I'm sure you've all been following this story:
Danes face fury over cartoons of Prophet
Telegraph
31/01/2006
I've blogged my opinion of Jack Straw before, it hasn't changed with this:
Straw condemns cartoon row press
BBC News
3 February 2006
For me, I rank this with the Theo van Gogh murder as a key indicator of how (indeed, whether) the West will stand up for its own sacred principles in the face of the Islamist (note: IslamIST) threat. I wanted to post a lot more links, but work has intervened, so I thought it better just to get a thread going with a short posting.
Here are the cartoons themselves (thanks Dan):
Danish Imams Propose to End Cartoon Dispute
And just some food for thought:
Anti-Semitic Cartoons in the Arab Media
Major Anti-Semitic Motifs in Arab Cartoons
83 comments:
Ironically, the publication of any of these cartoons would have become an offense under the original version of the Religious Hatred Bill as they definately 'insult and ridicule religion'. Personally, I think they are pretty crass, badly drawn and unfunny but I'd defend the right of the most ham fisted and witless cartoonist to draw whatever he wants (including the equally unfunny and badly drawn 'Anti-Semitic' cartoons).
So now I'm agreeing with Bunglawala and Sacranie? Pardon any offence to our Muslim brethren, but I think pigs may be flying.
Muslims tell Yard to charge protesters
The Sunday Times
February 05, 2006
BRITAIN’s leading Islamic body yesterday called on Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, to press charges against the extremists behind last week’s inflammatory protests in London over the “blasphemous” cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.
In London, Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said the extremists should be prosecuted. “The Metropolitan police should now consider all the evidence they have gathered from the protests to see if they can prosecute the extremists,” he said. “It is time the police acted, but in a way so as not to make them martyrs of the Prophet’s cause, which is what they want, but as criminals. Ordinary Muslims are fed up with them.”
The council, a moderate umbrella group, was speaking after the demonstration last Friday in which some protesters chanted the name of Osama Bin Laden and “You must pay, 7/7 is on its way” — a reference to the London suicide bombings. Five hundred demonstrators brandished placards, including ones proclaiming “Behead the one who insults the Prophet”, “Down, down UK” and “Freedom go to hell”.
Bunglawala said: “Lots of innocent Muslims went to the demonstration not realising that it was organised by extremists. They were hijacked by them.” Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the council’s secretary-general, said: “We cannot have double standards, so therefore any breach of the law should be looked at by the police and investigated.
Two clear sighted and calmly reasoned comments on the hysteria and confusion surrounding the Danish cartoons.
John Casey argues that the Danish Cartoons are an example of the West's ignorance and misunderstanding of Islam.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/02/05/do0509.xml
Henry Porter debates the questions these events raise for freedom of speech.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1702532,00.html
Well I read the Casey article and I found little to commend it.
* His analysis of the roots of the current wave of Islamism is hopelessly off the mark (see his para beginning: "The current political violence by Muslims can be traced to two quite clear events") - read someone like Daniel Pipes to get a good modern day analysis of the movement, and Bernard Lewis to get the historical perspective.
* I'm sick of people attempting to excuse the rabid intolerance of most current Muslim societies by going on about how Christianity was even worse in the Middle Ages - of what possible relevance is that? Usually the next comment is something like "the Muslims invented algebra, you know".
* And as for the "publishing the cartoons is a breach of good manners" argument, and Casey is far from the only one arguing it (Jack Straw seems to, for starters), it's a crock of shit. Take a look at how this row actually started (see excerpt below). A Danish children's author could not find anyone prepared to publish his book on Mohammed and the Koran. From that everything followed. Any anyhoo, since it is the height of bad manners to behave inappropriately in someone else's house, I woulda thought it's the Hizb ut Tahrir sons of bitches protester-types who have most egregiously crossed the etiquette line.
JP
PS Irrelevant aside: if the reason for not allowing portrayals of the prophet is fear of idolatry, surely any such images which could in no way be idolized are exempt?
-----------------------------------
HOW IT BEGAN:
Focus: Freedom v faith: the firestorm
The Sunday Times
February 05, 2006
IT began innocently with a Danish children’s book on the Koran and the prophet’s life. Its author, Kare Bluitgen, was having difficulty finding an illustrator, complaining that all the artists he approached feared the wrath of Muslims if they drew images of Muhammad. Many cited the murder of the Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh by an Islamist as reason for refusal. Learning of this, Flemming Rose, cultural editor of the daily Jyllands-Posten, invited anyone “bold enough” from the Danish Cartoonists’ Society to submit their entries. On September 30 Carsten Juste, the newspaper’s editor, published 12 drawings, declaring he wanted to challenge the trend for “self-censorship”.
One showed a bearded Muhammad with a bomb fizzing out of his turban. Another depicted him telling dead suicide bombers that he had run out of virgins with which to reward them. In another he is portrayed as a schoolboy with a blackboard. To many non-Muslims the drawings might seem banal and poorly executed. But in the Islamic world the offence was palpable. Muslims across the globe observe the injunction not to display pictures of animals or humans, notably Allah’s messenger Muhammad, to prevent idolatry.
Nevertheless, the row might have died out if the Danish government had not sought to make political capital of it. Despite the ambassadors of 11 Muslim countries calling on Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the prime minister, to take “necessary steps” against the “defamation of Islam”, he refused to back down, describing the cartoons as “a necessary provocation”.
“I will never accept that respect for a religious stance leads to the curtailment of criticism, humour and satire in the press,” said Rasmussen, whose centre-right minority party is dependent for survival on support from Folkeparti, an anti-immigration party.
Muslim anger flared up again in early January when the cartoons were reprinted in Magazinet, a Christian newspaper in Norway, and on the website of the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet. Last week newspapers in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Holland featured the cartoons. France Soir, France’s nearest thing to a “gutter press”, seemed to show particular relish in plastering its own cartoon on its front page portraying Buddha, the Christian and Jewish deities and the Prophet sitting on a cloud. The Christian God said: “Don’t complain, Muhammad, all of us have been caricatured.”
Spread across two pages inside were the 12 Danish cartoons, accompanied by a strong editorial aimed at Muslim countries’ intolerance. “We must apologise to them,” wrote Serge Faubert, “because the freedom of expression they refuse, day after day, to each of their citizens, is exercised in a society that is not subject to their iron rule . . . No, we will never apologise for being free to speak, to think and to believe.”
Though I don't agree with all his sentiments, the Porter piece seems to me a fine bit of journalism.
The first paragraph basically tells you where he's coming from:
Would I have published the cartoons of Muhammad? No, they aren't funny and, frankly, they aren't worth the trouble. Do I applaud and defend the freedom to publish such offensive, asinine work? Yes, and that is my immovable position, as intransigent as the Muslims who have demonstrated across Europe and the Middle East.
I also thought Porter's piece was well argued. I agree with his intransigent position on freedom to publish while also not feeling it's been the most shining expression of that freedom.
Casey maybe wide of the mark on much of his analysis as you say, but I think the point he is making is that the idea of inviting cartoonists to insult Islam as a test of freedom of speech was pretty crass and always going to offend people. After all inviting cartoonists to take the piss out of ethnic or sexual minorities would also be a test of freedom of speech, and while I'd defend the freedom to publish I'd also think it was a poor use of that freedom.
All that being said I think the reactions of Muslim extremists are reinforcing alot of the west's prejudices of Islam. Alongside which Politicians like Jack Straw and the Danish Government have managed to make a bad situation a lot worse by sending out mixed signals and attempting to make political mileage out of the whole situation.
Yes, Mr Casey, it caused offence, and damn right too - the whole point is that we are being held hostage by a bunch of totalitarians who cry "offence" and "you're persecuting us" whenever it suits their political agenda, yet casually murder innocent people when it suits them. Who's being the more offensive?
The France Soir piece lampooned Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam - yet who (surprise!) are the people demonstrating on the streets? I don't see too many Buddhists waving support for "the Fab Four" 7/7 bombers.
