(The thread asks what Arab products are imported to Denmark, so as to reciprocate the boycott.)
An item at the link on this says: “12 satirical drawings, published by the danish newspaper JP, has reached worldwide attention as well as outrage and condemnation in the muslim world (note: terror has not).”
OK, but put the shoe on the other foot for a second. Christian organizations started boycotting retail stores in the U.S. for the crime of advertising sales in December without mentioning Christmas. Can you imagine the result if a foreign newspaper published a series of cartoons degrading Jesus? The rush to boycott would be swift and decisive.
Boycotting the organization or company that’s actually promoting the allegedly offensive material is one thing. (As I said in the GQ thread, I might well have cancelled my subscription to the Danish newspaper that published those cartoons—assuming I had any such subscription in the first place—because I did find them offensive.)
But I don’t see the point of boycotting the exports of an entire country because one of their newspapers publishes something offensive, and that would apply just as much to Christians wanting to launch a boycott because of offensive images of Jesus.
In rereading my OP I think I may have misrepresented my point. I was not intending to defend the actions of the boycotters by saying that Americans would do the same thing, I was criticizing anyone who would launch such a broad boycott. And on third reading I must admit that I have committed the fallacy of the strawman by predicting what Christian groups might do in such circumstances.
Nonetheless, the boycott of retail stores which in fact happened is silly enough in that there was nothing offensive. The boycott was because stores didn’t pander to their religion. So it is food for thought (but perhaps not a certain outcome) what might happen if some other country’s press published something patently offensive. Americans as a culture get pissed off pretty easily.
Hopefully the boycott will fail and fail miserably. It’s a direct attack on free speech and it’s a effort to shut down any and all criticism of their religion. As we have seen (on some occasions), when companies stand up to Christian boycotts of their products they can be successful. Let’s hope the Danes follow suit.
The decision to boycott Danish goods in an effort to silence criticism from the Danish free press has annoyed me. I am now buying more Danish products to compensate.
(Emphasis added.) Wait a second here, folks. As I mentioned previously, I don’t support the boycott of Danish goods, but I think these comments are misrepresenting the issue somewhat.
AFAICT, the outrage caused by the published “cartoons” is not simply because they criticize Islam, but because they’re gratuitously insulting and offensive (at least in some people’s opinion, including mine). I would venture to bet that Danish newspapers prior to this have published non-gratuitously-offensive criticisms of Islamic cultures and Muslim ideas, without generating this kind of outrage and calls for boycotts.
Certainly, I believe that the principle of free speech requires that a newspaper be allowed to publish even gratuitously offensive and insulting cartoons, free of government censorship. But I don’t believe that it obligates people who are offended by such things to refrain from protesting and complaining about them. (I think protests and complaints can be carried too far, of course, as with the current calls for boycotts.)
And I don’t think it’s fair to lump “gratuitously offensive and insulting cartoons” together with “any and all criticism”. The fact that many Muslims are angered by these cartoons does not necessarily imply that they’d be similarly angered by any criticism of Islam. (There are doubtless some Muslims who would be, but you can’t assume that every Muslim who’s pissed off about these cartoons would be equally sensitive about any other criticism directed at their religion.)
So I think it’s inaccurate to hyperbolize this as “an effort to silence criticism” or “shut down criticism” per se. Cool yer rhetoric, troops.
Well that’s actually what it is. No-one is saying that they don’t have a right to boycott Danish coulds we’re just questioning their motives. Muslim groups have tried to pressurize the paper to apologize for the pictures which they have refused to do. So this is merely another weapon in their arsenal to attack the paper’s position.
Nobody said that they can’t do it I’m just exercising my free speech rights as well by saying that I am disgusted that they are doing so and I very much hope that it fails and fails miserably.
Lochdale, I’m not sure you understood my objection. I’m not saying you shouldn’t be pissed off that people are making a boycott issue out of this. I too think that the boycott is unfair and unwarranted.
I’m saying that you shouldn’t conflate “trying to shut down gratuitously offensive and insulting cartoons about Islam” with “trying to shut down any and all criticism of Islam”.
I actually never saw those cartoons until today - some of them must have non-Danes scratching their heads… (The one with the line-up has Danish politicians in the line, the one with the orange falling into the turban is referencing a Danish play and, incidentally, lampooning the entire project for the attention-whoring exercise it is.)
