Is the 'Cartoon Crisis' Spiralling out of Control?

[ayalabmaj]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves

Originally Posted by ayalabmaj
Why should the Danish publisher apologize for not following Islamic law?

Not for “not following Islamic law”, but for doing something offensive for no good reason. Or, as you say,

We should avoid being inflammatory as much as possible

You’re quibbling over semantics. Why are the cartoons offensive? Because they disobey Islamic law. Again I ask: Why is this apparently the only Islamic law non-muslims have to follow?

The publisher was absolutely right to publish those cartoons. If illustrators are afraid to use their right to free speech, it’s perfectly valid to challenge that and attempt to bring it out into the open.

Free speech is not only a right; it entails responsibility as well.

That’s a right pretty saying, but what exactly does that responsibility consist of? Taking responsibility for any libel arising from the speech? Sure. Accepting the responses people give to your speech? Yes. But being prepared for your nation’s embassy to be torched? No, I don’t think freedom of speech includes that responsibility.

Giving in over the cartoons won’t solve anything.

Do you equate apologizing for giving offense with “giving in” in other parts of life too? As I said to Sam, turn the tables and see if that still works. The belligerence you both seem to advocate does not reflect a basic respect for other human beings and their own sensitivities. No doubt the enraged Muslims realize that as well.

I’m not advocating belligerence. I’m just advocating a publisher’s right to publish a cartoon that transgresses a religious restriction. If your religion tells you not to eat certain foods, don’t eat those foods. If your religion tells you to go to a building on a certain day, go to that building. If your religion tells you not to make pictures of your prophet, don’t make pictures of your prophet. But don’t expect everyone else to follow your rules.

Apologizing was wrong because it was an apology extracted by violence. It was also wrong because no-one has any right to expect someone to apologize for not following the rules of a religion they do not belong to.

\As other posters have said, this isn’t about cartoons. It’s about a cultural conflict between the Muslim world and the west, and if this hadn’t brought things to a head, something else would have.

Only if you call simple boorishness and the refusal to accept responsibility for its negative results a “cultural conflict”.

Please. Are you trying to tell me that things had been just peachy between the Islamic world and the Western world before this cartoon thing? There have been tensions, including cultural tensions for a long time. Race riots in Australia. French schools banning headscarves. Israel’s right to exist. The war in Iraq. Al Qaeda. Both sides are chafing at what they see as an incursion on their values. This isn’t about cartoons. It’s not about denying responsibility, and its not about boorishness. (Well, boorishness in regards to illustrations, anyways).

The best way to reduce this sort of tension is to increase Muslim engagement with the West, not cut it off.

OF course. Does the “Fuck off, we can say whatever we want about you, now just get the hell over it” approach further that goal?

No, it does not, but it does not unreasonably diminish it. Increasing Muslim engagement with the West is not mutually exclusive with maintaining our right to free speech. I was speaking against, for instance, silenus’s desire to “Pull out our embassies, place the offending country on a “No Visit” list, cut all aid from the West, and let them rot,” or other posters’ plans to pursue alternate energy sources, as if once we free ourselves of the need for oil we can stop thinking about Islamic countries. That’s not going to work. As much as the cultural clash is causing tension, a continued relationship with the Muslim world is the only way we’re going to convince the majority of decent folks in that part of the world to reject the idiots, the shit-stirrers and the extremists. Maintaining a continued relationship with the Muslim world does not mean caving into the demands of the extremists to practice tenets of religion we may not follow.

…[T]he cartoons were profoundly offensive to many people and . . . reprinting them serve[d] no journalistic purpose…

The cartoons may have been profoundly offensive to many people, but that, in itself, is no reason not to publish them. Ann Coulter is profoundly offensive, but that’s no reason not to publish her (The reason not to publish her is that she’s a poor writer). But it is incorrect to say they served no journalistic purpose. The cartoons were drawn in response to the difficulties Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen had in finding an illustrator for his book about Mohammed; many artists he approached feared violent reprisals from Muslim extremists. Considering the fate of those involved with Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, the illustrator’s reservations may have been reasonable. As such, the original publication of the cartoons was a perfectly valid comment on intimidation restricting free speech. Whether they were funny or not is up to the beholder, but that is immaterial. Cartoons are not obliged to be funny to be published; take a look at Cathy.