And yet I would have had some sympathy for a (non-violent) Buddhist protest at being lampooned, because context is all, and the context here is a war, and the West is not at war with Buddhism. And it wasn't Buddhists who put a knife through Theo van Gogh, and you can still get children's books about Buddha published without fearing a similar fate.
Hitchens put it characteristically well (see the end of the Sunday Times article for his and other quotes):
There isn’t an inch to give, nothing to negotiate and no concessions to offer. Those of us who believe in enlightenment and free speech also have unalterable principles which we will not give up. We have to listen all the time to piratical-looking mullahs calling our Jewish friends pigs and demanding the censorship of The Satanic Verses and we find this fantastically insulting, but we don’t behave like babies. They are making a puerile spectacle of themselves.
We should say, how dare you behave in this way? They can put themselves under laws and taboos if they wish, but it is nothing to do with me or anybody else. They are completely out of order.
First of all, I agree with the Hitchen's quote 100%. Also, I'm relieved that the police are seeking to arrest some of the protesters for incitement to violence and murder. People are free to protest but not if that protest moves outside of the law.
Following the article you posted about Bunglawala claims that innocent Muslims' protest was hijacked by extremists, I do think it's important to make a distinction between the 'bunch of totalitarians who cry "offence" and "you're persecuting us" whenever it suits their political agenda" as you put it and ordinary Muslims who may also be offended and confused by what they see as a wilful attempt to insult and provoke.
Not much to add. Andy's posts are particularly in accord with my views.
I think what's confusing the issue is the disproportionate reaction. Protesting against something you find offensive is legitimate (qv. Jerry Springer the Opera on the BBC, the Sharon baby cartoon, the New Statesman's Kosher Conspiracy). Burning down embassies, threatening or inciting violence is not. (And it's worth remembering that some of the Jerry Springer protesters crossed that line by publishing BBC execs home addresses.)
I don't think that choosing not to publish something on the grounds of taste/decency/likelihood of causing offence is the same as kowtowing to fanatics. However, given the uproar it's easy to get sucked into rallying round the cartoons as the last bastions of free speech.
Were the cartoons necessary in order to illustrate the story that begin this whole affair? After all, you can write a story saying that no one is willing to publish a kids' book on Mohammed, without an accompanying illustration of the prophet with a bomb on his head. Where it gets complicated is that the overreaction seems to retroactively justify the publication of the cartoons. If the protests had been non-violent I doubt as many people would be rushing to the defence of the cartoons.
The overreaction polarises opinion. Had the protests taken the form of a few strongly worded letters, a peaceful demo, or a complaint to a press watchdog we would not be in this predicamment. To back down is seen to be abandoning free speech. To continue to publish seems gratuitous and inflammatory.
I don't know what the situation is with regard to Danish law, but in this country it seems like a good example of why the law as its stands (without the Religious Hatred Bill) works pretty well: freedom to publish, good. Freedom to protest, also good. Press complaints mechanism, good again. Inciting/ threatening/committing acts of violence, aginst the law. And rightly so.
The key thing in this case, is to not allow the state to legislate to prevent the publication of the cartoons. There are already restrictions on free speech - I am not convinced we need more.
Indeed self-censorship, is already pervasive and it is naive to think that it only extends to depictions of Islam. (The link takes you to a google search of various articles from the Index on Censorship) Self-censorship is a continuous fact of life. Defying it is sometimes courageous, sometimes irresponsible. Sometimes both.
Some further links:
Philip Hensher and Gary Younge arguing for and against the the original publication. (As good a rehearsal of both arguments that I've read.)
Guardian leader about the need to take action against those who threaten violence.
Letters (all from Muslims) in todays's Guardian.
Coverage from altmuslim.com (arguing against overreaction by Muslims.) Includes this rather good quote: "Muslims of the world, be reasonable," said the editor-in-chief of the weekly independent newspaper Al-Shihan in Jordan in an editorial alongside some of the cartoons, including the one showing the Muslim religion's founder wearing a bomb-shaped turban. "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"
Yup.
And on the Religious Hatred Bill, I've seen it written (no time to look for links) that the fact that Nick Griffin was prosecuted under existing legislation is further proof that the RHB was totally unnecessary.
From the Younge article:
In January 2002 the New Statesman published a front page displaying a shimmering golden Star of David impaling a union flag, with the words "A kosher conspiracy?" The cover was widely and rightly condemned as anti-semitic.
...
I do not remember talk of a clash of civilisations in which Jewish values were inconsistent with the western traditions of freedom of speech or democracy.
Yes Gary, that's because there isn't any inconsistency in those values, and there isn't anything resembling a clash of civilisations between the West and the Jews.
PS I confess to the briefest of skims of this article.
I think Younge's point is simply that being offended and protesting against that which you find offensive are perfectly compatible with democracy and freedom of speech. The bit you have left out of your quote is: A group calling itself Action Against Anti-Semitism marched into the Statesman's offices, demanding a printed apology.
The anti-semitic cover was not reprinted with a rallying cry about free speech. It was accepted that offence had been caused and the editor subsequently apologised. Younge is asking why various European newspapers have felt the need to reprint something that they already knew was offensive in this particular instance. What Younge is leaving out of course is the extent of the over reaction to the cartoon, but his essential point - protesting against a perceived insult is not unique to Muslims - is not unfair.
What does seem to be unique is the scale of that protest. Is that the justification? We'll keep insulting your prophet until you learn how to respond with a strongly worded letter and not threats of beheading? Or as Bette Midler put it: 'Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke'. I have a lot of sympathy with this view, but I'm still not convinced it justifies all acts of free speech. I wouldn't have cracked any 9/11 jokes at any of the memorial services.
In the case of the cartoons, I personally would not have run the bomb-head one, because I thought it was insulting, gratuitous and invalid. The 'run out of virgins' one is much easier to defend because it satirises the (sexist) promises made to would be suicide bombers. (Btw, I still see no reason to change the law - I see it as an editorial decision.)
Meanwhile in the US...
‘Boondocks’ King Episode Prompts Protest Threats from Rev. Al Sharpton
(Not directly relevant, but Andy will find it in interesting, as will anyone who follows the excellent Boondocks comic strip and who is eagerly awaiting the TV series. Follow the link and read the strip for 6/2/06 and you can see how the strip is carrying the story.)
Apologies for the digression. We now return to our regularly scheduled Danish cartoon controversy...
Don't know enough about the Griffin case to say. I just read the jury couldn't reach a verdict, and saw the comment I reported above.
Agree with the Turban Bomb cartoon comment. Given that the suicide bombers go round chanting to Mohammed and Allah before, during and (if the Koran is right) after their operations, it seems entirely apt.
An interesting interpretation (and one agreed with in one of the letters I linked to above). However, I think it's a bit disingenuous. I think a bit more context would be needed to give it the satirical spin you suggest. e.g. printing the picture twice, once with the caption 'How the West sees islam' and once with the caption 'How the Islamists see Islam.' Perhaps I am being thick in wanting things spelled out, but the picture as it stands just looks like a rather crass attempt to link Islam with terrorism. (But of course I defend to the death the right to publish... blah blah... and the right to peaceful protest... etc. etc.)
Anyway, here's a post from harry's place that I thought was rather good.
Bravo, Sir.
'Sensitivity' can have brutal consequences
Mark Steyn
Sun Times
February 5, 2006
Re: Griffin. Perhaps this will end up as a seperate thread, but what do we all think of the verdict? Should he have been acquitted? Should he even have been charged?
I'll need to do more reading as I don't know all the facts, but I would certainly defend his right to say that Islam is 'a vicious, wicked faith'. (qv. Michel Houellebecq's trial in France.)
The problem with Griffin is that he is part of a movement which has (alleged) links to hate crimes, but no matter how odious we may find his views, I think we must err on the side of freedom of speech.
As Rowan Atkinson has said "To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous but to criticise their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticise ideas – any ideas – even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is one of the fundamental freedoms of society and a law which attempts to say you can criticise or ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed."
