Muslims picket U.S. newspaper over reprinting of cartoon

[Harper_is_Bush]

Muslims picket U.S. newspaper over reprinting of cartoon
BY GAIUTRA BAHADUR
Knight Ridder Newspapers

PHILADELPHIA - More than two dozen Muslims offended by The Philadelphia Inquirer's decision to reprint a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad that has inflamed the sensibilities of their co-religionists across the world picketed the newspaper Monday morning.

snip

According to Islamic tradition, "any pictures or images of Muhammad are considered sacrilegious. But the Danish cartoon is particularly insensitive, the local protesters contend, because it perpetuates a stereotype of Islam as a militant religion.

"It's disrespectful to us as a people," said Asim Abdur-Rashid, an imam with the Majlis Ash'Shura, an umbrella group for mosques in the Delaware Valley. "It's disrespectful to our prophet to imply that he's a prophet of violence."

snip

One demonstrator, 54-year-old Aneesha Uqdah of Philadelphia, argued that precedent exists for newspapers to withhold some information to prevent harm: "If a woman was a rape victim, you wouldn't publish her name," she said.

The harm in this case, according to the pickets, is to the reputation of Islam at a time when Muslims in the United States already feel under siege.

http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/nation/13807016.htm

Another non-violent demonstration.

Shame on that Philidelphia newspaper. That's not thier "job".

[WindRavenX]

1. Shame on the paper?

Why? Because they're trying to provide an accurate story to readers?

This entire incident is bullshit.

[Harper_is_Bush]

2. You responded to quickly to have read the article.

If you had, you would have seen the point made that the paper could have described the pictures with words without reprinting them.

And the point about newspapers witholding other information to prevent harm is also valid.

The readers could have gotten an accurate story without the offensive pictures being included.

[WindRavenX]

6. And I'm arguing that the pictures SHOULD have been shown

Why not print them? This whole controverey is absolutely asinine-- people are literally killing each other over a cartoon.
Showing the picture would have been just. We're caving into fear. And that's wrong.

[Harper_is_Bush]

8. Arguing that we shouldn't care at all about being offensive

is an interesting argument.

Would you also argue that the picture and name of a rape victim should be shown?

And I would point out that it's not just a cartoon, it's a deep offense that I suspect you don't appreciate or even care to.

[WindRavenX]

10. Apples and oranges

The basis for not publishing the name and picture of a rape victim is first most a matter of privacy.

And please, I've studied Islamic studies all throughout college and have read the Koran. I know why it's offensive--but that isn't why it shouldn't be published. Simply publishing something for the value of shock and rage is precisely why we're in this ridiculous mess as well.

It's important as well to take into the fact that the context of the cartoon is entirely academic in the sense it will be re-printed for academic consumption and discussion; it is not an editorial cartoon.

In this context, even though some of the paper's audience will take offense, the cartoon itself is not being printed for the purpose of being obscene or offensive. Why do we look at anti-semitic propaganda reprints? Why are those any less offensive? It's because of the context.

No matter how offensive something may be to one particular group, it is not a universal offense and learning and understanding the nature of this debate requires a close look-- not just a summary. You actually have to see it.

[Harper_is_Bush]

12. Apples and oranges.

And yet you draw the comparison to anti-semitic propaganda.

It matters not that the rape victim is not published in the media for privacy. The point is that there is HARM that would come from publishing that information. The media makes a decision to not publish it. In fact, courts dictate it...yet nobody complains about freedom of speech being infringed in that case.

And there are multiple cartoons, not just one cartoon as seems to be your impression explicitly conveyed more than once. How is a cartoon with a bomb in the Prophets head scarf "acedemic" at this point? Sure, acedemics will look at all of these cartoons and yip yap about them. So what? It doesn't make them any less offensive to Muslims today.

[WindRavenX]

28. As a policy, I don't think being pressured by any type of thinking...

...theological or political, is a good thing.

Many liberal beliefs and opinions, expressed everyday in the newspapers, are offensive to numerous religious and political groups.

I don't see why a theological offense, albeit being offensive to many people, is reason to not publish it in a secular nation such as ours.

Specificially, I find a beef with this: How is a cartoon with a bomb in the Prophets head scarf "acedemic" at this point?

It's academic in the way we chose to discuss it, as it would have been if/when reprinted for discussion in secular major papers in the US. Again, context is everything. The papers are not using it in the context of making an editorial comment on the actual content of the cartoon, which is where the Dutch papers ran into problems because they WERE making a bigoted editorial statement.

Reprinting is in a completely different context. There is no judgement on the part of the paper on the content. They are being printed for discussion.

[Harper_is_Bush]

34. If you were an editor, would you label your reluctance to publish this:

as "pressure"? You could assume that your paper might become a target, obviously. It may even spark more widespread violence. Would that therefore be unfair pressure? Should all the blacks who object just chill and let you have your free speech without violence?

[WindRavenX]

35. What context would the cartoon be placed in?

"Racist Cartoons--a Perspective"

"We hate blacks--here's why"

or something else?

And violence-- well, that's why this whole damn thing is ridiculous. Protest. Loudly. Shut down cities.
But to isusue to sentences over this shit? It's ridiculous. That's where my outrage is-- why do we have to solve everything with might instead of, oh, something a bit more productive?

[Harper_is_Bush]

36. The context of being published in spite of knowing it would be offensive.

and possibly cause violence.

