islami and its youth branch have offered a bounty for anyone who murders the Danish illustrators who drew cartoons of Muhammad for the Danish daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
I don’t recall any such calls in America for anybody to be murdered or to have their hand cut off for dressing like Osama, and burning the American flag is a protected act of political free speech …
