Should western democracies self-censor to suit Islamic militancy?

Great Debates
1

In a disturbing news story, another liberal, democratic country is making moves to self-censor (or to be more precise, is leaning on a citizen to limit his freedom of expression) for fear of fanatical, violent and extremist reactions from Muslims.

The un-named film by a leading Dutch politician Geert Wilder dealing with the Koran is slated for January 25 release. For more information about this story, see this article.

I believe much of the feared reaction and protest could come not only from Islamic countries, but also from Muslims in Western countries like France, Britain and the Netherlands. In the French riots of past years, most of the rioters were young Muslims born and educated in France.

But every time we self-censor to avoid Muslim violence, are we not destroying our own values of freedom of expression? Are we not telling Muslims throughout the world that we are ready to sacrifice Western values to the wrath of fanatical Islamists?

If you care anything about our western political ideals, ask yourself what is freedom of expression if not the right to express unpopular ideas without fear?

Now, just by way of comparison, look at this series of comic books, ridiculing Jesus. Known as Son 'O God comics, the series was originally run in National Lampoon (back when it was funny) and has been around for decades.

In these comics, Jesus is ridiculed as a caped ultra-wasp super-hero who battles the Pope and the Roman anti-Christ, Buddha, and a string of other “evil rivals”. I believe there is one in which Allah is represented as a fat, bearded man of middle-eastern origin wearing a fez and bearing a slight resemblance to the Fat Man in the Maltese Falcon.

Do you know of any riots that took place among Chrsitians because of these comics?

The west is at a crossroads. It can either continue to apease Islamic miltancy and sacrifice its principles to avoid short-term pain, or it can demand that Islam get used to the fact that freedom of thought, expression and religion as practised in the west includes even the right to publish materials that are offensive to another’s religious beliefs.

It is time the Muslim world understood that if they cannot grasp our concepts of freedom, they can at least understand that we will not back down or surrender on them.

2

No, and violent protestors should be swabbed with liquified tear gas.

3

Freedom of expression is worth preserving over the protestations and violence of a minority of radical Muslims.
Conversely, that freedom shouldn’t be used to intentionally inflame the passions of ANY religious/socioeconomic group, either.

4

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Freedom of expression is worth preserving over the protestations and violence of a minority of radical Muslims.
Conversely, that freedom shouldn’t be used to intentionally inflame the passions of ANY religious/socioeconomic group, either.
[/QUOTE]

So if certain members of a group become violent and fanatical when their belief is criticized, we should reward that behaviour by repressing our own freedoms and giving them an immunity from criticism?

5

[QUOTE=Valteron]
So if certain members of a group become violent and fanatical when their belief is criticized, we should reward that behaviour by repressing our own freedoms and giving them an immunity from criticism?
[/QUOTE]

That isn’t what I was saying at all. I stated that the freedoms should be preserved, not subjugated to the fanatical whimsy of a violent minority group of whatever stripe.
My caveat meant that just because we have those freedoms doesn’t mean that we should intentionally aggravate a known sore spot with a group just for the sake of doing so, as if flaunting it.
With great freedom comes great responsibility.
Caving to fanatical behavior for the shortsighted hope that a zealot group of people won’t hurt us in some way goes against every fiber of my being, as it should any free-minded person.

6

To answer the OP question: No.

7

So what? to the best of my knowledge, the majority of protesters who self-identified as muslims were not devout, the riots had little or nothing to do with religion, and were primarily protests over economic and social inequality (plus, er, just smashing things up for fun).

As for the OP’s premise, no, in principle there should be no special case of censorship of speech simply because one group happens to claim offense. I’ll frankly be a bit surprised if many posters argue strongly against such a notion.

8

No, there should not be censorship.

And no, the riots in France had next to nothing to do with Islam, they were to do with perceived inequality, much as the riots in London in the 1980s weren’t anything to do with the Christianity of the Caribbean rioters.

9

[QUOTE=Valteron]
It is time the Muslim world understood that if they cannot grasp our concepts of freedom, they can at least understand that we will not back down or surrender on them.
[/QUOTE]
Are you aware that the guy in your example wants to ban the Koran? Perhaps he needs to get a better grasp on our concepts of freedom as well.

Oh, to answer the subject of the OP. No, of course not, and you’ll be hard pressed to find anyone here who says otherwise.

10

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
My caveat meant that just because we have those freedoms doesn’t mean that we should intentionally aggravate a known sore spot with a group just for the sake of doing so, as if flaunting it.

[/QUOTE]

Yes we SHOULD flaunt it and yes, we SHOULD intentionally aggravate a known sore spot, when it comes to making Muslims aware of what we mean by freedom of speech.