The republication of the cartoons, once the response to them became a news story, was also valid. Being at the center of the controversy, their publication was valuable in allowing people to form their own judgements as to the offensiveness, content and quality. The most popular argument I have seen against this is the contention that one need not illustrate a story dealing with pornography with pornographic images, but I find this argument uncompelling. People are familiar with pornography, and there are few stories that would require a specific examination of a pornographic picture to enhance the reader’s understanding. Cartoons dealing with Mohammed, however, are rare and their content is best communicated by actually publishing the cartoon. Cartoons rely on specific cues to communicate their message, and a simple text description can not effectively convey the subtleties. Pornography is a poor analogy.

I wonder, ElvisL1ves, do you think Salman Rushdie should also have refrained from publishing The Satanic Verses? If not, how is that book different to these cartoons?

[HeelB4Zod]

@ElvisL1ves

Good will goes both directions, folks. I know who represents the Danish newspaper, but I don’t know who represents “the Muslim world” and can produce such an act, though - can you tell me?

Those asshole imams who started all this would be a good start.

[kezami]

@Rune

I don’t think it’s spiraling out of hands. It’ll die down in a few months.

It’s taken on a life of it’s own and I wonder where the next outbreak of the ‘cartoon franchise’ will occur - it’s on a world tour at the moment but not coming to a open, freedom-loving western country near you - sorry.

The outpouring of hatred shown by the protesters has been designed for maximum political effect and no one should be naive enough to think otherwise. It’s an incitement against the west by militant, not moderate, imams and used by despotic and theocratic regimes to great effect. As this wiki article shows ,the original 12 cartoons were added to to create a dossier of hate, a tool if you like, to spread hatred and incitement against the west. The bolding is mine.

Unsatisfied with the reaction of the Danish Government and Jyllands-Posten and feeling provoked additionally in particular by

pictures from another Danish newspaper, Weekendavisen, which they called “even more offending” (than the original 12 cartoons),
hate-mail pictures and letters that, according to the dossier’s authors, have been sent to Muslims in Denmark, and were indicative of the rejection of Muslims by the Danish,
a televised interview with Dutch member of parliament and Islam critic Hirsi Ali, who had just received the Freedom Prize “for her work to further freedom of speech and the rights of women” from the Danish Liberal Party represented by Anders Fogh Rasmussen,
a group of Danish imams from several organisations created a 43-page dossier[18]. This appears to have been assembled and added to until some point after 8 December 2005, with the first lobbying visits to Egypt having taken place before finalization.

It consists of several letters from Muslim organisations explaining their case, multiple clippings from Jyllands-Posten, multiple clippings from Weekendavisen, some clippings from Arabic-language papers, and three additional images.

Pig-face - This picture of a French pig-squealing contestant, taken from the imams’ dossier, was later identified as an old Associated Press picture with no reference to Islam.The group of imams said that the three additional images were sent anonymously by mail to muslims who were participating in an online debate on Jyllands-posten.[19] On February 1 BBC World incorrectly reported that one of them had been published in Jyllands-Posten. [20] **This image was later found to be a wire-service photo of a contestant at a French pig-squealing contest ** [21] (the original wire service article can be seen here [22]), although the dossier’s version also included the caption Here is the true face of Muhammad (in Danish, with an Arabic translation). According to the BBC, this image was misleadingly circulated by Danish Muslims to illustrate the atmosphere of Islamophobia which they lived under[23]. **The other two additional images portrayed a Muslim being mounted by a dog while praying and Muhammad as a demonic pedophile (referencing the Aisha controversy). ** Pigs and dogs are considered impure animals in Islam.

