What like Isreal not buying Iranian goods? Or vice versa?
I don’t think Iran will add any additional fuel to the fire, they have already (in the last few months) been very vocal about the holocaust
EEMan, you might be right there, but I personally think that a let’s-mock-the-holocaust cartoon draw-off is just going to escalate the situation THAT much further. Weirdly enough, Israel & the US have managed to remain fairly uninvolved (by their usual standards) in this whole debacle. Although the US is the poster boy for Western moral decandence, this time, the Danes are getting the heat (no pun intended). And now when Israel will rightly and predictably come out against this, it will be spun by Iran as hypocracy, when Israel seemed to be on the sidelines of this whole thing in the first place.
So yeah, I’ll say that the baiting of Israel will add fuel to the fire, actually. Cartoons, it seems, are becoming serious business.
Not sure Isreal (as a whole) is really all that surprised by the actions of Iran… or their ‘national news’…
Isreal doesn’t need to come out against it… nor does the US… though one or the other of them might
This is really a NON issue… Iran is no fan of Isreal … or Isreal of Iran… this is much like ‘Boris the Ruskie’ stuff the US used to put out… or the anti-american stuff the Soviets used to put out… no need to ‘talk about it’… as it wasn’t really a surprise
FWIW, the US is NOT on the sidelines… they have had violent protests outside of at least 5 flag facilities (either embassies or consulates)
Good points all, but violent protests and burning embassies aren’t the same thing. My fear is that with Iran throwing their hat in the ring (so to speak), it will further enflame the situation. I made the point earlier (which evil captor had issue with) that difusing this is in everyone’s interest and I stand by that. The article I linked shows that anything but that will happen.
hah! I absolutely knew it. Soon it’s back to business as usual; Jews hatred. And people will forget that Denmark is not the suburbs of Holland and suddenly remember Israel is the capital of Evil. They’re already saying the Danes were victims of a zionist conspiracy and a Jewish owned media. Well Israel, it was fun being the great satan and whipping boy an all, but you can have your job back now.
My issue is that the violence that Muslim mobs engage in amounts to coercion. Do what we say or we’ll kill people and set fire things until you do. I got nothing for them but the back of my hand.
I can’t argue with you on that. It’s just that in this case, I don’t necessarily think the Danish newspapers are in the right. Sure, they have freedom of speech and no one’s taking that away from them, but they also need to publish responsibly, right? As I understand it, part of the reason for printing these cartoons in the first place was to see if cartoonists were self-censoring. But, hey, I’ve seen plenty of comics mocking AQ & other religious fanatics without burning embassies. The difference here of course is that the papers mocked the religion itself, not the lunatics who hijacked it, which, weirdly enough, might have created more lunatics. It’s just about being responsible, not about censorship.
Not to mention they don’t really seem very funny, do they?
I was on the fence about this originally, hence my reason for shuffling into GD in the first place. EC takes issue with the fact that these fanatics are imposing their value system on others, whereas I might say that we should respect their value system, not the values of religious terror but just their God & tabboos. I can see it either way. The printing of these comics feels like a spoiled brat swimming in a shark tank with a leg of lamb, chanting “it’s my right to be here.” Sure is, but there might be a consequence or two.
The cartoons was meant for a Danish audience and in line with a century and a half Danish cultural tradition. And, as such, even on the innocent side of things. But taken out of the Danish context and shown without explanation to an audience in the Middle East for whom such a tradition is unknown and impossible to understand - as well as having no experience with a free and independent press, it produces quite another response. Perhaps it’s a sign of the nightmare globalisation can also be.
True, you got me there. Too bad it was turned into performance art. Have to wonder if he got his $25,000 from the insurance company.
I disagree. Jews are already treated poorly in Arab newspapers so it won’t generate anything above the usual objections. In fact, it will serve as a platform to display any derogatory cartoons that have already been published. It’s a win/win for the Israelis.
On the other hand it will make the Iranians look incredibly childish and the lack of violent response will further emphasize the truth of the original Danish commentary. It falls along the line that if your adversary wants to make an ass of himself, stand back and let him.
No the comics that caused this where not published in the newspapers. From many sources those three extra cartoons where the biggest cause of uproar.