If Griffin had added 'and any follower of Islam should be killed' then presumably he could be done under some kind of 'incitement to violence' law (so again no need for new laws.) Or am I being naive?
Incitement to 'hatred' is a very tricky offence to begin with. (qv. Anne Robinson and the Welsh) JP knows well my own problems with anti-French remarks, but I'm not sure I would want him (or most tabloid columnists) prosecuted because of them.
I don't really have a conclusion. I am uncomfortable with defending the BNP. I am equally uncomfortable with limits on free speech, particularly if the law is not applied even handedly. In the end it's a trade off, but I'm not yet sure which way to tip the scales.
(Btw, in reading about the Religious Hatred Bill I've read several times that jews are already covered under Racial Hatred legislation. Granted it's rare, but what about converts? Presumably they are afforded the same protection, though technically they are not part of the race. Can you convert to a race? I'm wondering if it would have been easier to tweak Racial hatred legislation to cover Muslims than to create a new offence altogether. Not sure about this at all. Suggestions welcomed.)
the picture as it stands just looks like a rather crass attempt to link Islam with terrorism
Umm, are you saying they are not linked??
Interesting question about Jewish converts, that. Applies to Sikh converts too, of course. No idea what the answer is.
Cartoon anger is a misrepresentation
By John Simpson
6 February 2006
I am saying that the picture makes it look as if Islam and terrorism are inherently linked
Well I think it says they're linked, which is true. Where's the inherently? Of course I'd expect an ex-Lit student to be better at this interpretation malarkey than I am. ;-)
Because the bomb is linked to the founder of the faith (and not just one of its followers.) (Though of course other interpretations are still possible (see Wemb above)).
OK, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this micro-point of interpretation of one cartoon. Yet surely this tiny sliver of disagreement could not make any material difference to a person's stance in the wider debate about the cartoons and the reaction to them.
---------------------------------------
I commend this outstanding opinion piece on the Met's cowardice to you all:
Why extremists treat us with contempt
Telegraph Editorial
06/02/2006
British subjects march through the streets of the capital calling for their fellow citizens to be "beheaded", "massacred" and "annihilated". A two-year-old girl born in this country is dressed up in an "I Heart Al-Qaida " cap. Demonstrators call for "a real holocaust", with the horrible insinuation of holocaust-deniers everywhere: that the genocide never took place, but that it should have done.
There was a time when all this might have been dismissed as empty rhetoric. But the past five years have swept away any such innocence. British boys have left Tipton and Wanstead and Beeston to fight and kill their fellow citizens - whether in Iraq, Gaza, Afghanistan or London.
When these Islamist protesters dress up as suicide bombers and revel in the "magnificent" attacks of 9/11, they are not engaging in a harmless daydream: they are encouraging murder. And, to be fair, the police did eventually arrest two people for breaching the peace - not Islamist protesters, you understand, but two counter-demonstrators who were apparently provoking trouble by carrying images of Mohammed.
Now you might argue that the Met was right to lay off: that we live in a free country, however loudly the demonstrators decry that freedom, and that we should tolerate even the most noxious and deluded of opinions. The trouble is that we don't. We live in a country where you can be arrested for reciting the names of dead soldiers at the Cenotaph, heckling at a Labour Party conference or making slighting remarks about Osama bin Laden. We live in a country where a pensioner can be charged with "racially aggravated criminal damage" for scrawling "free speech for England" on a condemned wall.
Asked why it had not arrested any of the demonstrators, the Met refused to answer - or, to be precise, it said "the decision to arrest at a public order event must be viewed in the context of the overall policing plan and the environment the officers are operating in". Might there be a connection between this cowardice and the contempt some Muslims feel for us? Is it not at least possible that the self-loathing they encounter, from the moment they go to school, turns some boys from Tipton and Wanstead and Beeston against their country?
---------------------------------------
Here's a reasonable piece in the Torygraph about the bias involved in this case (watch out for increasing use of the term Islamic Correctness, which I saw somewhere today for the first time). I find myself scratching my head about exactly why the govt and the Met are behaving the way they are. Sylvester, below, gives a plausible reason for the government's cowardice (which is why I quote it here) - but I'm still at a loss to explain the Met's.
One law for the bloodthirsty, another for the tolerant
By Rachel Sylvester
Telegraph Opinion
06/02/2006
"We've been a bit mealy-mouthed," a Downing Street adviser told me yesterday. "There's a liberal Left fear of seeming racist." Privately, ministers say it is important that different groups are seen to be treated in the same way. They admit that the idea of "multiculturalism" has gone too far, skewing the concept of national identity. These are uncomfortable topics for a centre-Left governing party, but ministers should confront them in public. An attack on extremist Muslims is no more an assault on Islam than an attack on the BNP is an assault on all white working-class men.
Touché.
Dutch Islamists post cartoons depicting Anne Frank, Hitler in bed
Haaretz
05/02/06
intesteresting posts. I feel the police should have arrested protesters breaking the law by inciting violence at the time.
However, I do think an unintended positive that has come out of the police restraint is that it has given space in the media for ordinary Muslim's to denounce the actions of extremists at the demo without the news being dominated by stories of police brutality.
Anyway, here's an interview with Dutch Politician Hirsi Ali on the Cartoons.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/07/hirsi_ali/
The Hirsi Ali article Andy dug up is a must-read, as is (so far) everything I've read by her. Here's an extract:
Was apologizing for the cartoons the wrong thing to do?
Once again, the West pursued the principle of first turning one cheek, then the other. In fact, it's already a tradition. In 1980, privately owned British broadcaster ITV aired a documentary about the stoning of a Saudi Arabian princess who had allegedly committed adultery. The government in Riyadh intervened and the British government issued an apology. We saw the same kowtowing response in 1987 when [Dutch comedian] Rudi Carrell derided [the Iranian leader] Ayatollah Khomeini in a comedy skit. In 2000, a play about the youngest wife of the prophet Mohammed, titled "Aisha," was canceled before it ever opened in Rotterdam. Then there was the van Gogh murder and now the cartoons. We are constantly apologizing, and we don't notice how much abuse we're taking. Meanwhile, the other side doesn't give an inch.
What should the appropriate European response look like?
There should be solidarity. The cartoons should be displayed everywhere. After all, the Arabs can't boycott goods from every country. They're far too dependent on imports. And Scandinavian companies should be compensated for their losses. Freedom of speech should at least be worth that much to us.
But shouldn't Muslims, like any religious community, also be able to protect themselves against slander and insult?
That's exactly the reflex I was just talking about: offering the other cheek. Not a day passes, in Europe and elsewhere, when radical imams aren't preaching hatred in their mosques. They call Jews and Christians inferior, and we say they're just exercising their freedom of speech. When will the Europeans realize that the Islamists don't allow their critics the same right? After the West prostrates itself, they'll be more than happy to say that Allah has made the infidels spineless.
What will be the upshot of the storm of protests against the cartoons?
We could see the same thing happening that has happened in the Netherlands, where writers, journalists and artists have felt intimidated ever since the van Gogh murder. Everyone is afraid to criticize Islam. Significantly, "Submission" still isn't being shown in theaters.
Good article by Ali (though the 'Death of a Princess' controversy had more to do with oil and economic interests than fear of Islamist violence.) In many ways she is arguing for an Islamic reformation.
The doctrine stating that the faith is inalterable because the Koran was dictated by God must be replaced. Muslims must realize that it was human beings who wrote the holy scriptures. After all, most Christians don't believe in hell, in the angels, or in the earth having been created in six days. They now see these things as symbolic stories, but they still remain true to their faith.
Tariq Ali (with whom I do not have huge areas of overlap) has made the same argument.
We are in desperate need of an Islamic Reformation that sweeps away the crazed conservatism and backwardness of the fundamentalists but, more than that, opens up the world of Islam to new ideas which are seen to be more advanced than what is currently on offer from the west.