[WindRavenX]

37. I'm sorry, just because it's offensive doesn't warrant not publishing it

If they published it JUST to cause offense, then of course that's stupid. But in a proper context not deliberately aiming to offend? Where do we draw the lines at not publishing things in fear of offending certain groups?

[Harper_is_Bush]

38. Which brings you back to this analogy:

Consider it wasn't published JUST to cause offense, but it's understood that it WILL cause offense.

I guess you draw the line right there, to answer your question.

The negative outweighs the positive....especially considering that the positive can be fulfilled from a media standpoint with words...describing the picture.

[WindRavenX]

42. well there you go

the negative outweighs the positive. In this and the other incident.

[Karenina]

199. Ya know what I find humorous???

(Or not). This thread is now nearly 200 posts long and I see scant solidarity with the local community that responded in the proscribed, legitimate, socially and legally acceptable Western way. No one has even patted them on the heads with a "Well, THEY'RE the GOOD ONES." ;-)

A thread giving voice to the MAJORITY MUSLIM MINDSET drops like a stone:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2089742

But every rock thrown in the ME gets major coverage every hour of every day...

The basic assumption is that anyone who does not see the black/white, either/or of the presumed "Amurikin way" is agin "free speech." It's lächerlich when one considers how many of your own citizens on you own shores have recently been arrested and harassed for fuckin' t-shirts.

A real classy move by the paper would have been to post a link to the original publisher, affording people the opportunity to explore the source and related information further. Or even print the "turban" cartoon with an explanation of why Muslims found it so offensive and engage readers in critical thought. However, in these times, that is clearly NOT the "American Way."

[tabasco]

128. The whole idea behind free speech is to protect speech ...

we do find offensive. If we only protect speech which we do not find offensive, it's not free speech.

The other thing is that it is insane for religious persons to think the whole world has to follow their rules regarding their deities and prophets. Utter insanity.

It is rather arrogant and disrespectful of them to think the whole world has to follow their rules.

I find the cartoon you posted offensive but I would defend the asshole's right to print it.

A civilized response to it would be a boycott by all offended persons. Not riots, violence, and insane jihads.


edit typo

[SemperEadem]

133. free speech also comes with responsibilities

and consequences when the speech becomes action.

Yes, they *can* publish anything they want, but at the same time, they forfeit the right to complain about the backlash--mainly because they dismissed their responsibility and balking at the consequences of their actions doesn't excuse them just because they have the 'right of free speech'.

Like I said, publish an offensive picture of Jesus and let's see how quiet folks will remain.

If we can't understand the outcry, then that is hubris and pride--and pride goes before destruction and the haughty spirit before the fall.

[Mike Daniels]

135. Well Piss Christ offended lots of Christians

and I didn't see them them burning down burnings or ordering death warrants against the artist.

Were they pissed (no pun intended)? You bet. Did they have a right to be pissed? Oh yeah, but they expressed their anger through protests and attempting to reduce government funding of the arts...not extensive acts of violence and destruction.

One should be willing to expect a reaction to certain acts of free speech, but the reaction over these cartoons is definitely over the top and beyond reason.

[SemperEadem]

140. that's because it doesn't offend you.

of course you'd think that way... you're not Muslim. You can't relate. That much is obvious.

[Bassic]

166. So what muslim beliefs are more important

than anyone elses? It's ok to offend everyone else but not them because they'll be angry? Don't you see how wrong that is?

It's one thing to be ticked off, that they have a right to. They also have a right to stage a peaceful protest, as they did in this case. If they resort to violence, that is where they become wrong.

[Kixel]

180. You are faster than I am...

But I agree completely!

[Kixel]

179. That is a bold statement...

You can't understand how offensive I found the pooh-version of my religious faith being displayed and paid for with public funds. My faith was literally covered in crap? Obviously I can't understand why a bigoted cartoon would be horrible...are you for real? To have a strong faith means you are constantly in contact with those who may have quite opposite views from yours. I can understand being offended and upset.

I can not understand, however, why it's not okay to pick on one religious icon, but it is okay to mess with another? Is it disrespectful? Of course it is. However, we live in a free country, and there is a right for people to say and think what they want. I do not want to live in a perfectly PC world, and I understand there are those who will belittle my beliefs. I try not to belittle anyone’s beliefs, even when I disagree with them. I do not believe their voice should be silenced any more than I would be willing to silence my own.

[tabasco]

137. Forfeit the right to complain about the backlash?!

What is your basis for saying that? Please provide me with any legal, moral, or other basis to say I have no right to condemn violence in reaction to a cartoon. I'm waiting.

An outcry is one thing. Violence, death threats, and insane jihads are another. We have every right to complain and condemn violence in reaction to a cartoon.

Are you saying there is no basis to "complain" about death threats against a newspaper publisher who prints controversial material? Really, are you saying that?

A boycott of the newspapaer would have been an appropraite response. A peaceful protest in front of the newspaper would be an appropriate response. But violence and threats and murder is never appropriate and should be condemned.

[iverglas]

139. no, it isn't

The whole idea behind free speech is to protect speech ...
we do find offensive.

It really isn't. Where this notion came from, I have never understood.

The whole idea behind freedom of speech is pretty much the same as the whole idea behind a number of other values we hold to: the rule of law and the principle of democracy, for instance.