You may be amazed and even outraged by my statement, but you may also want to note that the Danish cartoons had just such a genesis. Media in Europe and America are not out to dump on Mohammed or Islam any more than any other subject. Cartoonists and humourists in western democracies regularly lampoon, ridicule and criticize religious leaders and religious beliefs along with politicians, industries, whatever.

But for years now, European cartoonists, on the infrequent occasions when they lampooned Islam, would suddenly find their cartoons quietly shelved by weak-kneed and lily-livered editors and publishers.

The Danish cartoons that created such a stir were a deliberate attempt to overthrow this fear-based censorship with a blast of cartoons specifically targeting Mohammed.

In the ensuing riots and protests, many Muslims in Britain and elsewhere in Europe carried signs praising Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutch Muslim who murdered Dutch film-maker Theo Van Gogh in 2004.

The simple fact is that Islam really does not understand the concept of tolerance of dissent as we in the West understand it.

Take the famous statement attributed (perhaps wrongly) to Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

To western ears, that is one of the noblest and most wonderful expressions of the democratic viewpoint.

I am willing to bet that most Muslims who hear such a statement would scratch their heads and ask something along these lines. “But why would you defend something that is wrong? And if it is not wrong, it is right, so why do you not agree with the person saying it?”

No, I do not love the smell of burning embassies or the sight of innocent people murdered by fanatics. But Muslims, and especially those living in the West, need to learn, one way or the other, what our values are when it comes to freedom of expression.

People like Theo Van Gogh, Geert Wilder, Salman Rusdie, the Danish Cartoonists, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (the Somali woman who wrote “Infidel”) or the murdered translators of the “Satanic Verses” are heroes of freedom who laid their lives on the line (and in some cases paid the ultimate price) to defend freedom of expression for you and I, FoieGras.

I think they deserve better than to be considered provocateurs who aggravate a known sore spot “just for the sake of doing so”.

11

[QUOTE=DMC]
Are you aware that the guy in your example wants to ban the Koran? Perhaps he needs to get a better grasp on our concepts of freedom as well.

[/QUOTE]

If this person wants to ban the Koran, then I will fight any such move. I will also defend my right to flush a page of the Koran, or the Bible, or ANY OTHER BOOK I OWN down the toilet. I will fight both fights with equal vigour because I am defending the same principle in both cases. (Trying to flush the whole volume down would clog the toilet. Even idealists have to be practical) :smiley:

12

Valteron, I agree with you completely. Freedom of expression should not be curtailed to appease extremists.

But what’s the point of the comparison to Christians in the OP? If Christians did storm the National Lampoon headquarters and murder the editors because of the Son-O’-God cartoons, would that make a difference? Would it then be OK to limit freedom of speech to appease violent extremists?

13

[QUOTE=Valteron]
If this person wants to ban the Koran, then I will fight any such move. I will also defend my right to flush a page of the Koran, or the Bible, or ANY OTHER BOOK I OWN down the toilet. I will fight both fights with equal vigour because I am defending the same principle in both cases. (Trying to flush the whole volume down would clog the toilet. Even idealists have to be practical) :smiley:
[/QUOTE]
While I’ve never been a proponent of the “If you want to bitch about X doing Y, you also have to complain about Z doing Y” mentality, in your case, if you want to fight them both with equal vigor, you’d better get cracking on that OP regarding Wilder’s call to ban the Koran. “Party of Freedom” indeed.

14

[QUOTE=Valteron]
Yes we SHOULD flaunt it and yes, we SHOULD intentionally aggravate a known sore spot, when it comes to making Muslims aware of what we mean by freedom of speech.

You may be amazed and even outraged by my statement, but you may also want to note that the Danish cartoons had just such a genesis. Media in Europe and America are not out to dump on Mohammed or Islam any more than any other subject. Cartoonists and humourists in western democracies regularly lampoon, ridicule and criticize religious leaders and religious beliefs along with politicians, industries, whatever.

But for years now, European cartoonists, on the infrequent occasions when they lampooned Islam, would suddenly find their cartoons quietly shelved by weak-kneed and lily-livered editors and publishers.

The Danish cartoons that created such a stir were a deliberate attempt to overthrow this fear-based censorship with a blast of cartoons specifically targeting Mohammed.

In the ensuing riots and protests, many Muslims in Britain and elsewhere in Europe carried signs praising Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutch Muslim who murdered Dutch film-maker Theo Van Gogh in 2004.

The simple fact is that Islam really does not understand the concept of tolerance of dissent as we in the West understand it.

Take the famous statement attributed (perhaps wrongly) to Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

To western ears, that is one of the noblest and most wonderful expressions of the democratic viewpoint.

I am willing to bet that most Muslims who hear such a statement would scratch their heads and ask something along these lines. “But why would you defend something that is wrong? And if it is not wrong, it is right, so why do you not agree with the person saying it?”