This would necessitate a rigid separation of state and mosque; the dissolution of the clergy; the assertion by Muslim intellectuals of their right to interpret the texts that are the collective property of Islamic culture as a whole; the freedom to think freely and rationally and the freedom of imagination. Unless we move in this direction we will be doomed to reliving old battles and thinking not of a richer and humane future, but of how we can move from the present to the past.
I believe we should support (and disseminate) views such as these wherever possible.
Quick clarification: by 'these views' I mean those arguing for an Islamic reformation (not necessarily every other point made in the tariq Ali piece.)
Brilliant from Pipes. And we should all be sending the accompanying cartoon to *everybody* in our email address books.
Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
February 7, 2006
The key issue at stake in the battle over the twelve Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad is this: Will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise: Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.
More specifically, will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims enjoy immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones . Are they entitled to dish it out while being insulated from similar indignities?
Germany's Die Welt newspaper hinted at this issue in an editorial: "The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical. When Syrian television showed drama documentaries in prime time depicting rabbis as cannibals, the imams were quiet." Nor, by the way, have imams protested the stomping on the Christian cross embedded in the Danish flag.
The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism. The Danish editor who published the cartoons, Flemming Rose, explained that if Muslims insist "that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos ... they're asking for my submission."
...
Western governments should take a crash course on Islamic law and the historically-abiding Muslim imperative to subjugate non-Muslim peoples. They might start by reading the forthcoming book by Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale).
I'm not convinced that we need to send the cartoons to everyone we know in order to support free speech. The cartoons have been published. They are available on the internet. If you want to see them no one is stopping you. Nor (as far as I know) has any Western government suggeted changing their laws to outlaw the publication of the cartoons. (The UK came close, but thankfully, they were defeated.)
The Danish publication is specific to Denmark and arose out of a particular story - the inability to find illustrators for a children's book on Mohammed (although given that producing images of Mohammed is, shall we say, frowned upon, this is not that surprising.) Nonetheless, the story led to the challenge to cartoonists and the publication of the cartoons. Free press in action. Some Muslims protested. This is not in itself a terrible thing. (see Sharon baby eating cartoon in comments above.) You don't have to be an Islamist to see that a Muslim might object to the founder of his faith being portrayed as a terrorist. I don't see any problem with peaceful protest (strongly worded letters and all that.) Some of those protests then reached hysterical proportions (perhaps hijacked for political purposes.) Anyone breaking the law in the course of their protest should be dealt with accordingly. At this point it's about public order. The freedom to publish the cartoons has already been asserted.
Violent protest against European embassies and interests should be dealt with via the normal diplommatic channels. (This is hardly the first embassy or flag burning we've seen.)
But in all this, I still don't see why the continued republication of the cartoons becomes the touchstone for one's support of freedom of speech. Our free press (in the UK), despite not publishing the cartoons, has not been afraid to criticise Islamists or (over) reaction to this whole affair.
I agree that many Muslims are guilty of hypocrisy by not condemning similar or worse outrages in their own press. But don't we tend to think that their publication of anti-semitic cartoons is to be deplored? Is this something we want to emulate?
Let's concentrate on keeping our free press free and in challenging the ideas that lead to the over reaction that we have seen. The day our own government says we cannot publish the Mohammed cartoons is the day we should really start to worry. (And we came perilously close, so we must stay on our guard.)
JP has pointed out that I read his post too quickly. He was clearly talking about the cartoon in the Pipes article (which is v. funny btw), not the Danish cartoons. Oh well, I have read columnists saying that we should send the Danish cartoons to everyone, so my point stands, but not directed at good ol' JP.
I still don't see why the continued republication of the cartoons becomes the touchstone for one's support of freedom of speech
You have to see this in the context of the wider struggle between the West and Islamists. Hirsi Ali makes the point well in her article - kowtowing to the pressure and not publishing the cartoons is yet another case of "turning the cheek".
So is this a "Clash of Civilisations"? Pipes gives a perhaps surprising answer, and one that echoes Wembley's recent point about Turkey, as well as some issues that came up at lunch today with Dan and Andy.
The Clash to End All Clashes? Making sense of the cartoon jihad
by Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
February 7, 2006
Iranian paper plans Holocaust cartoon contest
The Age
February 7, 2006
Iran's largest selling newspaper, Hamshahri, announced it was holding a contest of cartoons about the Holocaust. The competition was a response to cartoons of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed printed in Danish and European newspapers that have sparked angry and violent protests across the Islamic world.
Another Iranian newspaper printed a cartoon online depicting a devil with a Danish flag and bearing the Jewish star of David, implying Jews were to blame for the Danish newspaper cartoons. "They're reading from a script from Mein Kampf, and just going chapter by chapter," said Hier, referring to Hitler's autobiography and manifesto.
-----------------
French magazine republishes cartoons
RTE News
08 February 2006
The Pipes article is indeed surprising. And praiseworthy.
Re: JP's earlier comment (about turning the other cheek) - my answer if contained in the comment you have selectively quoted from. I don't think cheek-turning is what is happening here. I think we should be more concerned about 'Submission' not being shown. This is after all a trenchant piece of criticism, authored by someone who is themself Muslim. Which is the more important contribution to the debate? This is not to suggest that the cartoons should not have been published. They have been. They are out there. I am asking what purpose is served by the calls for continuous republication. What do the cartoons tell us? That Muslims get upset about images of their prophet. That they get even more upset by the implication that their faith is a terrorist one. (And despite some of the ingenious interpretations, not least by Flemming Rose, the Jyllands-Posten editor, that is how the Turban bomb appeared to many people, Muslim or not.) Some people have clearly over reacted. But I still don't see why the over reaction of the (relatively) few means that we should continue to go out of our way to offend the many. They may well have been a point to publishing the cartoons, but that point has now been made.
Meanwhile Abu Hamza has (rightly) been sentenced to seven years. Surely that is more important. Who is being kowtowed to if a leading Islamist is banged up for peddling hatred?
An interesting piece below by Timothy Ash Garton in today's Guardian.
Our media must give muslims the chance to debate with each other
Timothy Garton Ash
Guardian
'One thing, however, I know with certainty: violence, or the direct threat of violence, of the kind we have seen in the past few days, is totally unjustified as a response to any published word or image. That is the first thing to be said. I have been saddened to see British politicians and commentators, particularly on the left, hesitating for a long moment to say so clearly, or feeling it necessary to say other things first.'
Absolutely agree with this. Publishing the cartoons might have been needlessly provocative - the equivalent of crying fire in a crowded theatre - BUT it's crucially important that the freedom to continue to publish them if anyone sees fit is protected.
Here's a news report on a small British publication that plans to print one of the cartoons.
Also, a report on the British Imams demanding the PCC outlaw any possible publication of the Prophet Muhammad in the UK.
Now a Mohammed cartoon is published by British magazine
Imams plan 'civil' march to show distress at cartoons
Very powerful indeed, another one that should be emailed to everyone we know. This is an extract, not the full text.
"What next, bearded one?"
Tageszeitung
By Sonia Mikich
06/02/06
Our traditional values have been trampled on and we are offended. A wake-up call.
I feel offended.
Zealots are nailing veils onto the faces of my sisters in Afghanistan and Pakistan and are busy hanging women, homosexuals, adulterers and non-believers. But human rights, women's rights and the right to liberty are the most exalted in the history of humanity; this is the tradition in which I was raised. Values that make the world better and more peaceful.
I demand that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Indonesia and Egypt apologise to me. Otherwise I am unfortunately forced to threaten, beat up, kidnap or behead their citizens. Because I am somewhat sensitive about my cultural identity.
I feel offended.
Fanatics are blowing up the Buddhas of Bamiyan, marvellous cultural monuments. But art is an expression of universal beauty and innocence to me. It is a value that makes the world better and more peaceful.; this is the tradition in which I was raised.
I demand that Hamas, the spokesman of the French Muslims and the Director of the Al-Azhar-University apologise to me. Otherwise I will never spend a holiday at the Taj Mahal, I will call for a boycott of Palestinian fruit and I will set the embassies of Tunisia, Qatar and Bangladesh on fire. I expect understanding for this at the very least – my feelings are absolute and must be expressed globally.