The whole idea is, in part, to produce a context in which individuals are able to live their lives as best they can, subject to interference only when there are interests at stake that we regard as overriding, such as other individuals' essential interests and the interests of a community, society or the species as a whole. It is also to produce a society in which the interests of humanity as a whole are advanced, which we believe can be done by the exchange of ideas, among other things.

This very often means protecting actions that are not only "offensive", but demonstrably create risks of harm for other individuals or the collectivity. But that is simply not the purpose of the principles we hold. It is an effect of holding to those principles. And it is perfectly possible to hold to the principles and be saddened by the use to which some people put the freedoms they have under those principles. And it is perfectly legitimate to speak out against those uses.

It is rather arrogant and disrespectful of them to think the whole world has to follow their rules.

And I consider it arrogant and disrespectful to lump any collection of individuals under the term "them" and then not only characterize them all in some way, but characterize them inaccurately in a way that amounts to vilifying.

I like to think that people exercising their freedom to speak make an effort to speak in an informed and sincere way. And anyone who chooses to participate in this discussion who still doesn't know that the issue is considerably more complex than anyone thinking that "the whole world has to follow their rules", and who adopts this manner of speaking about a collection of individuals about whom s/he knows nothing, doesn't appear to me to be doing that.

I find the cartoon you posted offensive but I would defend the asshole's right to print it.

Bully for you.

Now: would you defend the asshole's printing it? That, not the straw thing you are apparently addressing -- that someone is saying that there was or should be no right to print it -- is the issue.

A civilized response to it would be a boycott by all offended persons. Not riots, violence, and insane jihads.

Is anyone here disagreeing with you?

Now how about an opinion about how civilized it is to portray a members of a minority group who are already at risk of disadvantage and actual harm, motivated by hatred based on the stereotyped characteristics ascribed to them by segments of the majority, as having those stereotyped characteristics?

[tabasco]

147. Study the First Amendment and the concept of free speech

in a democracy. A good place to start:

The First Amendment: A Reader John H. Garvey & Frederick Schauer, West Publishing Co., 1996

It's pretty clear with your first statement you don't have a clue.

[iverglas]

151. I'm not interested in your first amendment, ta.

The "concept of free speech" pre-dates your constitution and exists independently of it, and certainly does not mean only what some USAmerican might assert it means. Your constitutional amendments have no relevance to the current discussion, your own opinions about freedom of speech are no more authoritative than any others, and your statement is no more revealed truth than it was when you first made it.

It's pretty clear with your first statement you don't have a clue.

As far as whether I have a clue, my law degree, years of practice in fields associated with human rights (like advocacy for refugees fleeing persecution for their speech) and my further years of research and work in Canadian and international human rights law might have given you a clue, if you'd known about any of it, which you chose not to bother to do before speaking from sheer ignorance. Your choice, and certainly not for me to advise that silence would have been a better one.

[Bassic]

165. I agree, wholeheartedly.

While I don't advocate insulting people just for the hell of it, I also believe that free speech means some people are going to be offended by any one persons' discourse.

I also agree that while we must respect each and every one's beliefs, we should not bow down to every rule they spit at us. In that way we make our own beliefs second-class.

[Hoping4Change]

26. Free speech is offensive, it doesn't protect people from

being offended. It is not controlled. Some speech deemed hate speech is curtailed but that is a very recent development and a development which is still very controversial.

[Harper_is_Bush]

32. Free speech is not offensive. Poor decisions made in it's course

can be.

I hope iverglas won't mind, but I'm going to use his/her example:

Now let's wonder what would happen if that were published in Philadelphia today.

Hey, free speech. Why on earth wouldn't a US newspaper print it, eh?

Picked that one at random on a google images search for racist cartoon. There sure are lots. Oddly enough, one tends not to see them in the US nowadays.

Hmm, I wonder whether US newspaper publishers are afraid of riots, arson and death threats if they did it?

[Hoping4Change]

57. The above is an attack on part of the human race whereas the

cartoons depicting Mohamed are a comment (or, in the minds of Muslims an attack) on an idea because no matter how you slice it, religion is an idea, a product if the human imagination.

All products of our minds are interesting but they don't deserve the irrefutable respect, the respect flesh and blood humans deserve. In fact many ideas that humans have come up with such as ideas about god have ended up causing alot of grief and suffering and deserve no respect at all.

Ideas about god, aka religion, are particularly dangerous because religion encourages emotions to merge with belief, so people do not just believe their own religion is the ultimate truth but they feel it and feel it deeply. And since feelings are so powerful it becomes almost impossible not to believe that something actually is there to create such strong feeling. In other words, because a believer has such a strong subjective experience of god, god therefore must exist.


If people want to believe that's fine with me. But it is my opinion that people ought to keep in mind that god is an idea. People should be humble enough to believe that they might be wrong but that doesn't happen because people want to be told that their religion is 100% based on the word of god. Believers want to be told their religion unlike any other is the real deal. This is dangerous.

Therefore to curb the excesses of belief, all products of the human imagination, should be open to any kind of no-hold-barred discussion so they can be kept in check.

As Thomas Paine wrote in 1794.

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit" -Thomas Paine 1794.

[Xithras]

86. Most religions are offended by nonbelievers. Can't help that.

I once got into an interesting argument with a Muslim who became infuriated after asking me my opinion of Mohammed. As a nonpracticing Catholic, I told him that I thought Mohammed was an interesting historical figure and that his religion had changed the world in many ways. The Muslim got mad that I called it "his" (Mohammeds) religion, and demanded to know how I could insult the "prophet" like that?