Personally, I think the newspaper engaged in a somewhat tasteless PR stunt, but there’s no denying they have every right to do so. And, of course, the boycotters can buy their feta cheese from whoever they wish.
What seems to have moved the entire depressing affair to more prominence than it deserves is that diplomats from some Arab countries have demanded apologies - not from the paper - but official apologies from the Danish government. The Danish PM has said - and he is right - that there’s no apology forthcoming and that he’s not going to meddle with the free press. In the meantime, Libya has recalled its ambassador, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are treating this as a diplomatic crisis. Egypt refuses to discuss a loan from Denmark etc. etc. And Danish aid workers have been recalled from the region due to concerns over their safety. Refuse aid, that’ll show us.
Oh, and a couple of prominent Danish muslims decided to travel around the region, stirring up anti-Danish feelings and using the cartoons as an example of the horrid oppression they’re suffering. Thanks a lot, guys.
Gah. I don’t know who to despise most in this entire debacle. I’ll grudgingly acknowledge that the PM did the right thing, but seeing as he’s the idiot who sent Danish troops to Iraq, I’m not in the mood to absolve him.
I actually never saw those cartoons until today - some of them must have non-Danes scratching their heads… (The one with the line-up has Danish politicians in the line, the one with the orange falling into the turban is referencing a Danish play and, incidentally, lampooning the entire project for the attention-whoring exercise it is.)
Personally, I think the newspaper engaged in a somewhat tasteless PR stunt, but there’s no denying they have every right to do so. And, of course, the boycotters can buy their feta cheese from whoever they wish.
What seems to have moved the entire depressing affair to more prominence than it deserves is that diplomats from some Arab countries have demanded apologies - not from the paper - but official apologies from the Danish government. The Danish PM has said - and he is right - that there’s no apology forthcoming and that he’s not going to meddle with the free press. In the meantime, Libya has recalled its ambassador, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are treating this as a diplomatic crisis. Egypt refuses to discuss a loan from Denmark etc. etc. And Danish aid workers have been recalled from the region due to concerns over their safety. Refuse aid, that’ll show us.
Oh, and a couple of prominent Danish muslims decided to travel around the region, stirring up anti-Danish feelings and using the cartoons as an example of the horrid oppression they’re suffering. Thanks a lot, guys.
Gah. I don’t know who to despise most in this entire debacle. I’ll grudgingly acknowledge that the PM did the right thing, but seeing as he’s the idiot who sent Danish troops to Iraq, I’m not in the mood to absolve him.
I don’t recall any blanket boycott from the US against the UK when Life of Brian was published.
The newspaper should remain able to publish anything it sees fit. Its motives may perhaps be unwise and inflammatory, and quite its right to freedom of speech starts to equate to shouting “fire” in a theater may be debatable.
The incident is a) ridiculous on both sides, b) disturbing (death threats and all), but c) not unexpected.
However, boycotting of whomever or whatever is par for the course and part of one’s freedom to vote with one’s dollar. I am reminded of images of prominent Republicans pouring French wine in the Potomac (as if the wine makers were in some way responsible). It’s Freedom Fries all over again.
On a positive note, however, I don’t think that Danish bacon exports will be greatly affected.
To begin with, let’s establish that the cartoons actually constituted valid criticism rather than gratuitous propaganda.
The cartoons themselves make few critical points. Mohammed was a terrorist. Islam is oppressive. BlahBlahBlah. All very trite, unoriginal, and specious. However, their very gratuity was designed to make another, very pertinent criticism which, frankly, isn’t made anywhere near enough: The Islamic world is hostile to the concept of freedom of speech. The anaphylactic reaction of thousands of Muslims around the world has, along with the organised protests, the death threats, th economic boycotts, and th freezing of diplomatic relations with Denmark by Lybia and Saudi Arabia, more than proven the point.
That the cartoons made a point to be proven indicates that they were critical pieces, not just jingoistic publicity gimmicks (although they were that too).
Freedom of speech is an absolute concept. It cannot be supported in half measures. One’s support for people to publish what one doesn’t find offensive is completely meaningless.