I feel offended.
[More...]
Here's a link to what some of the viewers of Children's BBC show Newsround have to say about the Danish cartoons.
Should the cartoons have been published?
I like the comment from Char, 11, Isleworth - "No, they shouldn't because of course they would offend but there was no need for a really big riot."
I don't have much left to say on this topic, but here's a good article from TNR criticising Bush for not speaking out on behalf of Jordanian newspaper editor, Jihad Momani.
SHAME ON ABDULLAH--AND BUSH.
Silent Treatment
by James Forsyth
I also don't have much more to add to this debate. However, this article about how Islam is being hijacked for political means felt relevant to this thread - Focus:'We don't do God, we do Palestine and Iraq'
Okay I thought I'd run out of things to post on this subject. I was wrong. This one is worth having a look at though -
it's a blog by a blogger called 'Rantings of a Sandmonkey' who has posted a scan of an Egyptian Newspaper that reported on the cartoons five months ago (reproduced Cartoons to boot).Interesting post too, makes a very good case for the Arab governments using the cartoon as a convienent distraction from other domestic issues.
Whoa, they were published in Egypt last year??!!??
they were actually printed in the Egyptian Newspaper Al Fagr back in October 2005. I repeat, October 2005, during Ramadan, for all the egyptian muslim population to see, and not a single squeak of outrage was present. Al Fagr isn't a small newspaper either: it has respectable circulation in Egypt, since it's helmed by known Journalist Adel Hamoudah.
Great find, Andy.
One last post on this (I promise!). JP joked about where the got all the Danish Flags this story might provide an answer - good old business savy!
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06153755.htm
Re: Egyptian newspaper.
I wonder what the feeling would be if british newspapers reproduced, not the cartoons themselves, but the Egypyian newspaper that contained the reproduction?
Guardian readers (such as myself) would be well advised to check out the Daily Ablution which seems to be devoted to pointing out hypocrisy in that august organ.
Here's a choice example:
Guardianista Oliver Burkeman inadvertently offers an excellent illustration of the double standards that the cartoon row has revealed among some on the left, struggling as they are to justify a tendency to reflexively mock Christianity while at the same time droning on incessantly about the need to avoid giving offence to Muslims.
Writing on Tuesday, Mr. Burkeman grapples with the thorny issues raised by the imbroglio:
"The current uproar is certainly one of those disputes where it can be difficult to know what to think. (Just because you support free speech, do you have to applaud bigoted, unfunny cartoonists? Just because you support freedom of belief, do you have to internalise some religion's special rule against portraying certain historical figures?)"
It's easy to sympathise with his dilemma - especially as he's so keen to distance himself from the vicious bigots who would mock the deeply held religious beliefs of others.
Except when it's a "duty", of course - that would be when Christianity, not Islam, is the butt of the jibes. In a column published yesterday, completely unrelated to the cartoon dispute (which is never even mentioned), Mr. Burkeman writes, beginning a bit defensively:
"This isn't about being respectful to the Christian faith [heaven forfend!]. On the contrary, it's the secular democrat's duty to expose religious ideas to mockery, and I for one can think of few more fulfilling ways to spend a spare afternoon then laughing at a church or teasing a vicar."
I look forward to Mr. Burkeman's account of his "fulfilling" afternoon spent laughing at the Finsbury Park mosque and teasing the Imam and congregants there - get back to us quickly with that, will you, Oliver?
That Daily Ablution blog seems outstanding, judging by the first two stories I've read:
Cartoons of Peace Inspire Another Muslim Metamorphosis
Guardian Comment Editor: Communism Wasn't That Bad - Let's Learn From Its Successes
Dan, I expect regular updates from there! ;-)
Nick Grifffin Trail
A quick follow up on the debate about Nick Griffin's trail earlier in this thread. As far as I can gather Nick Griffin was on trail for comments he made calling Islam a "wicked vicious faith" in a private meeting that was recorded undercover by the BBC. Here are the Judges' closing remarks - 'On the 13th day of the trail today the judge said the issue was not whether or not the defendants' views were true' 'Referring to Griffin, Judge Jones said: "The significance would be whether he held a genuine belief in his antipathy to Islam and whether it was that he was attacking or whether it was a cloak he was using to cover the fact he was attacking a race."
I do wonder if our desire to have our liberal prejudices confirmed by a conviction meant that we brought Griffin to trail without a strong enough case here.
Here's a story I missed about a Welsh student paper that printed the cartoon.
Student paper pulped over Mohammed cartoon
Thousands of copies of a student newspaper had to be recalled after trainee journalists published a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed.
The Cardiff University-based Gair Rhydd newspaper decided to reprint one of the caricatures originally published in a Danish paper.
The editor of the award-winning student publication, whose title means Free Word in Welsh, has been suspended from the students' union pending an investigation, along with three other student journalists.
All copies of the paper were withdrawn from distribution points "at the earliest moment possible", a students' union spokeswoman said.
She added: "The opinions expressed in that publication are those of the editorial team independently of the students' union or university.
"The editorial team enjoy the normal freedoms and independence associated with the Press in the UK, and are expected to exercise those freedoms with responsibility, due care and judgment.
"The Students' Union very much regrets any upset caused or disrespect shown by the publication of the controversial cartoon and has taken immediate action by promptly withdrawing all copies of this week's edition of Gair Rhydd at the earliest moment possible."
The union has now launched an investigation into the article and the editor is co-operating fully, the spokeswoman said.
A spokeswoman for the Students' Union later said that the "majority" of the 10,000 copies printed had now been collected and would be shredded. She said fewer than 200 copies of the edition, distributed on Saturday, remained unaccounted for.
Freedom of speech?
An excellent, excellent piece by Nick Cohen in the Guardian.
It's so cowardly to attack the church when we won't offend Islam
Their justifications for edgy art won't work any longer and not only because the average member of the educated bourgeoisie likes nothing better than f-words and pallid bodies on a visit to the theatre or gallery. After the refusal of the entire British press to print innocuous Danish cartoons, the stench of death is in the air. It is now ridiculous and impossible to talk about a fearless disregard for easily offended sensibilities.
Sonofagod is clearly trading under a false prospectus. Gilbert and George narcissistically present themselves as icons towering over a shrivelled Christ. 'God loves Fucking! Enjoy!' reads one inscription. This isn't a brave assault on all religions, just Catholicism.
The gallery owners know that although Catholics will be offended, they won't harm them. That knowledge invalidates their claims to be transgressive. An uprising that doesn't provoke a response isn't a 'rebellion', but a smug affirmation of the cultural status quo.
If they were to do the same to Islam, all hell would break loose. In interviews publicising the show, Gilbert and George showed that they at least understood the double standard. They're gay men who live in the East End where the legal groups of the Islamic far right - Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Association of Britain - are superseded by semi-clandestine organisations which push leaflets through their door saying: 'Verily, it is time to rejoice in the coming state of Islam. There will be no negotiation with Islam. It is only a short time before the flag of Islam flies over Downing Street.' Even if the artists found the audacity to take on the theocrats around them, they know no gallery would dare show the results.
The fear of being murdered is a perfectly rational one, but it is eating away at the cultural elite's myths. In the name of breaking taboos, the Britart movement has giggled at paedophilia (Jake and Dinos Chapman) and rubbed salt in the wounds of the parents of the Moors murderers' victims (Marcus Harvey). It can't go on as if nothing has happened because the contradictions between breaking some taboos but not others are becoming too glaring. They were on garish display last year when the Almeida Theatre, the White Cube of theatreland, showed Romance by over-praised American playwright David Mamet.
His characters hurled anti-semitic and anti-Christian abuse at each other and very edgy it sounded, too. The justification for his venom was that he had set the play against the backdrop of Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. He meant the hatreds on stage to reflect the hatreds of the Middle East.