My answer was pretty danged clear. From a religious perspective, Mohammed was a fraud. Quite frankly, every single non-Muslim on the planet believes that (If you think that Mohammed was the real deal, you'd be Muslim). My religious beliefs do not include Mohammed, so I don't grant any more religious credence to him than a Shiite would offer to Joseph Smith, or a Chinese animist would offer Jesus Christ. Still, the Muslim was deeply offended by what I said.

The reality is that the goal of ALL religions is to make everyone else believe that their religion is the "One True Path", and people who challenge that notion are instantly offensive. When a Christian tells a Muslim that Mohammed was a fraud, he's not being offensive, he's stating the doctrine of his faith. When a Muslim tells a Christian that his Bible is wrong and that Jesus was just a Jewish prophet, he's not being offensive to Christians, he's just expressing HIS faith.

It is BEYOND unreasonable to expect that people who DO NOT BELIEVE in a particular religion should be forced to live according to its rules. As a non-muslim, I couldn't give a damn what offends them. It's not anti-Muslim, because I don't care about Mormons, Buddhists, Hindu's, or Baptists either. The tenets of their faith have absolutely no relevance to my life, and I refuse to curb my behavior to suit someone elses silly superstitions. THAT is what FREEDOM is all about. If we were forced to avoid EVERYTHING that offended someones religion, our world would grind to a halt. Think about that next time you eat a hamburger or squish a spider.

[Harper_is_Bush]

109. This was a deliberate provocation by a rightwing Danish newspaper...

who refused to apologized. And then the Danish government refused to meet with local Muslims over the issue.

Perhaps that is why it's resonated.

No offense, but your anecdote is not relevant to the situation.

[nodehopper]

107. a rape victim is a living, breathing person

who has rights. Prophet Mohammed is a figure from religious texts. If newspapers refused to print anything that would upset anyone, then what would freedom of speech mean?

As far as a "deep offense" goes, it's a deep offense among a group of fundamentalists, and I don't particularly care about not offending fundamentalists of any faith. There have been plenty of depictions of the Prophet over the ages, including in Arabic art.
Here is one :

The no-reproduction policy is not something that has been consensed upon by the entire Islamic community, it is something that conservative extermists believe and practice.

[iverglas]

127. so are European Muslims

There have been plenty of depictions of the Prophet over the ages, including in Arabic art.

Actually, as the title of the picture you reproduced at the site where it came from says, that art is Persian. Persians (e.g. modern-day Iranians) are not Arabs. They speak an Indo-European language that uses Arabic script. There are cultural differences among Muslims and other factors that result in variations in religious practices. While I speak a little Farsi (Persian), I am not an Islamic scholar or student of Arab/Persian history, so can't say much more than that.

The no-reproduction policy is not something that has been consensed upon by the entire Islamic community, it is something that conservative extermists believe and practice.

As I understand it, that is not entirely accurate. Less conservative/extreme Muslims adhere to the policy, but as in many other matters, and like those who profess many other religions, don't expect others to do so. Thus many Muslims would presumably not have objected to a children's book depicting Mohammed, if the outsider's intent were not disrespectful; that does not mean that they would look benignly on an intentionally disrespectful portrayal.

And that is the actual point here in non-conservative/extreme Muslims' mind, and I just can't believe that so many people appear to be unable to grasp it.

It was not the fact of the depiction of Mohammed that caused offence to many Muslims; it was the depiction of Mohammed as a committer/rewarder of atrocities -- Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, Mohammed welcoming bombers into paradise (along with an insulting reference to one of the West's favourite points of ridicule in Islamic theology, the virgins that await martyrs).

And it caused "offence" not merely because it was intentionally just plain rude, but also because it validated the hatred that many in their communities already feel toward them, and exposed them to more of the discrimination, harassment and worse that they are already at risk of.

We really don't have to adopt the discourse of the conservative/extreme elements of the Muslim group when we consider whether the publication of these materials was acceptable.

I can object to the publication of materials that degrade and objectify women without adopting the discourse of social conservatives, and I can expect anyone who disagrees with me to address what *I* say, not what social conservatives say. Ditto any other issue on which I and social conservatives, or someone else, might happen to reach similar conclusions by very different routes. I agree with right-wing libertarians that possession of narcotics should not be criminalized, but for different reasons. And so on.

Muslims can object to the publication of these materials for reasons quite different from those asserted by other Muslims. To focus solely on the reasons stated by conservative/extreme Muslims is to tilt at straw persons, and close one's eyes to the possibility that other Muslims (and of course other people) have legitimate grounds for objection.

Again, I recommend watching the videos linked to in my post here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2089742&mesg_id=2089742

[JCMach1]

157. Some excellent comments

"Muslims can object to the publication of these materials for reasons quite different from those asserted by other Muslims. To focus solely on the reasons stated by conservative/extreme Muslims is to tilt at straw persons, and close one's eyes to the possibility that other Muslims (and of course other people) have legitimate grounds for objection..."

I definitely agree with your position here and am quite tired to the right-wing taking the libertarian tack as it suits their own vile purposes...

Our entire constitution has always been in negotiation with the real world as opposed to the world of ideals...