And you know what? If Muslims had protested peacefully and made a serious attempt at explaining why it was so offensive to them, then maybe we could have a discussion about rights vs responsibilities in the media.
But the minute they react with violence, it’s time to close ranks around the press, stand up for their right to say whatever the hell they please, and to tell Muslims that violence will not be tolerated and the issue will not be discussed in any way until the violence stops. Period.
As for the Iranian Holocaust thing… They do have a small point. And that is that many European nations have ‘hate speech’ laws that make it illegal for people to publish material that offends certain groups. These laws are abhorrent, and there is a litttle double-standard here in which countries have come to defend these cartoons, when the authors could have actually been charged with a crime had they published in some of them.
alas, I have no cite, but I heard (npr?) that the origin of the imbroglio was a petition from the danish ulema that the governement treat the cartoons’ publication as a “hate speech offense”. Failing to get satisfaction, they “took their show on the road” so to speak.
If this is correct, this sort of becomes more of an equal protection than a freedom of speech issue.
Albeit tediously, I reiterate my support for an absolute standard.
Say what you like, the government is not a player in the game.
It would surely be easier in the US for a sovereign entity to duck this sort of inter-communal beef, on the grounds of ,
“hey, first amendment. sorry 'bout your luck”
Here is a link to another good article about the cartoons.
I think alaricthegoth (please let that be some sort of historical Visigoth reference, or at least Monty python) makes a good point. There ARE Muslims who are rioting violently, for Allah knows what reason, possibly because of the 3 “extra” cartoons brought with the original 12, possibly due to an orchestrated campaign by Iran or Saudi to distract from other issues, or possibly because they don’t want anyone anywhere to ever offend them (not being sarcastic, could be all of the above, or other reasons). Obviously there is no reason for them to be doing this, obviously the people involved in participating in or inciting these riots has blood on their hands and should stop immediately.
There ARE ALSO Muslims who are protesting these cartoons in reasonable and legal ways, and they are doing for reasonable and legal reasons. The fact that many of the people in this thread and others keep referring to “the Muslims” as one homogeneous body truly sucks and undermines the usually intelligent approach to issues taken on this board. If you are a white Christian from the southeastern US do you want to be held responsible for actions of the Klan?
In France, for example, there have been recent lawsuits around similarly offensive material against Jews and Christians. The example given on NPR (yes I listen to the hippy news, but I always remember that they are often full of shit) was the last supper used in a clothing add, and in the case of the clothing add it was pulled. And there are extremely stringent and well enforced laws around anti-Semitic images, which I would expect would be invoked if these were caricatures of Jews. The people who made the cartoon of Sharon eating a baby are not necessarily the ones who are seeking equal protection under law in Europe; I would actually bet they are different people.
Personally I think that the cartoons are not that big a deal, and people should fucking relax about that kind of thing. I would applaud the intentions of the newspapers that printed them if the intention was to say “fuck you” to the violent psychos. I would condemn those same newspapers if the intention was to say “fuck you” to the people seeking equal protection, especially in France (in the context of recent events as well as things like the massacre of Muslims in Paris in the '60’s). As has been pointed out the number of cartoons, movies, art pieces, what have you that are insulting to Christians is huge. I myself like to make fun of Christians and Scientologists (more Amway than a religion, but you get the point) quite a bit and would be pissed if someone said I could not. But, and especially in the context of European history, those kinds of cartoons have been used with devastating effect in the past when used to marginalize a minority. Is this South Park’s “Jesus and Pal’s” or is this Goebells’ “Der ewige Jude”, or somewhere in between?
The problem is, what do you do when the minority being marginalized has members who are fucking dangerous psychos who threaten civilized society in general? Makes for a messy situation for which it is hard to come up with pat answers.
Last but not least, I would really like to see more than the occasional condemnation from a Muslim public figure about the shit that the minority faction of insane Muslims are doing. I mean, are there public Muslim protests of rioting, bombing, extreme oppression of women and homosexuals, ugly clothes, etc. that are not getting reported? I don’t think this means we should paint all Muslims with the same brush, but it sure does undermine ones enthusiasm for not doing so.