Islam’s capacity to tolerate criticism cannot be gauged by citing critiques it doesn’t object to. It can only be assessed by examining the reaction to critiques it does object to. Since, in this test, the only grades are ‘pass’ and ‘fail’, and since a passing grade can only be attained by tolerating all criticism, no matter how obnoxious, I feel I can assert, on the evidence of this incident, that the Islamic world is partially comprised of people who cannot handle criticism. These same people calling for the boycott of Danish companies could have dealt with the cartoons in a far more mature and rational manner than they have chosen. They have instead worked ceaselessly to create an atmosphere in which the criticism of Islam is more difficult
These protestors may not be averse to criticism of Islam per se, but they are instrumental in creating an atmosphere where criticism of Islam per se is more difficult. This is just as bad, IMO.
As a somewhat ironic aside, this farrago has prompted an explosion of anti-Islamic artwork across the Right-Wing blogosphere, the most timid examples of which far outstrip the original cartoons in terms of gratuity and offensiveness.
Hmmmmm. This sounds like kind of an ex post facto rationalization to me. I suspect that what really happened was that the cartoonists drew anti-Islam cartoons that they thought were trenchant and funny. And now that many people are instead finding them gratuitously insulting and offensive, the defense is “Well, they were supposed to be gratuitously insulting and offensive, to demonstrate how intolerant you people are about freedom of speech! So there!” Color me skeptical.
Mind you, I certainly do defend the right to free speech, even gratuitously insulting and offensive speech, and I oppose Arab/Muslim attempts to avenge it upon the Danish nation, Danish commerce, or the persons of individual Danes. I just don’t think publishing gratuitously insulting and offensive material is a particularly admirable way to stand up for “the concept of freedom of speech”.
This doesn’t make sense, ISTM. Tolerance of criticism is not a binary concept; it’s possible to be “more tolerant” or “less tolerant”.
I agree that the maximum respect for free speech requires one to be prepared to tolerate any criticism, no matter how offensive. But short of that ideal, there are still distinctions between not being able to handle some types of criticism and not being able to handle any criticism.
No it isn’t, IMO. Tolerating some criticism is better than tolerating no criticism, even if neither one of them attains the ideal of tolerating all criticism. Let’s not make the best the enemy of the good here.
No what happened was that a Danish author of a children’s Muhammed biography in an offhand remark said he was having some problems getting artist to do the cover work on his coming book, as the artist apparently were afraid of the reaction should they draw a depiction of Muhammed (gee I wonder why?!) and as such there was widespread self censure the which was nowhere seen with other religions like Christianity, Judaism, Budhism etc. The author did finally manage to get his coverwork done, but only by letting the artist remain anonymous.
The newspaper (according to itself) thought that couldn’t be right. The Danish muslim community was treated very unfairly with such unfounded fears and Danish muslims were living in a western democracy and were well integrated etc. they would not behave in any way that was contrary to the democratic sprit. etc. So they thought they would give the Muslim community a chance to prove that it was above such. That they would react no worse than the other religions/political groups in Denmark to some satire. Whereafter they invited 12 artist to make the depictions. And then the shit hit the fan.
There’s actually another Danish newspaper which though all the hoopla was absurd and so decided to publish their own batch of depictions of Muhammed - which according to a group of Danish imams which had decided to take it upon themselves to tour the middle east to stir up trouble for Denmark, which according to them is even worse than they ones from the other newspaper. One depiction was a happy smilie with the text Muhammed under. Another an empty chair. Another a Mona Lisa with beard – which according to the Imams – is especially insulting, since 1) It depicts Muhammed (sic!), 2) Muhammed as a woman! 3) Since Mona Lisa has long hair, Mona Lisa – I swear that’s what they said! you really can’t make shit like this up - resembles Jesus, which apparently is a hidden insinuation that Muhammed is a false prophet and only Jesus is real.
Personally I don’t think either newspaper should have brought the images. Though I think it’s fair to say no one, in their wildest nightmare expected such a gigantic mess. Like I don’t like it when you make too much ridicule of Jesus/God (or indeed sink a cross into a glass of piss! or make a porn movie starring Jesus and Maria Magdalena - as one Danish artist did), as that, I don’t particular like it when you ridicule Muhammed. Still the images were at the fairly innocent end of things (compared to porn movies and crosses in piss) and it is an undeniable problem if Danish artist and journalists are afraid to tackle the issues of Islam, and in any case the newspapers have all rights to do what they do. And as for official apology from Denmark to the whole Islamic world and what not. They can look in their ass for that one.