In fact there would be no right to an abortion if a court had not interpreted such...

[SemperEadem]

132. when they publish a picture of Jesus giving head to Mary Magdalene

can we count on you to keep your mouth shut about it?

[Bassic]

167. Who says anything about keeping thei mouths shut

Any one has a right o bitch about it, to peacefully protest. Like the muslims in this story.

Anyone has a righ to protest NON-VIOLENTLY.

[yppahemnkm]

152. Very good Point!

It is just a cartoon.

[demosincebirth]

22. I agree, let 'em join the modern world.

[Marie26]

100. What if they don't want to?

What we're really saying is, join the Western world. Adopt our beliefs about freedom of speech & religion. But it's pretty clear from the protests that that isn't what most Muslims want. (right?) In the protests, people seem to be telling the West, join the Islamic world. Adopt our beliefs about Muhammad & Islamic law. That isn't going to happen either. So... what? Neither side is going to adapt to the other; neither side feels it should adapt. So how can we prevent more clashes in the future? Or is it just inevitable that one culture will feel the need to force the other to adopt it's beliefs?

[Bill McBlueState]

120. you make it sound like the two cultures are equally good

What we're really saying is, adopt basic ideals like freedom of speech, equal treatment of women, and the idea that suicide bombing is a bad thing.

The Muslim world needs to adopt these beliefs and join the modern world, or we're going to see worse things than 9/11.

[SemperEadem]

138. the thing is

A suicide bomber is no more offensive or destructive as white *christian* lynch mobs terrorising black townships in the south because of a lie some white *christian* woman told. Watch "Rosewood" and then tell me just how much better christians in this country are.

It would seem in this country especially that the christians are as sanguineous and barbaric as any Muslim over seas. How else did they slaughter off the indigeneous population and herd those they didn't get around to murdering onto reservations? That's christianity in action for you.

[EXDIA53]

141. Most people in the south grew out of that in the 1950's.

[Bill McBlueState]

154. christians can be barbaric, too

What I mean by "modern culture" is the wave of secularism that's sweeping Europe and certain segments of North America. Rational, secular people don't start religious wars, commit religiously-motivated suicide, or use religion as an excuse for genocide.

Anyone who still participates in lynch mobs needs the same cure as the suicide bombers.

[smirkymonkey]

163. Then they should piss off and leave the rest of us alone.

It's not just that they don't want to be INFLUENCED by Western culture, it's that they don't want Western culture to EXIST. It's not enough for them that this supposed blasphemy is "forbidden" in their lands, it must be forbidden in all lands.

[rodeodance]

3. Scott M. has condemned these cartoons. that is all we need to know.

[rodeodance]

4. the WH shakes it fingers at Europe for being culturally insensitive.

[WinkyDink]

72. Yeah, when they're BOMBING MUSLIMS.

Good one, MonkeyBoy King.

[eggman67]

5. As a Philadelphian

I applaud the Inquirer for their courage, integrity, and committment to free and open discourse!

Philadelphia - Cradle of Liberty

:woohoo:

[Emendator]

94. I'm with you

Good for the Inquirer.

[nodehopper]

108. is the cartoon online now?

[Tom Joad]

7. The US bombs media outlets. Dems in Congress silent, or complicit

Perhaps we should start in our own backyard for real freedom. (don't mean to say ALL Dems in congress are silent, but most of them don't put up much of a fuss.

[LisaM]

9. They can report the whole story without showing the picture

I have not seen the picture and I don't need to see it. I can fully understand the words, thank you. There is absolutely no reason to show it - it's not as if anyone is deterring the paper from reporting the story.

[wordpix2]

11. the cartoon offends some Muslims but we have freedom of speech in this

country and if Muslims want to live here, they need to follow the rule of law, same as BushCo should. At the same time, we should be sensitive to the fact that not all Muslims are religious fanatics just like not all Americans are Christian fundies. Peaceful protest is fine and within the law and the Constitution provides for it but I don't support violence as we've seen in Lebanon and elsewhere against the Danes. I do, however, understand that many Muslims are angry at Europe and the US and often for good reasons---hell, we at DU are angry with US policies, too.

Please, peaceful protest is legal in this country, at least last time I looked. But if protests gets violent, I for one do not want violent radicals in charge of our streets.

[Bassic]

168. Yes that is exactly my view as well. nt

[LisaM]

13. I certainly don't condone their protests. I just don't see why

the paper thinks it had to re-print the picture. Whether we understand it or not, there are those who are offended by it. I personally don't really understand it - but I respect that Muslims don't want the picture shown and the story can certainly be reported minus the actual cartoon.

[Odin2005]

14. Good Job Philly!

Freedom of speach trumps political corectness.

[Harper_is_Bush]

18. "political correctness"?

That is by far the most bizarre characterization of the reaction I've seen yet!

I don't understand the issue inside out. Often I work on instinct and fragmented evidence. In this case I can see clearly - even if the violence was removed - that these pictures are deeply offensive to Muslims.

It's a little beyond "political correctness" I'd say.

[VirginiaDem]

40. It's almost exactly PC

People get offended by all manner of things; bending over backwards in order not to offend them is textbook PC behavior, regardless of how offensive the "offense" is.