It’s certainly true that we have to make sure that we do not lump all Muslims together here, and honestly I don’t think anyone’s doing that. We all recognize that there are moderate Muslims - a majority in fact.
However, we should also be clear on the scope of the problem. This isn’t just a handful of people. It’s millions. A poll among Britain’s Muslim population a few months ago showed that 2 in 5 British Muslims believed that terrorism against Jewish civilians was acceptable. That’s 40% of that population! Bin Laden has the support of as many as 50% of the population in some Muslim countries (and as little as 5% in other Muslim countries, it should be pointed out. But 5% of 100 million people is still 5 million supporters of terrorism).
And aside from terrorism, there is widespread support in many Muslim countries for practices we should find abhorrent. ‘Honor’ killings, subjugation of women, anti-semitism, execution of homosexuals and heretics, etc. A woman has just been sentenced to death in Iran for stabbing a man who was raping her and who was also going to rape her niece. But self-defense isn’t allowed for women in such cases, so she is going to hang.
Honor killings occur frequently. Some provinces in Pakistan have hundreds per year. Some Muslim countries have actually codified significantly reduced penalties for honor killings. In Jordan, honor killings make up at least 25% of the murder rate, and many believe the number is much higher because so many go unreported or unsolved because the community looks the other way when it happens, and the police don’t try very hard to bring the perps to justice.
The analogy with the KKK is interesting, because it’s actually a pretty good one. The actual membership of the KKK was a small minority of people, and most of the members were never involved in actual killings. But the KKK thrived for decades and had considerable power and influence because they existed within an enabling culture. More moderate people may not have liked the KKK’s methods, but they refused to give them the moral censure they deserved because they either agreed with their goals, or because they saw them as fighters for southern culture, or for historical reasons, or whatever. There are always reasons you can come up with for excusing abhorrent behaviour that just happens to align with your own prejudices or goals.
That’s what is happening in the Middle East and other Muslim countries. The actual hard-core fanatics and terrorists may be a small minority, but they exist in an enabling culture that looks the other way, makes excuses for terror, puts the blame on other parties (the Jews, America, Danish newspaper editors) or condemns terror mildly while not doing much to actually stop it. Police look the other way, jails have revolving door back exits, neighbors don’t report suspicious behaviour, fund-raising is easy, etc.
The KKK didn’t subside in power because it lacked racist fanatics to join its ranks. It subsided in power when the culture around it changed and stopped enabling them. The KKK became marginalized and shunned. Their crimes were prosecuted more vigorously. Neighbors ostracised them.
Have you heard of Stetson Kennedy? He’s a civil rights hero. He did a lot to weaken the KKK. Do you know how he did it? By making them look foolish. He infiltrated the Klan, and learned their secret names, handshakes, rituals, etc. Then he gave the information to the writers of the Superman radio serial, and Superman took on the Klan. He trivialized their sacred rituals, stripped away their mystique, and helped change the culture. It had a devastating effect on Klan recruiting and fund-raising.
The Muslim world needs a few Stetson Kennedys. Someone who will make an honor killing (which has no actual basis in Islam) look like what it is: The desperate act of a bully, rather than something ‘honorable’. Someone who will portray an abuser of women as a coward and a weakling. Someone who will point out that tolerating dissenting views is a sign of strength, not weakness. Someone who can help change the culture.
And that’s why this cartoon business is so important. Because without a free exchange of ideas, you can’t do it. Today, a Muslim Stetson Kennedy would simply be killed. That’s why there aren’t any of them. So the first step to real change is to make sure that the concept of a free press is absolute. And that’s why the countries that are appeasing this violence and apologizing for the ‘offense’ are dead wrong. They’re destroying our first line of defense against extremism, and making it less likely that anyone will step up and make the attempt to change the culture.
Sam Stone, it sounds like we see eye to eye on many points, both of us think that the silence of the Muslims who supposedly do not support this kind of behavior is disturbing. Although, as you point out, Americans (and lets face it, humans in general) have been silent and complicit in similar situations throughout history.
As I stated in my post I applaud the papers if there intent is to say “fuck you” to the violent psychos. But it is hard to say if that is who they are saying “fuck you” to or to the ones seeking equal protection.