Readers with an interest in foreign affairs will have spotted that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is between Muslims and Jews, not Christians and Jews. Islamophobic abuse ought to have followed the anti-semitic abuse if the play was to make sense. Neither Mamet nor the Almeida had the nerve do that. Their edginess was no match for the desire of the prudent bourgeois to save his skin.
The insincerity extends way beyond the arts. Rory Bremner will tear into Tony Blair, but not Mohammed Khatami. Newspaper editors will print pictures of servicemen beating up demonstrators in Basra, which may place the lives of British troops in danger, but not Danish cartoons, which may place their own lives in danger.
You can't be a little bit free. If you are not willing to offend Islamists who may kill you, what excuse do you have for offending Catholics, the families of murdered children and British troops who won't?
The Sookhdeo and Cohen articles referred to above are must-reads. Andy's Welsh newspaper story another bit of top blogging.
Couple from today's Telegraph:
'Raving about jihad is simply un-Australian'
Iran calls for end to Mohammed cartoon protests
Both important new stories. I was interested to read about the Australian prime minister John Howard's strong and clear position on Jihad and the reaction from Muslim leaders (see extracts below).
The Australian prime minister, John Howard, criticised the minority of Muslims in the country who "rave on about jihad" and hold "extreme attitudes" towards women, saying they do not fit into Australian society.
Muslim leaders accused him of "pandering to Islamophobia" but Mr Howard said he stood by his remarks and reiterated them at length in numerous radio and television interviews.
"You can't find any equivalent in Italian or Greek or Lebanese or Chinese or Baltic immigration to Australia. There is no equivalent of raving on about jihad, but that is the major problem," he said.
"It is not a problem that we've ever faced with other immigrant communities, who become easily absorbed by Australia's mainstream."
Steyn's view on the Australia situation worth reading, as ever:
Racism is bad - so is self-delusion
By Mark Steyn
Telegraph
20/12/2005
"People of Middle Eastern background" have prospered in Australia. The governor of New South Wales, Marie Bashir, is Lebanese, as is her husband, Sir Nicholas Shehadie, as is the premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks.
Likewise, in my own state of New Hampshire, one of the least racially diverse jurisdictions in North America, the last Senate race was nevertheless fought between a Republican, John Sununu, and a Democrat, Jeanne Shaheen, both from Lebanese families.
All these successful politicians are of Lebanese Christian stock: that's to say, after a third of a century in their new countries, they weren't conversing with reporters in Arabic. It's not racial, it's cultural.
Brilliant.
It gets worse - Matt
MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism
After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.
We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.
The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.
Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.
We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.
We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.
We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.
12 signatures
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq
http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3585740/
Via Harry's Place
We must stand up to the creeping tyranny of the group veto
Timothy Garton Ash
The Guardian
Here's a self-censorship story that slipped past me (courtesy of the National Secular Society's newsletter.
Marlowe's Koran-burning hero is censored to avoid Muslim anger
By Dalya Alberge, Arts Correspondent
IT WAS the surprise hit of the autumn season, selling out for its entire run and inspiring rave reviews. But now the producers of Tamburlaine the Great have come under fire for censoring Christopher Marlowe’s 1580s masterpiece to avoid upsetting Muslims.
Audiences at the Barbican in London did not see the Koran being burnt, as Marlowe intended, because David Farr, who directed and adapted the classic play, feared that it would inflame passions in the light of the London bombings.
Simon Reade, artistic director of the Bristol Old Vic, said that if they had not altered the original it “would have unnecessarily raised the hackles of a significant proportion of one of the world’s great religions”.
The burning of the Koran was “smoothed over”, he said, so that it became just the destruction of “a load of books” relating to any culture or religion. That made it more powerful, they claimed.
Members of the audience also reported that key references to Muhammad had been dropped, particularly in the passage where Tamburlaine says that he is “not worthy to be worshipped”. In the original Marlowe writes that Muhammad “remains in hell”.
Read on
Interesting, that Marlowe story.
Here's another repercussion:
Turkey's foreign minister asks the EU for blasphemy laws to protect Islam
Telegraph
13/03/2006
Talk about self-censorship:
German court convicts man for insulting Islam
Reuters
23/2/06
A German court on Thursday convicted a businessman of insulting Islam by printing the word "Koran" on toilet paper and offering it to mosques. The 61-year-old man, identified only as Manfred van H., was given a one-year jail sentence, suspended for five years, and ordered to complete 300 hours of community service, a district court in the western German town of Luedinghausen ruled.
Five arrested over cartoon protests
Guardian
March 15, 2006
How fucking spineless is this?
Welsh Church recalls magazine over Muhammad cartoon
Times Online
March 21, 2006
The Anglican Church in Wales has apologised to Muslims after printing a cartoon satirising the Prophet Muhammad in its Welsh-language magazine. The Church in Wales has issued an immediate recall of all copies of the latest edition of Y Llan - meaning Church - following the reproduction of the cartoon. The drawing, reprinted from the French daily France Soir, satirises Muhammad by depicting him sitting on a heavenly cloud with Buddha and Christian and Jewish deities. He is being told "Don’t complain... we’ve all been caricatured here."
...
A letter from the Archbishop has been sent to all subscribers to the magazine requesting that they return all the estimated 400 or so copies. Dr Morgan has also apologised to the Muslim Council of Wales for any offence caused. ... Saleem Kidwai, general secretary of the Muslim Council of Wales, said Dr Morgan had telephoned him immediately to apologise when he discovered that the cartoon had been published. He said he had held a meeting with Dr Morgan on Saturday when further apologies were expressed. "The Archbishop has apologised and we have accepted that apology. I have been given to understand that the magazine has been recalled and an investigation is taking place," he said.
Hey Chef, these guys are killing free speech
Andrew Sullivan
The Sunday Times
March 26, 2006
We have a new cartoon-blasphemy scandal. No, it’s not Islamists burning down Kentucky Fried Chicken stores in Pakistan because a few Danish cartoonists had the gall to draw the prophet Muhammad. Now it’s Scientology versus the popular and hilarious cartoon television programme South Park. And the Scientologists, like the Islamists before them, are winning.
...
One of the show’s cartoon stars, an oversexed, overweight African-American chef in the school cafeteria, is voiced by Isaac Hayes, the soul singer best known for singing the theme song for Shaft. Hayes, it turns out, is a Scientologist. At first he seemed to have no problem with the episode. He told the American satirical magazine The Onion that he often had to defend the show’s edginess: “I told them not to take this stuff seriously. If you do, you’ll get in trouble. Just enjoy it.” That was January 4. By January 18 Hayes had been admitted to hospital for “exhaustion”, and a friend subsequently said he’d had a stroke. Eight days ago Hayes quit the show, accusing it of religious “bigotry”. (Chef has since been outed as a paedophile, fallen off a bridge, been mauled by a mountain lion and died.) Then the Scientology episode rerun was abruptly yanked from the schedule.
News reports say that Viacom, the company that owns Comedy Central, made the decision. Viacom also owns Paramount movie studios, which has spent a small fortune on Mission: Impossible III starring Cruise, a Scientologist. He denies any connection. Viacom refuses to say why it hasn’t put the episode back on the air. South Park fans have started a petition.
And so we are back where we were with the Muhammad cartoons. Someone somewhere won’t let you see the Scientology episode of South Park. You can go to the Comedy Central website and view it on the internet — the last refuge for free speech. But you won’t see it on television. In a battle between satire and religion, although some deny that Scientology deserves that moniker, religion wins again.
...
Orwell once remarked that one reason fascism never took off in Britain was because the sight of a goose-stepping soldier would prompt your average Englishman to giggle. Someone is now silencing the giggles. And our world is a lot creepier because of it.
Maybe we need a back South Park campaign where people could show their support by buying SouthPark & Team America DVDs and boycotting Tom Cruise movies!
Okay, so now we need to be sensitive to the beliefs of Scientologists. Where does it end? If the Church of the Flying Spagetti monster was genuine would we have to worry about hurting the feelings of it's followers too?
This story just goes on and on...