The group of Imams set out for a tour of the Middle East to present their case to many influential religious and political leaders, and to ask for support:[25] The dossier oscillates wildly between diplomatic statements such as:

We urge you [recipient of the letter or dossier]to - on the behalf of thousands of believing Muslims - to give us the opportunity of having a constructive contact with the press and particularly with the relevant decision makers, not briefly, but with a scientific methodology and a planned and long-term programme seeking to make views approach each other and remove misunderstandings between the two parties involved. Since we do not wish for Muslims to be accused of being backward and narrow, likewise we do not wish for Danes to be accused of ideological arrogance either. When this relationship is back on its track, the result will bring satisfaction, an underpinning of security and the stable relations, and a flourishing Denmark for all that live here
We call your [recipient of the letter or dossier] attention to this case, and place it in your hands, in such a way that we together may think and have an objective dialogue regarding how an appropriate exit can be found for these crises in a way which does not violate the freedom of speech, but which at the same time does not offend the feelings of Muslims either.
and misinformation:

The faithful in their religion (Muslims) suffer under a number of circumstances, first and foremost the lack of official recognition of the Islamic faith. This has led to a lot of problems, especially the lack of right to build mosques […]
Even though they [the Danes] belong to the Christian faith, the secularizations have overcome them, and if you say that they are all atheists, then you are not wrong.
This [the publication of the 12 cartoons] happened in connection with the promotion of a book, which has recently been published, and which contains these inappropriate cartoons
It is notable that the letters in the dossier that long predate the tour to the Middle East are solidly within the diplomatic and concillatory range and are generally free of misinformation, while the later letters use a more urgent language.

The inclusion in the dossier of the cartoons from Weekendavisen was perhaps not due as much to willful misinformation as possibly a misunderstanding. They were more likely parodies on the pompousness of Jylland-Posten’s cartoons than cartoons of the prophet in their own right[26], and consist of reproductions of works such as the Mona Lisa (caption: For centuries, a previously unknown society has known that this is a painting of the Prophet, and guarded this secret. The back page’s anonymous artist is doing everything he can to reveal this secret in his contribution. He has since then been forced to go underground, fearing for the wrath of a crazy albino imam, a very obvious pun on the Da Vinci Code), or Composition VIII by Russian abstract artist Kandinsky (caption: Bellowing Prophet by a Forest Lake, a pun on “Bellowing Deer by a Forest Lake”, an image associated with very poor taste.)

At a 6 December 2005 summit of the OIC, with many heads of state in attendance, the dossier was handed around on the sidelines first[27], and eventually an official communique was issued.[5]

[ElvisL1ves]

Okay, since you ask:

@ayalabmaj

You’re quibbling over semantics. Why are the cartoons offensive? Because they disobey Islamic law. Again I ask: Why is this apparently the only Islamic law non-muslims have to follow?

To your second question, Nobody said it is, or that it has to be followed. To your first, it doesn’t matter why something is offensive, only *that * it is offensive, and that its promulgator knows it. Does it matter *why * Serrano’s photos of crucifixes in urine are offensive, or only *that * they are? You can’t start making those rulings without passing judgment on the validity of someone else’s religion, anyway - just as other posters here are doing with their quotation marks.

Turning away from religion, does it matter *why * a photo of a pile of dogshit on the front page of the paper is offensive, or only *that * it is?

That’s a right pretty saying, but what exactly does that responsibility consist of?.

In this case, not being offensive just for the apparent fun of it.

I’m not advocating belligerence. I’m just advocating a publisher’s right to publish a cartoon that transgresses a religious restriction.

And so am I, if you’ll scroll up - as long as there’s a useful point to be made by doing so. If there isn’t, then we have to explore the concept that not everything that’s right is legal, and not everything that’s legal is right.

Apologizing was wrong because it was an apology extracted by violence. It was also wrong because no-one has any right to expect someone to apologize for not following the rules of a religion they do not belong to.

Again, that wouldn’t have been the reason for the apology. Even if it were, you’re not on shaky grounds in saying there’s ever a wrong time to apologize when you’re in the wrong. Doing so in the *face * of violence can even *add * to its power.

Are you trying to tell me that things had been just peachy between the Islamic world and the Western world before this cartoon thing?

Of course not. Does that mean it should stay that way, though?