No, I do not love the smell of burning embassies or the sight of innocent people murdered by fanatics. But Muslims, and especially those living in the West, need to learn, one way or the other, what our values are when it comes to freedom of expression.

People like Theo Van Gogh, Geert Wilder, Salman Rusdie, the Danish Cartoonists, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (the Somali woman who wrote “Infidel”) or the murdered translators of the “Satanic Verses” are heroes of freedom who laid their lives on the line (and in some cases paid the ultimate price) to defend freedom of expression for you and I, FoieGras.

I think they deserve better than to be considered provocateurs who aggravate a known sore spot “just for the sake of doing so”.
[/QUOTE]

Valteron, I can appreciate what you are saying, and I as a former Army veteran from a line of West Pointers ( Grandfather, father, both Uncles…I didn’t go there, I broke the mold and enlisted), I can fully understand what “laying it on the line” for freedom really can mean.

I have a couple Muslim friends and they are so far from this radical behavior that it’s ridiculous. But they are Americans, so they understand the Western concepts that “anything goes” in terms of what you can say or do.

I am not amazed nor shocked by what you are suggesting, but I also don’t think that what I suggest is necessarily “caving” to any type of pressure. Just because I can take a dump on an image of Jesus Christ in my yard doesn’t mean I should.

I believe that it’s a respect issue, and that we as Americans are suppposed to represent something greater than ourselves, although that image is now somewhat tarnished.

I actually did not realize that the Muhammad cartoon with a bomb in his turban was a deliberate backlash action against extremism, I thought it was just some random cartoonists’ attempt at…whatever he was attempting.

I agree that it is infuriating that some (a minority, albeit a violent one) brutalize the Islam religion and twist it into something it isn’t and that those people simply cannot accept a divergent point of view, but as long as there are religious zealots, there will always be this kind of behavior. Christianity is no different, especially throughout history, with Inquisitions, witch burning, etc…but it has largely “grown up” compared to some of the Islamic sects that feel the need to subjugate the world under a Caliphate.

This is a tough issue. I’m new here and seriously considering a subscribership as there’s some good issues being tossed around. This kind of reminds me of the other thread on here about other cultures being regressive.

As a Westerner, I would love to hear from someone on here that could explain why we as Westernized peoples developed a strong sense of seperation of religion from government versus how Muslim countries are today.
We can say what we want, some of them cannot.
Why is this? Why cling to these hardline religious notions? Is it all simply about retaining power for the Imams?

This world is abounded with craziness, and I cannot abide most of it, I can only wonder at it and hope that I raise my kids right.

But on topic, ultimately, no, we should NEVER allow another country, sect or group people to change the way we interpret our freedom.

I just want to also hope that people realize that there is a line in the sand somewhere, as fuzzy as it may be.

15

[QUOTE=Revtim]
Valteron, I agree with you completely. Freedom of expression should not be curtailed to appease extremists.

But what’s the point of the comparison to Christians in the OP? If Christians did storm the National Lampoon headquarters and murder the editors because of the Son-O’-God cartoons, would that make a difference? Would it then be OK to limit freedom of speech to appease violent extremists?
[/QUOTE]

The point of my comparison is that we have to make Muslims understand that we do this all the time, even with figures like Jesus Christ who is revered as divine by hundreds of millions of people in the western world where National Lampoon was sold and where these comics are still available on the internet.

I am NOT going to budge a f****ing inch when it comes to freedom of expression, and Muslims have to understand that. No amount of rioting or threats or burining embassies is worth surrendering on the issue. But maybe they can start to understand our values of freedom if they see that the right to ridicule is not just something directed against Islam.

Maybe if they see that the editors of NL are unharmed even though surrounded by millions of Christians, they will start to unbderstand there is a principle involved here.

16

Thanks for the elaboration Valteron, that makes sense.

17

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]

I am not amazed nor shocked by what you are suggesting, but I also don’t think that what I suggest is necessarily “caving” to any type of pressure. Just because I can take a dump on an image of Jesus Christ in my yard doesn’t mean I should.

I believe that it’s a respect issue, and that we as Americans are suppposed to represent something greater than ourselves, although that image is now somewhat tarnished.

[/QUOTE]

For starters, I am not American but Canadian. But that said, I like your comparison to taking a dump on an image of Jesus in my yard. Or else, what about burning the flag of the US or Canada.

Now, I have absolutely NOOOOO interest in burning Old Glory or the Canadian Flag. And my toilet is just fine as a recipient of my stools, thank you. :smiley:

If I were in the US, my status as a guest would further limit, in my own mind, what I would allow myself to do with the US flag.

But as the Universe is my witness, FoieGras, I tell you this. The day someone tries to pass a law telling me I CANNOT burn a Canadian flag, I and my friends, no matter how much we love our country, are going to have a flag barbecue before you can say “maple leaf”. NOT because we love our country less but because we love freedom more.