Canadian magazine Western Standard is sued in the human rights court for publishing Danish Cartoons. The Imam sueing the paper argues that advocating a free press should be a thought crime.
Read it and weep:
Western Standard sued for publishing cartoons
Anyone offended by this?
Subsidizing the Enemy
by Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com
April 28, 2006
An Islamic school in London is teaching that non-Muslims are akin to pigs and dogs, and it is doing so with subventions from the British taxpayer. More alarmingly, when notified of this problem, the British authorities indicate they intend to do nothing about it.
The Times (London) reported on April 20 in "Muslim students ‘being taught to despise unbelievers as ‘filth'," that the Hawza Ilmiyya, a Shi‘i institution, teaches from the writings of Muhaqqiq al-Hilli. This scholar lived from 1240 to 1326 and wrote the authoritative work on Shi‘i law (Shara'i‘ al-Islam). About non-believers, called kafirs, he taught:
The water left over in the container after any type of animal has drunk from it is considered clean and pure apart from the left over of a dog, a pig, and a disbeliever.
There are ten types of filth and impurities: urine, faeces, semen, carrion, blood of carrion, dogs, pigs, disbelievers.
When a dog, a pig, or a disbeliever touches or comes in contact with the clothes or body [of a Muslim] while he [the disbeliever] is wet, it becomes obligatory-compulsory upon him [the Muslim] to wash and clean that part which came in contact with the disbeliever.
Check out the hypocrisy. Cartoons: no, slavery: yes.
Christian children sold as slaves by Islamist leader
Excellent new item from Nick Cohen on the effects of the Danish Cartoon protests:
Now it's the art galleries
'The Satanic Verses, Behzti, Theo van Gogh’s Submission, Jerry Springer: The Opera, the Danish cartoons of Muhammad … now we can add the London exhibition of the work of Maqbool Fida Husain to the rapidly expanding list of works of art and satire targeted by militant religion.
For readers interested in Indian culture, the show at the Asia House gallery in the West End’s fine art district should have been essential viewing. Husain is the grand old man of Indian art. He began as a boy painting cinema hoardings for six annas per square foot before getting his first break at the Bombay Art Society in 1947. His international appeal lies in his mixing of classical traditions with modern styles. Art from all over the world inspires him - Emil Nolde and Oskar Kokoschka were early influences - but you only have to glance at his pictures to know an Indian must have painted them.
The Indian High Commissioner, Kamalesh Sharma, claimed at the opening that Husain was India’s greatest modern artist. The exhibition was to run until August, to allow visitors to decide for themselves if he was right.
They won’t be able to now. Asia House closed the show on Monday after threats of violence from anonymous Hindu fundamentalists. Arjun Malik of the Hindu Human Rights campaign assured me they had nothing to do with him, but said his group had been willing to do everything short of violence to stop the public seeing two of Husain’s works.'
...
'A comedian who takes a pop at the Pope sends the subliminal message: ‘We can deride your religion as despicable because we know you are not so despicable you will resort to violence.’ There is a limit to how long the ultras for any religion will put up with that before they change the ground rules.'
...
'What is depressing is that, apart from a letter to the Guardian, from Lord Meghnad Desai, the closure of a major exhibition by fanatics has passed without comment. British troops are fighting against forces motivated by the religious fervour of the ultra right. British police officers arrest suspects they claim are inspired to kill because they, too, have a psychotic religious mission. Yet every week, comedians, art gallery owners, TV producers, newspaper editors and Home Office ministers give in to religious extremists. This is no way to win a war.'
Another cartoon controversy. It turns out that Tom and Jerry are part of the world Jewish Conspiracy.
If you fancy a challenge, try to guess which one of Tom and Jerry is the Dirty Jew, then watch the clip and see if you were right. Or just read the transcript at the url above, or a summary here. But I recommend the clip.
Cartoons from the Arab World
Wembley raises a valid point. Cartoons are a very blunt instrument (I am indebted to Andy for his analysis of the techniques of caricature) so there's inevitably a strong relativist temptation to find moral equivalency.
So it's time to get the ol' moral compass* out and look at the message conveyed, which (as Wemb undoubtedly agrees) in this instance is repugnant.
In other words drawing a jew with a big nose is not inherently anti-semitic. Drawing a big nosed jew drinking the blood of babies / as verminous rodents / controlling the world's media (etc.) generally is.
*The basis for the authority of said moral compass is another discussion entirely, but one that I'm happy to enter into if anyone wants.
And so it goes on...
Teacher forced into hiding after attacking Islam
Robert Redeker, 52, from Toulouse in south-west France, is receiving round-the-clock police protection and changing addresses every two days, after publishing an article describing the Koran as a "book of extraordinary violence" and Islam as "a religion which ... exalts violence and hate".
He told French media today that he had no regrets about writing the article and that it was part of his job as a philosophy teacher to ask difficult questions.
Gotta love Choudary's comment: how else do you expect Muslims to express themselves? Oh yeah, and the fact that the protestors sex-segregated themselves.
Muslims arrested in Old Bailey demo
Telegraph
02/11/2006
Four Muslims were arrested outside the Old Bailey yesterday during angry protests against the trial of a man allegedly involved in protests against Danish cartoons.
Anjem Choudary, who helped organise the anti-Danish protests, was once more involved as was Abu Izzadeen, who confronted John Reid, the Home Secretary, on a recent visit to East London.
Mr Choudary said afterwards: "We should not be surprised at people doing something like 7/7. How else do you expect Muslims to express themselves? "We are a community under siege. It's going to blow up one day in everyone's faces."
Male demonstrators, most wearing scarves across their faces, held placards reading 'Cartoonist free at large, protesters criminalised', 'Freedom to insult Mohammed, no freedom to defend his honour', and 'Biased government, biased CPS, biased police, biased judges'. Female protesters, in a separate enclosure from the men and wearing full veils, held placards reading: "Shariah — the only option for the UK."
So a student at Cambridge faces being sent down for printing a picture of Mohammed in the college magazine. In addition he is sheltering in a safe house, while the institution itself grovels in humble apology for the offence caused.
Anyone who doubts that Western culture has the strength to stand up for what it supposedly believes in will take this as confirmation.
College sorry for printing cartoon of Muhammad
The Times
February 10, 2007
A 19-year-old Cambridge University student has been moved to a safe house after causing “widespread distress” by printing offensive material in a college magazine. The second-year maths and physics student faces being sent down after publishing a cropped copy of the cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad and offensive comments in last week’s edition of Clareification, a student flysheet distributed within Clare College.
The cartoon, first published by the Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten in 2005, prompted protests from Muslims world-wide last year and led to at least four deaths. It has been printed only three times in Britain.
The offending edition of Clareification, a satirical weekly, first came to the university’s attention on Tuesday, after complaints by Muslims and nonMuslims about the back page, which, under the title “lookalikes of the week”, featured a cartoon of Muhammad next to a picture of the president of the Union of Clare Students.
According to Cambridge’s Varsity magazine, the caption for Muhammad bore the president’s name and vice-versa. A further comment was added, indicating that one was a “violent paedophile” and the other “a prophet of God, a great leader and example to us all”. A separate article likened the reaction to the original cartoons with the outrage at last year’s speech by the Pope at Regensburg. Patricia Fara, Clare College’s senior tutor, apologised yesterday. She said: “The college finds the publication and the views expressed abhorrent. Reflecting the gravity of the situation, the college immediately began an investigation and disciplinary procedures are in train.”
The Union of Clare Students also apologised, saying that the material did not reflect the views of Clare students.
sigh...
Cartoon protesters' jail term cut
BBC
30/10/07
Three men jailed for their part in protests against cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad have won an appeal to reduce their sentences. Umran Javed, 27, and Abdul Muhid, 24, were initially jailed for six years each for soliciting to murder after telling a crowd to bomb the UK. Abdul Saleem, 32, was jailed for four years for stirring up racial hatred. Javed's and Muhid's jail terms were cut to four years, while Saleem's sentence was cut to 30 months.
Go see the video, it's great!