Increasing Muslim engagement with the West is not mutually exclusive with maintaining our right to free speech.

Certainly, but once again it isn’t solely or even primarily a free-speech issue. It’s an issue of simple decency, of simple respect for our fellow human beings. And you’re certainly right that we do need to engage all of the rest of the world more deeply. Your observations about that are quite eloquent and quite correct. We don’t really disagree at all on goal, only on method.

The cartoons may have been profoundly offensive to many people, but that, in itself, is no reason not to publish them. Ann Coulter is profoundly offensive, but that’s no reason not to publish her (The reason not to publish her is that she’s a poor writer).

Well, that, and her disregard for the world of fact or sanity. But that’s an interesting comparison - what’s really the difference between Coulter’s efforts as we see them, and this cartoonist’s efforts as devout Muslims see them? Aren’t they both just pointless bashing, designed to offend?

But it is incorrect to say they served no journalistic purpose. The cartoons were drawn in response to the difficulties Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen had in finding an illustrator for his book about Mohammed; many artists he approached feared violent reprisals from Muslim extremists.

One may ask why Bluitgen wanted to do something so insensitive to his subject matter anyway.

Cartoons are not obliged to be funny to be published; take a look at Cathy.

There’s a damn long list of those. But yes, cartoons are published to make money, to get people reading the paper, so the circulation figures can be sold to advertisers.

The republication of the cartoons, once the response to them became a news story, was also valid. Being at the center of the controversy, their publication was valuable in allowing people to form their own judgements as to the offensiveness, content and quality.

I think you’re stretching pretty far to make a point there, if the point is that the purpose of publishing knowingly-offensive material is to show how offensive it is. It is, as I said, simple boorishness.

I wonder, ElvisL1ves, do you think Salman Rushdie should also have refrained from publishing The Satanic Verses? If not, how is that book different to these cartoons?

I haven’t read it, but all the reviews I’ve read of it describe it as basically bashing a religion he does not share. If that’s a fair assessment, then yes, there was no good purpose served in his writing it. That, of course, in no way excuses the death threats against him.

[tagos]

@ElvisL1ves

Okay, since you ask:To your second question, Nobody said it is, or that it has to be followed. To your first, it doesn’t matter why something is offensive, only *that * it is offensive, and that its promulgator knows it. Does it matter *why * Serrano’s photos of crucifixes in urine are offensive, or only *that * they are? You can’t start making those rulings without passing judgment on the validity of someone else’s religion, anyway - just as other posters here are doing with their quotation marks.

Turning away from religion, does it matter *why * a photo of a pile of dogshit on the front page of the paper is offensive, or only *that * it is?

I find none of those things offensive. It’s up to the thin-skinned hysterical refugees from the dark ages to stop taking offence and trying to enforce their own stupid religious values on us, not us to limit our free speech and compromise our values.

Same goes to burning flag hysterics.

[HeelB4Zod]

@ElvisL1ves

And so am I, if you’ll scroll up - as long as there’s a useful point to be made by doing so. If there isn’t, then we have to explore the concept that not everything that’s right is legal, and not everything that’s legal is right.

The useful point (as Rune points out earlier in the thread - I’m sure you just missed it), is how the potential threats of violence against “blasphemers” (aka cartoonists) by Muslims have led to a disturbing trend of “self-censorship” because of this fear of violence.

Were the cartoons offensive? Maybe to others. Not to me, especially considering the context in which they were drawn. In any case, I’d say the cartoons made a powerful and salient point, carry quite a bit of editorial currency, and shouldn’t be dismissed as mere “hate speech.”

I’m with tagos. My right to say, read, draw, or write ANYTHING is just as sacrosanct and sacred as the image and sanctity of Muhammed is to Muslims. Why should my rights take a backseat to the backwardness of a bunch of childish, thin-skinned ninnies, especially in countries (such as Denmark) in which the freedom to speech is supposedly inviolate?

[Sam_Stone]

An analysis of whether the west should have responded to violence with public apologies for giving offense depends on what you believe the nature of the violence is.