I can’t speak to those stats (stats can be made to support any argument), but I wouldn’t be surprised if you are basically correct. I assume you are bringing them up in the context of concern over the aforementioned silence of the supposedly peaceful majority of Muslims. Otherwise not sure why they are relevant.
Just to go down the Klan rabbit hole a little farther, you analogy on top of my analogy is very interesting indeed. If the cartoonist had drawn pictures of Jesus Christ showing up at a Klan rally and burning crosses and saying that heaven was getting full of Klansmen due to all of their church bombings, I would wager the response would have been different. Somewhat irellevant to the arguement at hand, but I started it so I can’t bitch too much :).
That is why I posed the question about what kind of cartoon we are talking about. Harmless joke (South Park’s Jesus) which you can tell is harmless because it is making fun of the religion of the most powerful man on earth (GWBush) with no impact to his power. Or harmful propaganda (any of Goebbels Der Jude garbage) which you can tell was harmful, well I don’t need to spell out why. I would say that it is somewhere in between, realistically closer to South Park than Goebbels, but that’s my opinion and I have never been a minority and have no religion so what the fuck do I know.
The point is that regardless of the reaction of some Muslims, does that make it ok to print the pictures as a show of support for the original paper who printed them? Is the idea that if no Muslims had responded violently than it would NOT have been ok to print the pictures? Think about it, lets say no Muslims responded violently, and some Muslims in Europe brought a case to court saying “hey last week you kept anti-Semitic cartoons out of the papers, but this week these are OK?” I bet most people on this board would support the Muslims position. It has to be one way or the other. Either you can print pictures of this type, or you can’t. You can’t say anti-Semitic bad, anti-Muslim good. Look at some of the shit Israel has pulled, has that made it OK to print pictures of yaweh welcoming Jews to heaven for killing Palestinian children? I am not an expert on European law (I am sure there is just one law over there right?) but if that type of thing would not normally be aloud if it denigrated group A then that has to apply to group B, regardless of how violent some members of group B are.
The problem is that we are reacting to the violent assholes, not looking at what the actual problem is. Is it ok for some Muslims to say that no one can ever create a picture of Mohammed ever? Not at all, it may be against their religious beliefs but as many have correctly stated you can’t get me to live by your beliefs. It has also been pointed out that you can get objects with pictures of Mohammed all over the place in the Middle East. Is it insensitive in the extreme to print a picture of something that violates the basic tenant of someone’s belief system, or is abhorrent to there sense of right and wrong, absolutely. You want to see animal porn in the New York times? (wait, don’t answer that ) If it were just a picture of Mohammed done respectfully and there were protests I would be the first to say “suck it” to the protesters. To be perfectly honest I want to say “suck it” anyway, my initial response to ANYONE in support of any kind of censorship is just that, you don’t like, tough. But, if we are going to say censorship of something that is blatantly anti-Semitic is OK then we should be consistent.
To be clear, I am not trying to argue that I personally think those pictures should never see the light of day, I am trying to argue that if equivalent pictures denigrating a different group would never see the light of day the same should apply here. That’s it, how violent some Muslims are should not be part of the question. Let’s say there was a furor over some anti-Semitic cartoons in some right wing French nationalist publication. If they are the type of pictures that normally are not allowed maybe you don’t show them. Maybe you do show the pictures in question, but show them as examples of how fucked up and lame right wing French nationalists are (I mean really, you are already French, do you have to make it worse?), not how right wing French nationalists are champions for free speech. And more to the point if some French Jews get violent (I think we can all agree not very likely), don’t use that as a reason to say that the pictures are OK.
Remember the truism: not all Muslims are terrorists, but increasingly almost all global terrorists are Muslims.
Update: I found this interesting:
Sort of undermines the “genuinly outraged Muslims” angle.
- but it sure does undermine ones enthusiasm for not doing so.*-
One would delight in the foundation of the M.C.L.U., or the Muslim-Christian Fellowship Association, or the League for Muslim Tolerance, but it’s asking an awful lot from people living under muslim theocracies (or quasi-theooucracies) to buck the popular trend when it’s likely to get your own ass hiked up on a pole.
- some sort of historical Visigoth reference*
coincidentally:http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7093487&postcount=48