'Terrorist' firework ads spark row
guardian.co.uk,
Monday December 24 2007
Dutch government firework safety ads featuring a spoof Islamist terrorist group have been criticised as insensitive and depicting a negative stereotype of the Muslim community.
The online ads, made for the Dutch government's consumer safety institute, have been made to look like a video message filmed by an Islamist military organisation called the Liberation Army Against Freedom.
Featuring a group led by an Osama bin Laden lookalike figure at their camp, the viral ads are dubbed into Iraqi-accented Arabic and have versions with subtitles in Dutch and English.
The tone is intended to be humorous, with the terrorist group seen receiving a shipment of fireworks like an arms cache, wearing suicide vests made of firecrackers, and bungling efforts to "demonstrate to you our true power" by blowing themselves up.
The Danish Press is a lot braver than the British. Have people been seeing a lot of coverage of this?
Cartoons blamed for Danish riots
Press Assoc
18/01/08
A wave of vandalism has continued across Denmark for a seventh consecutive night, officials have said. Thirteen people were arrested on suspicion of vandalising and torching schools, cars and rubbish containers, with 93 small fires burning overnight, police said. The unrest - largely in immigrant neighbourhoods - has spread through Copenhagen and across Denmark.
Police are unsure what triggered the violence but some say youths from Denmark's immigrant communities were protesting against perceived police harassment, and suggested Wednesday's reprinting of a cartoon lampooning Mohammed may have aggravated the situation.
"Many people also think it's because the youths are bored," police spokesman Jan Marker said. "We're in the process of putting a profile of these youngsters together to see if we can come up with what is driving them. ... But the only thing we know for sure right now is that most of them are under 18."
...
On Wednesday, more than a dozen Danish newspapers reprinted a cartoon that had sparked protests in Muslim countries two years ago in a gesture of solidarity after police revealed an alleged plot to kill the cartoonist.
---------------
Gazans protest against Mohammed cartoon
Middle East Online
22/02/08
Around 200 Palestinians demonstrated in the Gaza Strip on Friday against Danish newspapers that reprinted a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed deemed offensive by Muslims. They gathered in the southern town of Rafah on the Egyptian border in response to a call from the so-called mini-parliament, an organ of the Fatah party of moderate Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas.
Children burned Danish, American and Israeli flags and a banner read "to hell with Denmark. We will accept nothing less than an apology and a trial." Last week, a number of Danish newspapers published the cartoon, vowing to defend freedom of expression a day after Danish police foiled a plot to murder the cartoonist.
...
Danish police arrested a Dane of Moroccan origin and two Tunisians suspected of plotting to kill the creator of the turban cartoon, Kurt Westergaard.
The Dutch film on Islam, Fitna, is the subject of serious controversy. The film is knowingly provocative and argues that Islam is a wicked and violent religion. You won't see it on the cinema or television and now internet sites hosting it are under serious pressure and facing death threats. The only site in the UK to host it, Live Leak, has had to pull it after facing death threats. This is their official statement: "Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers".
From what I have read it appears that Google and Youtube were officially approached but declined, but that now someone has ripped the film and uploaded it to google video.
Here is technology blog, Techcrunch's report:
Google Risks Muslim Backlash By Hosting Fitna
Google is currently hosting controversial film about Islam Fitma.
The film has made tech headlines after Network Solutions suspended the site the film was to debut on, then Live Leak was forced to pull it following serious threats against the company from Muslims unhappy with the film. Live Leak’s explanation video above.
The film, ripped from Live Leak, is now available on Google Video here in full, and can also be found on YouTube. Warning on the film: there are graphic scenes in it.
What Google does now will be an interesting test for a company that claims “do no evil” as its company mantra. The video is hosted in the US, and we presume with part or full support of the creators of the film negating any copyright considerations, so ultimately it will be up to Google to decide between free speech and global jihad."
A couple of the comments to the story inevitably open with the "I'm all for Free Speech but...' arguement.
Mark Steyn on Fitna, the Dutch Film about Islam:
All the news that's Fitna
Geert Wilders' film is a hit - over 1.5 million views in English, over 2.5 million in Dutch last time I checked - but it's nevertheless been yanked by LiveLeak, with the following statement:
Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers. This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else.
Indeed. The Internet will keep Fitna alive in odd corners hither and yon, but only to those who actively seek it out. In the wider world, it goes without saying that such a film is unacceptable, and that this time round the pre-emptive rage (as Diana West calls it) was so successful the next Fitna will have an even harder time: no movie theaters or broadcast networks or obscure cable channels would even consider showing it, and Google and YouTube and the other Internet biggies have grown increasingly comfortable with political speech-policing, and now one more small net operation has learned that, unless you want to be a 24/7 crusader on this issue, it's not a business worth being in. In effect, the Islamobullies have been rewarded yet again for threatening physical violence. The best way to end the debate is not to make the price of having one too high.
To reprise Douglas Murray's point below, a film such as Fitna might not even be necessary were the western news organizations not so absurdly deferential toward Muslim sensibilities that they go out of their way to avoid showing us anything that might cause us to link violence with Islam. Even that footage of those depraved West Bankers jumping up and down in the street and passing out candy to celebrate 9/11 appears to have been walled up in the most impenetrable vault of the archives these last six years. Both CNN and the BBC could only bring themselves to show the Danish cartoons by pixelating Mohammed's face - the first time this technique has ever been applied to a drawing, as if the Prophet had entered the witness protection program. At one level, they make Wilders' point for him, but, at another, they make it less likely anyone else will step forward to try to make the point next time.
In reality, it's the small band of people trying to resist the de facto universalization of Islamic prohibitions that have to enter the witness protection program. Wish Mr Wilders good luck. Neither his own government nor the feeble equivalence peddler who serves as US ambassador to the Organization of the Islamic Conference are much help to him."
You can see Fitna here. Powerful stuff.
My italics. Let there be placards: "The Danish Press is Great".
Palestinian shoots two Israelis in Denmark
Telegraph
02 Jan 2009
A Danish man of Palestinian origin has been arrested on suspicion of shooting and wounding two Israelis at a shopping centre in central Denmark. Several shots were fired at two Israeli youths working at a hair salon in the Odense shopping centre on Wednesday. One of the youths was wounded in the leg, while the other was hit in the arm. ... The attack came on the seventh day of Israeli air strikes against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip, prompting speculation in Danish media of a link to developments in the Middle East.
...
Religious tensions have run high in Denmark in the past. In 2006, the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed in one national newspaper sparked Muslim outrage and a series of protests around the world. All major Danish newspapers republished the cartoon after Danish intelligence said it had uncovered a plot to kill one of the cartoonists. Protesters marched in the capital's streets shouting "God is Great!" and "Freedom of speech is like a plague!".
Yale University censors pictures of Muhammed:
'Academic Freedom Abridged at Yale Press
August 13, 2009
We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands.” That is effectively the new policy position at Yale University Press, which has eliminated all visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad from Jytte Klausen’s new book The Cartoons That Shook the World. Yale made the unusual decision not only to suppress the twelve 2005 Danish cartoons that sparked organized protests in many countries but also historical depictions of Muhammed like a 19th-century print by Gustave Doré. They are not responding to protests against the book; they and a number of their consultants are anticipating them and making or recommending concessions beforehand.'
Panic room saved artist Kurt Westergaard from Islamist assassin
The Sunday Times
January 3, 2010
Just when Denmark thought the worst was over, Islamic fury has come back to haunt it with an assassination attempt on the artist whose cartoon of the prophet Muhammad as a suicide bomber had an explosive impact four years ago on the Muslim world.
An axe-wielding Somali extremist broke into the home of Kurt Westergaard on Friday night as the 75-year-old cartoonist was looking after Stephanie, his five-year-old granddaughter.
Westergaard, whose little ink drawing of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban sparked riots throughout the Middle East in 2006, has received numerous death threats. He pressed an alarm button to summon police when the attacker entered the house in Aarhus, Denmark’s second city, by breaking a window.
more
Post a Comment