If you believe that the violence is due to the unnecessary provocation of people who just want to be left alone but who respond violently to offense, then an apology might not do any harm.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the violence is political violence stirred up by countries and radical Islamists attempting to score propaganda victories against the west and to intimidate the west into subjugating our values for theirs, then an apology gives them a victory, and guarantees that there will be more violence in the future, more writers murdered, and that the violence will spread to lesser insults and other violations of Islamist law.

I firmly believe it’s the latter, and that’s why it was wrong to start out from a position of weakness and apology in response to violence.

For the Imams who inflamed this, and the countries like Iran and Syria that stoked the fires, this can now be seen as a great victory. They intimidated our press into following their desires. They got our governments to bend over and beg forgiveness. They made the ‘Islamist street’ feel strong and confident.

I fully expect we’re going to get a lot more of this in the near future. What works is repeated.

[XT]

@ElvisL1ves

To your second question, Nobody said it is, or that it has to be followed. To your first, it doesn’t matter why something is offensive, only that it is offensive, and that its promulgator knows it. Does it matter why Serrano’s photos of crucifixes in urine are offensive, or only that they are? You can’t start making those rulings without passing judgment on the validity of someone else’s religion, anyway - just as other posters here are doing with their quotation marks.

Basically if authors, writers, cartoonists, etc, have to take into account anyone that could be offended by their works then nothing will ever be written. Certainly nothing interesting.

I wonders…yes, I wonders…does this sensitivity of yours to offending people extend to the political? How about when some left wing rag calls the President Monkey Boy, or publishes a series of pictures of the President making funny faces next to chimps making similar faces? Obviously thats going to offend a lot of folks…more than half of the voters in the country last election in fact. Or how about when folks made fun of Clinton? Or is it only religion thats off limits to you? How about the famous? Can we be ‘offensive’ towards them? Where are you drawing this line on the slick slope Elvis?

As I said on the previous page when addressing your questions (which you didn’t respond too), its all in the eyes of the beholder…and special cases abound. In order to not offend THIS group you will probably end up offending THAT one. Thats why its best to just let folks have the freedom to say what they will. If you don’t like it, don’t read or look at it.

Seriously, don’t you find this situation a bit ridiculous? These folks are rioting over some cartoons…created by people who’s opinion on their religion they don’t REALLY give a shit about, since they are non-believers. And because they are violent about their stupidity folks are willing to bend over backwards and discuss (as you are) self censorship of one of OUR most sacred rights…Free Speech. Some kind of disconnect there IMHO…

-XT

[Sam_Stone]

And in other, “Here’s your reward for apologizing” news:

Organization of the Islamic Conference Calls Emergency Meeting over Cartoon Violence

The OIC member states expect from the EU to identify Islamophobia as a dangerous phenomenon and to observe and combat it like in the cases of xenophobia and anti-Semitism, by creating suitable observance mechanisms and revising its legislation, in order to prevent the recurrence of the recent unfortunate incidents

Muslims respond to some cartoons by rioting, burning embassies and churches, and killing people, but the problem is ‘Islamophobia’, and now we’re going to have an official demand that Europe institute ‘suitable observance mechanisms’ and ‘revise its legislation’ to prevent a recurrence of all this.

Now, before ElvisL1ves accuses me of wanting to nuke Mecca or something (oh, and thanks for that magnanimous apology over your last slander, Elvis. Very big of you), here’s what I think Europe should do: It should say, “You’re right. There’s a double standard in the law. Forthwith, we are removing all hate speech legislation from the books, so that all religions will be treated equally under the law.”

Oh, and I have a question for you, Elvis: Do you think Theo Van Gogh was wrong to make a movie about the treatment of women under Islam? That was also offensive to Muslims, and he wound up with a note to that effect pinned to his chest with a dagger.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Sam Stone

Now, before ElvisL1ves accuses me of wanting to nuke Mecca or something (oh, and thanks for that magnanimous apology over your last slander, Elvis. Very big of you)

That was a *question * to you, based on the basic belligerence of your OP, which I see you’re no longer standing by.

Or, if you prefer, you posted something offensive for essentially the sake of offensiveness, you got a reaction, and now you’re demanding an apology for the reaction. I do hope the lesson doesn’t elude you.