Your provocative example of the racist cartoon you've displayed above actually proves this point. It is horribly offensive but in no way should lead to worldwide violent riots. Once those riots became news, then it behooves any journalist to cover the issue from any newsworthy angle among, not all of which could be covered by simply describing the images. While I don't agree with your argument, I think the cartoon you chose to display helps you to make your argument as strongly as it can be made, therefore it makes sense that we have all viewed your posts with the cartoon included without burning down any embassies. For a newspaper to address this issue without the offending image is to cede the highly contestable point up front, which is to abandon the entire point of journalism.

[athena]

116. Look, you can say as much as you want that the muslim fundamentalists

shouldn't have burned down embassies. The fact is that they have, and anyone could have predicted it. All this could have been prevented if the newspaper had shown some sensitivity and respect.

The Abu Ghraib photos led to violence, too. But it would be pointless to go on about how wrong some Iraqis were to respond violently. The U.S. should not have let the torture happen. They could easily have foreseen the terrible consequences.

Most Muslims around the world don't have the luxury of living in free democracies where they are respected as human beings. Most of them live under dictators who, while oppressing their people, encourage them to blame America and Israel for all their troubles. Until the situation changes, it is in the best interest of the West to respect the Muslims, not to offend them. You can say as much as you want that fundamentalist Muslims "shouldn't burn buildings". It won't change anything. The more the West offends them, the more buildings they will burn, and the more bombs they will explode. You have to be realistic. What are you trying to accomplish?

[Spinoza]

142. As I understand your argument,

you are advocating self-censhorship because newspaper cartoonists and publishers should know that some muslims will go ape-shit upon viewing, what they consider to be, "blashpemous" cartoons. But should the expected violent reaction of any group be able to dictate what can and cannot be printed?

[VirginiaDem]

143. So the newspaper's choice to run

cartoons equates to the gov't's decision to torture people? What am I trying to accomplish? Maintaining core freedoms in the face of religious tyranny. What are you trying to accomplish? It appears that you'd like to squash anything that might offend Muslims so that they won't riot. Is that right?

[Renew Deal]

69. Actually, PC is 100% correct.

In this country it's all about the political correctness. People shout PC consciously and unconsciously all the time. The cartoons should be shown and printed. They are the story. Let the people make up their own minds.

[fujiyama]

15. I don't think the rape victim analogy holds

That is about protecting the identity of a victim.

This is to give readers a better idea of what sparked this violence.

I respect the people for protesting peacefully. They have the right to do so. They also have the right to boycott the paper and write letters to the editor.

But they don't have the right not to be offended. That's a virtue and drawback of living in a free society.

[wordpix2]

16. me, neither---not good analogy at all

[Harper_is_Bush]

21. Most analogies are imperfect......let's try another one:

Yes, the rape victim is about protecting the identify of a victim....whereas not printing the pictures is about not causing offense and outrage.
The analogy holds in the sense that both cause harm. In that, you should agree. Even if the violence was absent, the harm to Muslims is certainly real. It is not for us to argue that they should simply not be offended or should chill out or whatever.

And your point about giving readers a better idea about what sparked the violence does not hold because that could be accomplished with words.

How about this analogy though:

Should a paper print a picture of a body so mangled and ripped apart in an accident that it is unidentifiable?
Is it not goign to give readers a "better idea" of the horific accident that occurred, or is it enough and preferable to describe it with words?
Consider that the family will be deeply offended, naturally. Yet assume the name will not be released, therefore privacy is not an issue.

[iverglas]

24. try this one

Now let's wonder what would happen if that were published in Philadelphia today.

Hey, free speech. Why on earth wouldn't a US newspaper print it, eh?

Picked that one at random on a google images search for racist cartoon. There sure are lots. Oddly enough, one tends not to see them in the US nowadays.

Hmm, I wonder whether US newspaper publishers are afraid of riots, arson and death threats if they did it?

I think they might be. But I think that they might actually just not want to print them, because printing them would just be damned indecent. Freedom not to speak can be a fine thing, too.


(Hey, we don't agree on much, but we seem to agree on this.)

[Harper_is_Bush]

25. Absolutely the best point I've seen made. Thanks.

You have my respect and admiration for making the best observation I've seen in all this messy business.

[wordpix2]

27. that was a good analogy, I agree. However, I don't condone the violence

[Harper_is_Bush]

30. I completely condemn the violence

I wish the full story on the violence would come out, but I doubt it ever will.

The crouds were inflamable in many cases, and were incited by some trouble making extremists. That's my belief. And it takes very few people to light fires.

There are extremists groups who love the escalation to violence, and I believe they were a big part of it.

No, I don't condone it either. It's amazing how often I've been accused of that though.

[Solo_in_MD]

47. it seems to be a classic case of astroturfing

Most the rioters have not seen them, yet they burn buildings and attack people.

[Harper_is_Bush]

59. What is your source for this claim? n/t

[Luminous Animal]

29. A horrible analogy...

Let's suppose a neo-nazi paper published the above drawing. Certainly it is disgusting but certainly it would be legal to do so. Then, let us suppose that the publishing of the drawing sparks heated and destructive protest. Finally, lets suppose in this scenario a news agency reports on the protest AND the illustration that sparked it. In this make believe scenario and in the very real Muslim protest, the newspaper would be doing what all good news agencies should do; that is, they are giving their readers all the information they need to become informed of the situation.

[Harper_is_Bush]

33. Nonsense, it was a brilliant analogy.

Your suppositions fall flat because a neo-nazi paper is not a mainstream paper.