Whoa, I must have missed that one. You mean that religious people are now angry because Christmas is not commercial enough? I wish they would make up their minds.
Because any artistic representation at all of the Prophet Muhammad is considered by many Muslims to be inappropriate or sacrilegious:
So if making any image at all of Muhammad is considered sacrilegious, you can see how depicting him in mocking cartoons would be considered even worse.
Again, I don’t agree with the virulence of the Muslim reaction in this case or the calls for a boycott. But I can’t understand why somebody who wanted to write a children’s biography of Muhammad, and therefore presumably knew something about Muslim religious scruples, would consider it desirable to put a portrait of Muhammad on the cover of the book in the first place.
After all, Christians generally consider it sacrilegious to allege, for example, that Jesus Christ was anything but totally sexually abstinent. Would you publish a picture of Jesus in a passionate kiss with Mary Magdalene and expect Christians just to laugh it off?
I agree that in a democratic society everybody should be able to tolerate satire, even grossly offensive and sacrilegious satire, of the religious figures and symbols that they venerate. But it’s still bad manners to try to tease people with things you know they’ll find offensive and sacrilegious. (As you yourself seem to agree when it comes to Christian sensibilities about, for example, Andre Serrano’s Piss Christ.)
Isn’t this typically the point of editorial cartoons?
In addition, the treatment of women in Muslim cultures is considered offensive by many, why is that not a legitimate issue to take up in an editorial cartoon?
If we try not to offend anyone then we just end up saying nothing.
An Iraqi fighters’ group called on Monday for attacks on Danish and Norwegian targets, according to a statement attributed to the Mujahidin Army. A Norwegian paper has also run the drawings.
The internet statement called on fighters to “hit whatever targets possible belonging to these two countries and others that follow their steps”. It could not be authenticated.
and
Palestinian warning
Sweden warned its citizens against travelling to Gaza and the West Bank and the Swedish consulate in Jerusalem received a fax claiming to be from Fatah’s al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades demanding that all Danes and Swedes leave the area.
“All Swedes and Danes that exist on our soil have 48 hours to leave our country or else,” according to the fax read to Reuters by a consulate official.
Palestinians protesting outside
the EU headquarters in Gaza
Dozens of Palestinians with rifles and grenade launchers rallied outside the EU headquarters in Gaza City, demanding an apology and warning Danes and Norwegians they would be at risk in Gaza.
Some of the armed men fired in the air, while others burned Danish and Norwegian flags.
Hamas, the Islamic resistance group which won Palestinian elections last week, urged Muslim countries to take “deterrent steps against idiotic Danish behaviour”.
Rune, I’ve written to Anders Fogh Rasmussen to say I support him in his fight for freedom of speech.
[I also told him I need a new TV and I’m going to buy a Bang & Olufsen :)]
Originally posted by ** RaftPeople**
Here are the images for the children’s book It’s apparently a picture book, hard to make a picture book without pictures. The purpose of the book was to teach Danish children of Islam, so as to build bridges and further integration. They sure did teach us there.
No I don’t like the images, but do consider them fairly innocent. But as I said, there already has been made a Danish movie wherein Jesus and Maria Magdalene, does this and much more. I haven’t seen it so I can’t comment on its artistic merits. It has been a while, but as far as I remember the discussion was mostly about if the Danish state was right in refusing to fund it. Certainly no one had to go into hiding or fear for their lives or some such thing. Christian groups just ignored him. And the whole thing was quickly forgotten. All the Muslims accomplish with this noise is to give the not very good images of a small regional newspaper in a small country somewhere in the frozen waste on the edge of the globe, world wide circulation and an audience in the tens or hundred of millions instead of a few thousand. Bravo.
The only foreign public person who wanted to stand up for Denmark was Dutch Ayaan Hirsh Ali. While Clinton, which I actually used to pretty much like, has forever earned my contempt by pouring gasoline on the fire and comparing the cartoons to the Nazi anti-Semitic imagery of the 1930’s – and that even in a speech in the middle east which is everywhere riddled with anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism in the Arab World