Oh, and I have a question for you, Elvis: Do you think Theo Van Gogh was wrong to make a movie about the treatment of women under Islam?

I haven’t seen the movie, so I don’t know if he was making a point responsibly or simply being offensive for its own sake. Do *you * know? Have *you * seen it?

@xtisme

Basically if authors, writers, cartoonists, etc, have to take into account anyone that could be offended by their works then nothing will ever be written. Certainly nothing interesting.

Excluded middle again. :rolleyes:

@Heel

The useful point (as Rune points out earlier in the thread - I’m sure you just missed it), is how the potential threats of violence against “blasphemers” (aka cartoonists) by Muslims have led to a disturbing trend of “self-censorship” because of this fear of violence.

Do you know what you just said? That the cartoons were meant to explore the subject of what causes offense, by *causing * offense, and how other publications were refraining from doing so unnecessarily. Basic human decency and acceptance of responsibility for one’s own statements is *not * fairly described as “self-censorship”. As a local sports talk radio announcer here loves to say, “You’re *making * my point!”

[Sam_Stone]

@ElvisL1ves

That was a question to you, based on the basic belligerence of your OP, which I see you’re no longer standing by.

Ah yes. Just a question. No inference implied, huh?

@ElvisL1ves

If that only made things worse, would you think it appropriate, much less necessary, for the US to start carpet bombing? That’s essentially what you want here.

Do you ever get tired of being disingenuous? As for the ‘belligerence’ of my OP, I wasn’t aware that asking, “What should our response be?” was belligerent. And as for ‘backing down’ from any position, if you’ve been reading the other threads you’ll see that the points I made in response to your, “Sam wants to carpet-bomb them” nonsense were the same points I’ve been making all along.

[Alistair_McCello]

I just want to make a point in regards to the subjective nature of political cartoons and making a point. We have two cartoons, one theoretical and proposed in this thread and the other actually published.

Cartoon 1:
The situation is that proponents of a major religion are blowing up innocent civilians in the name of the religions founder. The cartoon then shows the founder of this religion in the role of these aggressors to make a point about them committing violent acts in his name.

This cartoon shows Jesus blowing up an abortion clinic.

Cartoon 2:
The situation is that proponents of a major religion are blowing up innocent civilians in the name of the religions founder. The cartoon then shows the founder of this religion in the role of these aggressors to make a point about them committing violent acts in his name.

This cartoon shows Mohamed wearing a bomb as a turban.

ElvisL1ves, you have condemned Cartoon 2 as being nothing but inflammatory bashing and accepted Cartoon 1 as making a valid point to make the aggressors in question think. I personally think both cartoons make points, albeit offensively, and I have no issue with them being published, but to try and limit what can and cannot be published based on your personal interpretation of expression is the antithesis of free speech.

If you think we should refrain from offending our fellow human beings then there would be a lot fewer news outlets. Just from reading these boards I could list off dozens of different outlets that would not last a day under those rules, Air America and Fox News would be shut down immediately let alone all of the newspapers that come up every time there is a thread on journalistic bias.

Oh, plus we would actually have to ban all of those books that are on those most commonly challenged book lists. Goodbye Catcher In the Rye, farewell Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, you may have been classic Americana, but you offended way too many people to be allowed.

The point here is that if your rules governing free speech are that we cannot offend anyone (I know that you stipulated ‘unless its making a point’, but as I pointed out that is subjective as to be moot.) then there is no free speech at all.

If you want to put it up to personal responsibility then fine, you can argue that the cartoons should not have been published but to say that no one should be supporting the action is saying that everyone should have the exact same opinions and interpretations of what makes a point and what is simply offensive. Now clearly this is not the case, or else we would not be having this debate, so what is your litmus test for what is responsibly offensive?

What do you think of Teheran’s call for cartoons about holocaust denial? I think that idea makes a point about hypocrisy in Europe and the illegality of holocaust denial in certain European countries. Now these cartoons are obviously going to be very offensive, not only to Europeans but to Jews everywhere. Is there enough of a point here to publish them? Or are they too offensive? Where do you draw the line?