[Luminous Animal]

39. It doesn't matter.

Hell, even if the Moonie Times had printed the above picture as an editorial, the reprinting of the image as news is a service to the newspaper's readers.

[jor_mama]

63. I agree, seeing as how the original printing of this cartoon

was in September 2005.

[eggman67]

55. Well said n/t

[iverglas]

77. oh, stop changing the subject

Let's suppose a neo-nazi paper published the above drawing. ...

No.

Let us ask why mass-circulation daily newspapers in the US don't publish "cartoons" like that one, and a mass-circulation daily newspaper in Denmark did publish the Mohammed "cartoons".

[VirginiaDem]

45. Not much better

"The analogy holds in the sense that both cause harm. In that, you should agree. Even if the violence was absent, the harm to Muslims is certainly real. It is not for us to argue that they should simply not be offended or should chill out or whatever."

The harm to Muslims is imagined. The harm to a rape victim is real. This cartoon caused no more harm than Piss Christ, South Park, Life of Brian, Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal, The Satanic Verses, Catcher in the Rye or anything else prigs have been offended by.

Muslims are truly offended and therefore they have every right to voice this opinion, to boycott Danish goods, etc. In fact, I think boycotting Danish goods makes a lot of sense from their point of view. While I don't agree with it, I would certainly support their right to vote with their dollars (or Euros) on a matter of importance to them. They could do the same with the Philadelphia paper in question, legitimately in my opinion. If the Philadelphia paper then practiced self-censorship in the name of business needs, they would be acting legitimately in a sense because, after all, they are a business.

But barring that, they should have absolutely printed the cartoons as should every self-respecting newspaper in the US.

[Bassic]

169. If they want to sure.

And everyone who fins it distasteful also have the right to say so, peacefully. That is how free-speech is supposed to work.

[slackmaster]

87. Of course the analogy doesn't hold

It's a lame attempt, nothing more.

:nuke:

[Bill McBlueState]

122. another fault in the analogy:

Rape is a real crime with a real victim.

Blasphemy is an imaginary crime with a victim whose existence is at best dubious.

[rox63]

17. At least no one burned the newspaper offices down

Sounds like the protest was peaceful, unlike many others around the world. And it is their right to protest a perceived wrong, just as it is the right of the paper to publish what they want.

[AngryAmish]

44. Ding ding!

Right answer.

[Bassic]

170. That is exactly right!

And I agree with every fiber of my being.

[corporate_mike]

187. give them a few days :)

[iverglas]

194. ah, I see

That's the only response we can expect from Muslims, right? Have I got it straight?

If I've misunderstood, do feel free to tell me how I might have interpreted the comment so it didn't actually appear to have been made by a bigoted asshole.

[tritsofme]

19. There's a great thing about America

If you don't want to see pictures of your friend from the 7th century printed in a newspaper, then don't buy the newspaper.

[davidinalameda]

20. what is their job then?

the more I think about this, the less I see wrong with publishing the cartoon

I agree that it's very insensitive and insulting to Muslims but living in a free society like Denmark or the US means that someone or some group is going to be insulted on occasion

if the newspapers were afraid that something they printed was going to offend someone, I doubt most newspapers would be more than one or two pages thick

lord knows that TV would consist of even more mindless shows than we have now and radio would be pretty much dead air most of the time

I sympathize with the Muslims who are insulted by this, but how can they expect non-Muslims to follow their religious rules?

Are they going to be calling for the banning of pork products in grocery stores or the closing of businesses on Fridays?

We live in a secular society-we need to be sympathetic to religious groups but we can't let them dictate how others who aren't members of their group live.

[barb162]

82. You are SO right!

If the press has to worry about offending someone every time they do a story, they may as well close up shop

[RT_Fanatic]

158. Just a thought...

"We live in a secular society-we need to be sympathetic to religious groups but we can't let them dictate how others who aren't members of their group live."

Then shouldn't we be going to school, doing business and banking and the like, on December 25, or "Good" Friday?

[Bassic]

171. We live in a secular society, yet we obvioulsy have

cultrual inflences that come from christian religion. Here in Canada, even atheists take the hollidays and easter for granted for reasons of their own. A time to spend with friends and family and that comes from the cultural history of North America (for example). Muslims are quite free to close their businesses on Friday if they want, the point is moot.

[longship]

23. We live in a secular nation with a (so far) secular govt.

There is absolutely no reasons why a newspaper should not print visual renderings of Mohammed, or anybody else it wants to.

I reject totally the concept that the sensibilities of Muslims must take precidence here. That's rubbish. Muslim countries can make laws against these things in their own countries but this country is not a Muslim country (let alone a Christian country).

This is a slippery slope. What the hell are we going to do next? Burn the history books with pics of Mohammed in them? How about all the images of Mohammed on the Net? Are we to now purge all of them, too?

The whole thing is ridiculous. If the Muslim world doesn't like the fact that our culture allows pictures of people, and other lifeforms, that's their problem, not ours.

[HuckleB]

31. Picketing is wonderful!

It's free speech! If this is an issue, then that's the way to bring it forth.

[humbled_opinion]

41. The Price...

of Freedom Of Speach is "Responsibility of Action"

[Harper_is_Bush]

43. Meaning what?

exactly?

