This cartoon is being called offensive by some Arab Americans:
http://www.dougmarlette.com/politicals/page2.html
The cartoonist states he meant no offense. Here’s his defense:
Excellent riposte by the cartoonist!
Well, I chuckled when I saw it but on second thought I could see how it can be offensive. I don’t think hw should have to apologize, after all it is his political point of view but yeah, it could be seen as offensive.
That’s certainly longwinded.
The cartoon expressed his intent rather ineptly at best. But all in all, tempest in a teacup.
I don’t see how he can say that with a straight face.
It is a statement about what he thinks about the founder of the religion, and it isn’t positive.
I also find the most rest of the letter inane and whiny. He seems comes across as one of those people who doesn’t understand that free speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want without disagreement or comment, that it does cover the words of people who disagree with you as well as your offensive drivel.
Well, I certainly didn’t think it was funny. If he’d managed to get a chuckle out of me, I might cut him some more slack.
He says he was just trying to show how Islam has been perverted by zealots, but that’s not at all clear from the cartoon. It’s one thing if there was just room for misinterpretation, but another if the most obvious interpretation is one of wholesale dismissal of a religion.
I imagine some are would be willing to give him the benefit of a doubt and assume he was only referring to extremist distortions of Islam, but since there’s nothing in the cartoon to tell you that there was a distinction being made, I don’t understand how a person can have an instantaneous reaction of laughter while thinking “Oh he just means a few of the devotees of Islam favor terrorism.”
Sure he has a right to free speech, but that doesn’t mean you can’t “say” something stupid and apologize for it. And yes he has a right not to apologize, but after reading his defense and looking at the cartoon, I don’t think he was successfully communicating what he said he wanted to convey. He messed up and should just admit it.
I’m not clear as to whether or not the guy driving the van is supposed to Mohammed himself, or just an terrorist who thinks that’s the answer to the question “What would Mohammed drive?” The artist describes him as “a man in Middle Eastern garb”, which could mean it wasn’t M. since he likely would have said “Mohammed” instead of “a man in Middle Eastern garb”, but that’s not conclusive.
“Here is my answer to them: In this country, we do not apologize for our opinions. Free speech is the linchpin of our republic. All other freedoms flow from it. I realize this may be a repugnant concept for many of those who wrote, but let me be clear. I do not apologize for my drawing. Granted, there is nothing “fair” about cartoons. You cannot say “on the other hand” in them. They are harder to defend with logic. But this is why we have a First Amendment - so that we don’t feel the necessity to apologize for our ideas.”
This is pure nonsense. Free speech only means that the government can’t stop from you from expressing your opinions. It does NOT mean that no opinion is offensive or shouldn’t be apologized for.
And yes I can see why Muslims would have been offended by the cartoon.
Incidentally, the cartoon in the OP makes a little more sense if you know about What Would Jesus Drive?.
The guy doesn’t have a leg to stand on but like he says, he doesn’t need one.
Oh, I think it’s very conclusive. I don’t see how anyone can perceive it as actually being Mohammed; it is obviously meant to be an Islamic militant in the truck. I saw as just that: a portrayal of a terrorist, not an insult to any religion. Further, I can’t understand why people would think that the next plan of Islamic terrorists is to bomb with moving trucks.
It might be considered offensive by some, but I agree with the cartoonist–he does not need to apologize. The people who sent him complaints have too much time on their hands.
Bullshit. He has a right to free speech, but that doesn’t make all (free) speech okay. More to the point, he does have the right to his opinion, but if it lacks a solid foundation and reasonable consistency, then his opinion is crap and he does owe an apology. Just because he has the legal right to be offensive, doesn’t make it defensible in any sense, except a strictly legal one, i.e. the state cannot force him to stop making cartoons. Society still retains the right–and the duty–to condemn him for his racism. Instead of hiding behind the ridiculously cowardly defense of “it’s free speech so it’s okay”, or even better:rolleyes: “gee, that’s what political cartooning is all about”, he should be making a real defense of his statement and engaging with other side so that maybe everybody can learn something.
I think the fact that the caption says “What Would Mohammed Drive” would indeed lead many to believe that’s him behind the wheel.
Cartoonists generally get cut a lot more slack than even op-eds. And I took his intended meaning clearly, especially with the proliferation of “What Would Jesus Do?” bumper stickers.
If it is his honest opinion, however offensive it may be to some, then I personally don’t feel that he should be apologizing for it, especially since, as a cartoon, it is meant satirically in the first place.
Many people and groups say things that are offensive to a great number of people. The beauty of free speech, as the cartoonist notes, is the ability of the offended to fire back with just as much gusto and venom as the original speaker(s).
Why not…
Mohammed Haashmi Quereshi, who hijacked an Indian Airlines Fokker Friendship in 1971?
Omar Mohammed Ali Rezaq, who forced an Air Egypt plane to fly to Malta in 1985, where he shot several passengers, killing two?
Fahid Mohammed Ail Msalam, who bought the Toyota truck used to bomb the U.S. embassy in Kenya in 1988?
Mohammed Yehia Ali Sattar, who hijacked a Yemenia Airlines Boeing 727 to Djibouti in January 2001?
Jabir Ali Sattar, who identified himself as “Mohammed Yahya Sattar,” who attempted to hijack another Yemenia Airlines 727 that same month?
Mullah Muhammad Omar, former head of the Taliban?
Muhammad Atif, on the FBI’s wanted list, described as Osama bin Laden’s “key military strategist and training director?”
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, also wanted by the FBI, believed to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks?
Wali Mohammed al-Shehri, believed to have piloted a loaded jetliner into one of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11?
Mohammed Atta, alleged ringleader of the 9/11 terrorists, believed to have piloted the loaded jetliner that struck the other tower at the WTC?
Perhaps because the one I was talking about is a bit more well known? And the ones you mention make no sense since it’s a parody of “What Would Jesus Drive”?
I didn’t. But maybe that’s just because when I think of Muhammed, that’s not the image that comes to mind. I only saw the guy in the cartoon as a terrorist.
Well like I said, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. It was a racist cartoon, not a political one. So I agree that as a “political” cartoonist, he was in the wrong. I suppose I was reacting more to the idea that an anti-apology is still an apology and that he should either have apologized outright or left the issue to die.
Are we to believe that the Prophet is “more well known” to the average schmo who reads the Tallahassee newspaper than is the stereotyped terrorist depicted in the cartoon?
Call me a bigot, but when I first glanced at it, no religious figure whatsoever entered my mind.
Was a Ryder van used in the WTC bombing? Not 9/11, but the previous attempt?.
Because it was a Ryder van used in the Murrah building bombing here in OKC in 1995. But, it wasn’t Mohammed driving. It was Timothy. Despite many attempts, no one has yet to link McVeigh to Al Qida.
So, I find the cartoon mildly offensive, but for much different reasons. That was a very rough Spring for us Okies.
In general, I don’t find any terrorism or racism funny.