[Stratocaster]

@ElvisL1ves

I haven’t read it, but all the reviews I’ve read of it describe it as basically bashing a religion he does not share. If that’s a fair assessment, then yes, there was no good purpose served in his writing it. That, of course, in no way excuses the death threats against him.

Apples and oranges here. Rushdie’s work should be published because it is legitimate art, fashioned by a wonderful writer.

And Elvis, you didn’t respond to my earlier post. I agree that basic courtesy would have prevented me from publishing the initial cartoons. Once the savagery started, though, it was real news. Despite that, publications (like the example I provided) who had absolutely no reluctance offending other religions suddenly decided that decorum was best served by not publishing legitimate, newsworthy illustrations.

That’s my point. Once this blew up, the only reason NOT to publish the cartoons was to pander to this savage, infantile Islamic fascism. It is cowardly of a newspaper who had no prior editorial policy restricting this type of religious offense to suddenly flick on their “common decency” switch. I don’t buy it. The Islamic terrorists have achieved a victory, period.

[Grossbottom]

I don’t think it’s spiralling out of control, sad as it is to witness. “Out of control,” to me, means open war. No Islamic government on this planet believes for a second that it can win an open war against the West. I seriously doubt that the entirety of the Muslim world could even make it past Poland. Some suitcase nukes might be a serious danger to a few cities (of which the West has hundreds), but the damage would be token and invite immediate nuclear reprisal. “We blow up downtown Atlanta, you guys blow up Everything We Ever Built” isn’t a good trade, even for a fanatic. Even if the West didn’t retaliate in kind, conventional invasion and regime change would be swift and inevitable, and quite possibly extend to the entire region.

So open war can’t be the goal of the persons behind these protests. It might be clerical muscle trying to remind certain homegrown dictators of who really calls the shots, but I don’t know. I’m beginning to think that there is no plan here, and that some of these people live and breathe merely to find something new to hate, some new excuse to blame the West for every bad thing under the sun. I confess that the entire event strikes me as utterly pathetic, like watching a once great heavyweight champ turned mush-brained drug addict gas station habitue who proves yet again that he’s no longer even capable of making it to the men’s room before pissing himself. People are calling it a clash of cultures, but I can’t say that the whole mess doesn’t just serve to remind me that the Western World was like that once, and could be again if we aren’t careful with our own fundamentalists.

Muslim populations in Europe are another matter though. I think unless something constructive and direct happens soon, it’s going to become a situation where the moral highground is occupied only by the loser.

[E-Sabbath]

Personally, I think it’d be kind of amusing, in a sick way, if the riots led to the people of these countries demanding their governments do things. Writing checks they can’t cash. Boycott Europe. Don’t sell oil to them. Go ahead.

It’d be a sure way to make them all act just like Cowboy Bush and reorganize the Middle East again.

It’s a sad mark on humanity that principles can only go so far, but it’s true. The longer the Middle East relies on being barbaric, the more assuredly they will only hurt themselves in the long run.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Stratocaster

Apples and oranges here. Rushdie’s work should be published because it is legitimate art, fashioned by a wonderful writer.

So you *have * read it?

I agree that basic courtesy would have prevented me from publishing the initial cartoons. Once the savagery started, though, it was real news.

The cartoons, or the savagery?

That’s my point. Once this blew up, the only reason NOT to publish the cartoons was to pander to this savage, infantile Islamic fascism.

I don’t agree that the earlier reasons stopped being good ones, in fact I believe they became even *more * necessary. I certainly do not agree that it became necessary to descend to the level of the street demonstrators, much less the rioters, in the cause of “news”.

It is cowardly of a newspaper who had no prior editorial policy restricting this type of religious offense to suddenly flick on their “common decency” switch.

You lost me there. Which paper, other than the original one, didn’t previously have a “common decency” policy, whether written or not (and it shouldn’t be necessary, either)?

I don’t buy it. The Islamic terrorists have achieved a victory, period.

