Why I Published Those Cartoons

[barb162]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html

Why I Published Those Cartoons

By Flemming Rose
Sunday, February 19, 2006; Page B01

Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A PR stunt. Critics of 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad I decided to publish in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have not minced their words. They say that freedom of expression does not imply an endorsement of insulting people's religious feelings, and besides, they add, the media censor themselves every day. So, please do not teach us a lesson about limitless freedom of speech.

I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies; swear words rarely make it into our pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our support for freedom of expression.

Those examples have to do with exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste; call it editing. By contrast, I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.

At the end of September, a Danish standup comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing with the Koran.
snip

[greyl]

1. One side of the controversy shows flexibility and reason.

"So, over two weeks we witnessed a half-dozen cases of self-censorship, pitting freedom of speech against the fear of confronting issues about Islam. This was a legitimate news story to cover, and Jyllands-Posten decided to do it by adopting the well-known journalistic principle: Show, don't tell. I wrote to members of the association of Danish cartoonists asking them "to draw Muhammad as you see him." We certainly did not ask them to make fun of the prophet. Twelve out of 25 active members responded.

We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.

The cartoons do not in any way demonize or stereotype Muslims. In fact, they differ from one another both in the way they depict the prophet and in whom they target. One cartoon makes fun of Jyllands-Posten, portraying its cultural editors as a bunch of reactionary provocateurs. Another suggests that the children's writer who could not find an illustrator for his book went public just to get cheap publicity. A third puts the head of the anti-immigration Danish People's Party in a lineup, as if she is a suspected criminal.

One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html

[sam sarrha]

2. is this a case of today a cartoon, tomorrow your wife cant wear certain

certain clothes.. or some other placation to their religious beliefs so not to incite their wrath toward a secular nation..??

[jobycom]

3. Wait. He says they would never publish pornography, because of "ethical

standards," meaning that pictures of lovemaking might offend some people, but he thinks it's really, really good that he published pictures he knew would outrage Muslims, because... The only thing I can conclude is that he doesn't give one god damn about the "ethical standards" of Muslims. Muslims consider what he published pornographic. It makes no sense that pictures of natural human interactions violates our "ethical standards," either, but he just admitted he wouldn't cross that line.

It isn't the cartoons, it's the double standards. We get insane when Muslim nations insult OUR sacred images--the Holocaust, for instance--but when they get insane over DELIBERATE offenses from our side, they are just crazy radical Islamic fundamentalists?? The double standards--the complete lack of respect as human beings--are what caused the riots, not the cartoons.

[Wilms]

4. That's how I read it.

But I hope something positive comes out of the soul searching in DK.

[Harper_is_Bush]

5. "Because I'm the Danish Lou Dobbs. A closet racist POS" n/t

[Tom Joad]

6. Does he mention his love for Daniel Pipes, US anti-Muslim racist?

Dan Pipes, a close Bush adviser for war in Iraq, is about as extreme as they come. Yet this fellow admires Pipes. Pipes not only just advocated for war with Iraq, but in 1987 advocated for arming Saddam. No sh**. Check out the references here. http://tomjoad.org/pipes.htm

so his motivation here may not be as pure as some may think. If he printed cartoons that depicted African Americans in some insulting cartoon, and had written some fawning article over David Duke, you would not take seriously that his goal was to "push back self-imposed limits on expression".

The bottom line he did this because he hates Muslims. Criticize the response all you want, many Muslims will join you. But do not take seriously this rightwing fool.

Another thing to keep in mind, is think of the response when the US is offended by what Al Jazeera publishes. Do mobs burn embassies? No! The US sends sleek, multi-million bombers to destroy their media offices. Ain't that just... modern!

[Behind the Aegis]

7. And this germane how?

Perhaps the publisher is an Islamaphobe. He has had contact with scores of people. But this conspiracy bullshit that this was all a PNAC plan started by a Muslim-hating Jew, beloved by Bush, is getting older than the constant reports about the stupid riots!

[Tom Joad]

9. I said the bottom line is that the publisher is a racist.

And his affinity for Pipes is one example.

What is foolish is to think that this man did this because he is making a stand against censorship. No one seriously believes that, right?

[barb162]

11. He did the cartoons in response to incidents of self-censorship

in Europe in regard is Islam. Sounds good to me. BTW, you have shown absolutely nothing to prove this man is a racist.

[barb162]

12. It is not only totally off topic, it's totally irrelevant

and typical

[Tom Joad]

14. Your position is that this man has fine intentions and is honorable.

You take him at his word. I do not.

I mention his fondness of Pipes because it is indicative of his anti-Muslim racist stance.

If a magazine editor wrote a fawning article of David Duke, I would think that he is anti-Jewish and a white supremacist, and would challenge anyone who said otherwise. I would bring it up to someone who mistakenly thought otherwise.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8512

[barb162]

10. why don't you try reading the article to find out

[bemildred]

8. He should get together with Bremer. They could do a violin duet.

:nopity::nopity:

[Colorado Blue]

13. More from the article:

"In January, Jyllands-Posten ran three full pages of interviews and photos of moderate Muslims saying no to being represented by the imams. They insist that their faith is compatible with a modern secular democracy. A network of moderate Muslims committed to the constitution has been established, and the anti-immigration People's Party called on its members to differentiate between radical and moderate Muslims, i.e. between Muslims propagating sharia law and Muslims accepting the rule of secular law. The Muslim face of Denmark has changed, and it is becoming clear that this is not a debate between "them" and "us," but between those committed to democracy in Denmark and those who are not.

This is the sort of debate that Jyllands-Posten had hoped to generate when it chose to test the limits of self-censorship by calling on cartoonists to challenge a Muslim taboo. Did we achieve our purpose? Yes and no. Some of the spirited defenses of our freedom of expression have been inspiring. But tragic demonstrations throughout the Middle East and Asia were not what we anticipated, much less desired. Moreover, the newspaper has received 104 registered threats, 10 people have been arrested, cartoonists have been forced into hiding because of threats against their lives and Jyllands-Posten's headquarters have been evacuated several times due to bomb threats. This is hardly a climate for easing self-censorship."

I see absolutely nothing in any of these remarks, or in the entire article, to indicate that Rose is a racist or that this anything whatsoever to with Daniel Pipes.

Indeed, dragging out the spectre of Daniel Pipes every time somebody issues a fatwa or a death threat is so totally not on point; it's in the same category as blaming the Israelis everytime a suicide bomber explodes. And why blame the messenger for the death threats, the intimidations? Don't people have ANY responsibility for their own actions?

What IS on point is the fact that civil societies, let alone a shrinking and ever-more intermeshing world, can't survive if people are putting hits out on artists or trying to influence commentary via violence or intimidation.

The nature of art, sometimes, is to push the edge - of what's respectable, decent, pretty. Artists, writers, filmmakers, shouldn't have to live in fear of their lives. And I can't believe people, progressives yet, would in any way defend totalitarian, repressive tactics to stifle dissent - let alone violence.