By the same token, the day someone tells me I cannot shit on a picture of Jesus, and the day someone threatens me with harm if I do so, or makes it illegal to do so. . . Well, sorry JC, loved your Sermon on the Mount, but you’re taking a look at the Hershey Highway.

As we speak, there are people who live in hiding and in fear of their lives for having expressed opinions critical of Islam. And I WILL NOT TOLERATE THAT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THOSE PEOPLE LIVE IN THE WEST and are my fellow citizens of democratic countries.

What would be more evil: A law that says you must put a picture of Jesus in your home and honour it, or a law that says you cannot take a dump on a picture of Jesus on your own property if you want to do so? Answer: Both are equally intolerable attacks on our democratic freedoms.

Now change “picture of Jesus” to “the flag” and my point remains the same.

18

[QUOTE=Valteron]
For starters, I am not American but Canadian. But that said, I like your comparison to taking a dump on an image of Jesus in my yard. Or else, what about burning the flag of the US or Canada.

Now, I have absolutely NOOOOO interest in burning Old Glory or the Canadian Flag. And my toilet is just fine as a recipient of my stools, thank you. :smiley:

If I were in the US, my status as a guest would further limit, in my own mind, what I would allow myself to do with the US flag.

But as the Universe is my witness, FoieGras, I tell you this. The day someone tries to pass a law telling me I CANNOT burn a Canadian flag, I and my friends, no matter how much we love our country, are going to have a flag barbecue before you can say “maple leaf”. NOT because we love our country less but because we love freedom more.

By the same token, the day someone tells me I cannot shit on a picture of Jesus, and the day someone threatens me with harm if I do so, or makes it illegal to do so. . . Well, sorry JC, loved your Sermon on the Mount, but you’re taking a look at the Hershey Highway.

As we speak, there are people who live in hiding and in fear of their lives for having expressed opinions critical of Islam. And I WILL NOT TOLERATE THAT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THOSE PEOPLE LIVE IN THE WEST and are my fellow citizens of democratic countries.

What would be more evil: A law that says you must put a picture of Jesus in your home and honour it, or a law that says you cannot take a dump on a picture of Jesus on your own property if you want to do so? Answer: Both are equally intolerable attacks on our democratic freedoms.

Now change “picture of Jesus” to “the flag” and my point remains the same.
[/QUOTE]

I think you and I are barking up the same tree essentially, perhaps me with a bit less vitriol and you a bit more casting caution to the wind.
And this: Well, sorry JC, loved your Sermon on the Mount, but you’re taking a look at the Hershey Highway
is PRICELESS!
:slight_smile:

19

[QUOTE=Valteron]
In a disturbing news story, another liberal, democratic country is making moves to self-censor (or to be more precise, is leaning on a citizen to limit his freedom of expression) for fear of fanatical, violent and extremist reactions from Muslims.

The un-named film by a leading Dutch politician Geert Wilder dealing with the Koran is slated for January 25 release. For more information about this story, see this article.
[/QUOTE]

That article claims that the justice department is looking into possibly preventing the film from airing. I don’t know where they get the info from - not from the linked Dutch article in any case.

As far as I know there’s no possibility of preventing a first airing any way. While Dutch law allows censorship of hate-speech (Mein Kampf is banned here) censorship can only be applied after the material to be censored is made public and examined.

Most articles I’ve read indicate that the concern is more about the security for Wilders and the possibility of riots than the actual content of the film. In other words, he’ll probably get some extra police protection. How is that censoring?

As far as I’m concerned the laws we have here (in the NL) against hate-speech are misguided and everybody should be able to say whatever the hell they like, but Wilders is a hypocritical asshole and I personally believe that the only reason he’s making the film in the first place is that he wants more of the spot light. That he’s calling for the Koran to be banned while at the same time complaining that he’s sometimes warned against being outrageously offensive is typical of him.

20

[QUOTE=Superfluous Parentheses]
…, but Wilders is a hypocritical asshole and I personally believe that the only reason he’s making the film in the first place is that he wants more of the spot light. That he’s calling for the Koran to be banned while at the same time complaining that he’s sometimes warned against being outrageously offensive is typical of him.
[/QUOTE]

I get the impression Wilders is just that. All I have been able to find about him shows he is a showman and a demagogic publicity hog. So who do you think our freedom of expreession is meant to protect if not unpopular assholes with outrageous opinions? (Like me :D)

Is it just there to protect the right of sweet old ladies to say how nice their roses look this year?

Why do you think the ACLU uses a bunch of sharp lawyers (many of whom are apparently Jewish) to protect the right of American Nazis to march in American Jewish neighbourhoods?

As a person with Jewish relatives, I would like to kick some of these Nazi scum losers to death.

But instead I will back their right to demonstrate within the law.