Yes, indeed, they’ve induced a level of hateful back-backlash from “the Western world” that they can use to incite a back^3lash. But we did *not * have to provide it to them, as bellicosely insisting that we have a goddamned *right * to piss 'em off has done.

[Stratocaster]

@ElvisL1ves

So you *have * read it?

Yes, years ago. Rushdie is a wonderful writer.

The cartoons, or the savagery?

Both.

I don’t agree that the earlier reasons stopped being good ones, in fact I believe they became even *more * necessary. I certainly do not agree that it became necessary to descend to the level of the street demonstrators, much less the rioters, in the cause of “news”.

I guess we disagree here, then. Once the cartoons were published, the genie was out of the bottle, so to speak. I don’t understand the decision not to publish by most U.S. papers, unless it was an act of fear.

You lost me there. Which paper, other than the original one, didn’t previously have a “common decency” policy, whether written or not (and it shouldn’t be necessary, either)?

The Philadelphia Daily News. They have published cartoons of a shotgun-wielding Jesus, as an example, but refuse to publish the cartoons in question. Why? Certainly can’t be because of their desire not to offend. That particular tendency has not previously been too noticeable.

Yes, indeed, they’ve induced a level of hateful back-backlash from “the Western world” that they can use to incite a back^3lash. But we did *not * have to provide it to them, as bellicosely insisting that we have a goddamned *right * to piss 'em off has done.

Agreed. My point is just that however ill-advised the original cartoons are, the current refusal to print them ain’t out of any sense of decency. It is journalistic cowardice, at least in many instances.

[HeelB4Zod]

@ElvisL1ves

Do you know what you just said? That the cartoons were meant to explore the subject of what causes offense, by *causing * offense, and how other publications were refraining from doing so unnecessarily. Basic human decency and acceptance of responsibility for one’s own statements is *not * fairly described as “self-censorship”. As a local sports talk radio announcer here loves to say, “You’re *making * my point!”

No, that’s not what I said.

The cartoons were not meant to explore the subject of what causes offense by causing offense.

The cartoons were meant to explore the degree to which Danish artists’ ability to actually practice free speech was impacted by their fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims when that speech was actually practiced. I’m pretty sure the Danish paper knew they were going to cause offense, but were willing to risk that to prove a point.

Considering the examples of Theo van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsh Ali (sp?) among others who had suffered actual violence or threats thereof by extremist Muslims for actually practicing their free speech rights, the topic is particularly salient. And these morons who are rioting (and the prick religious/political leaders who keep stoking the fires) are doing quite well to prove the Danish paper’s point.

And incidentally, those Israeli cartoonists who want to enter Iran’s Holocaust drawing contest are fucking awesome.

[Sam_Stone]

And incidentally, those Israeli cartoonists who want to enter Iran’s Holocaust drawing contest are fucking awesome.

Absolutely! And this is exactly the kind of ‘response’ I was suggesting. Show them that we’re open and tolerant, even when it offends us. Explain that these values are critical to us, and we’re big boys and girls and can take it. Stand up for our culture, without putting theirs down.

If this is a clash of cultures, and we believe our culture is worth defending, then we should damned well defend it. You don’t do that by apologizing in the face of violence and threats. Especially when the violence has been engineered specifically to elicit that response.

An analogy would be a woman who gets raped because she’s wearing provocative clothes. Absent the rape, there’s a reasonable point to be made about the wisdom of wearing provocative clothes in a bad area at night. But the time to engage that debate is not in response to the rapist yelling, “The bitch had it coming.”

[Mtgman]

I agree the Western world should defend their values. The question here is, what are those values? Free speech, or being a provacateur? The SDMB values free speech and suppresses it minimally. However they have no compunction about banning trolls.

Good faith free speech? I’m 100% behind it.

Pissing people off just to piss them off? Not so much.

Seperating the two is pretty difficult and to defend one without defending the other. Defending the results of the behavior seems pretty much like endorsement of the behavior in the eyes of third parties. Some language needs to be used to show the protection of provacateurs is an unfortunate, and rare, side effect of protecting free speech, not the goal of the protection in the first place.

Enjoy,
Steven