[humbled_opinion]

48. Meaning...

that the newspapers needed to show a bit more thoughtfullness at exactly what and why they were publishing these particular cartoons... Yes they can claim it is their right to publish as freedom of speech... However, if they publish intentionally offensive, racisist or hate speech then that is not responsible and negates their freedom to do so....

[Harper_is_Bush]

51. Agree 100% n/t

[eggman67]

58. Horseshit

Nothing "negates their freedom" .

The very concept of a price for free speech is oxymoronic.

[Renew Deal]

68. When the cartoons are the story

They should be seen and let the people decide.

[NashVegas]

175. Thank You!

I can't believe the amount of sanctimony in this thread.

I compare it to the reaction of the TV drama "Book of Daniel." It was highly offensive to some Christian groups. They boycotted it, which may or may not have had an effect on the show's ratings, but they didn't firebomb the studio.

[Karenina]

176. The series HAS been scrubbed

as have Britney's "Cruci-fixins."
X-tians in the U.S. have access to political and economic power.

Do you not find it the least bit ironic that the same paper that solicited insulting cartoons of the Prophet refused publication of cartoons that would have been insulting to Christians?

The Muslim world, called to arms by the Saudis, has boycotted Danish goods. The companies are now QUITE IRATE with their gub'mint as sales have dropped to -0-.

[High Plains]

46. The Inquirer were asses to publish the cartoon, but that is their

right. Still, I see it as less a glorious upholding of free speech and service to their readers than a crass effort to stir shit up.

People who want to protest the paper's decision by holding demonstrations or calling for boycotts of the paper are also absolutely within their rights.

[VirginiaDem]

50. Would a Philadelphia supermarket be asses for

selling pork?

[Harper_is_Bush]

54. What a ridiculous analogy.

Seling pork is not offensive to Muslims.

[bluestateguy]

49. They have the right to print it

There is no constitutional right to not be offended in the United States.

[Harper_is_Bush]

52. Nobody has said they don't have that right. They have the right to print

this also:



...knowing what consequences might erupt.

[MrSlayer]

65. Yes, but what would be the purpose?

Unless it was in response to another legitimate newspaper or whatever printing it in the first place. You would only see something like that in a Nazi or KKK paper. There is nothing in that cartoon you offered that is based in fact, it's just pure ignorant hatred. Those Islamic cartoons have an element of truth to them. There really are a bunch of them that kill people in the name of Allah. There are serious groups that believe it is their right to kill based on interpretations of the Koran, the words of Mohamed. Instead of rioting and acting like fools, they should be trying to rid themselves of this element within their own people. By acting the way they are acting only serves to make the cartoons seem true.

[Harper_is_Bush]

67. Ah. The cartoons have an element of truth, do they?

Mohammed was a violent extremist?

Listen, it matters little that there's would be no discernable purpose to printing the racist cartoon I posted. The point about printing something that would knowingly cause offense and possibly violence stands.

Are you aware of the circumstances of the publishing of these cartoons? They were testing the waters of freedom of expression. Is that a worthy purpose?

Could we not publish that racist cartoon with the same purpose?

[Igel]

79. The guy who offed

van Gogh. He believed in exactly such a Muslim, as do others: one that mandated such force.

If the Dutch community wasn't able or willing to police its own, and moderate Danish Muslims couldn't launch an outcry against the intimidation perceived by Danish illustrators trying to be respectful within the context of their own culture, what conclusion can one draw? That the belief in a violent, hateful Muhammed isn't worth serious debate in the absence of a non-Muslim provocation, and that such views may not be widely approved in the Muslim community, but are tolerated.

If tolerated, then it's a viable point of view and not blasphemous to propose depicting such a thing, apart from the usual ban on depicting Muhammed. Otherwise we're saying that we must ignore the less savory sects and streams of thought in a religion or philosophy, and only focus on the public face, the best possible view. This is silly. In fact, I note that there are two justifications given for the violence: one is the satire, the other in the mere depiction. Claiming the satire as the justification presumes that the harmful, hateful versions of Islam must never be discussed--if Abu Hamza could preach hate for years and not be rejected, well, it's none of our non-Muslim business. But if it's just the latter that's the problem, then we're down to having a provision of shari'a incumbent upon all non-Muslims lest violence obtain, and that's a vile, loathsome proposition that exceeds the requirements of civility and courtesy and, in itself, deserves a response.

[iverglas]

85. I really continue to be gobsmacked

If the Dutch community wasn't able or willing to police its own, ...

Well, one could start by rejecting the false premise that your conclusion is based on.

What "community" has any duty to "police its own"? Is it the duty of the African-American community in the US to deal with violence and drug dealing in the African-American community? Is it the duty of the redneck community in the US to deal with racist and homophobic and misogynist behaviour in the redneck community?

The members of the Dutch Muslim community are individuals, with individual rights that include the right to go about their own businesss. It is not their duty, or even their right, as individuals, to "police" anyone else.

And assigning such a duty to them as a group -- drawing whatever "conclusion" someone might like to draw from their exercising their right to go about their own business ... well, that's what bigots do. Assign group liability for individual action based on the shared attributes of the group. Individual Muslims are responsible for what other Muslims do, and should bear the consequences if they don't ... now insert "African-American" ... or USAmerican ...

... and moderate Danish Muslims couldn't launch an outcry against the intimidation perceived by Danish illustrators trying to be respectful within the context of their own culture, what conclusion can one draw?

Whoa. How did the intimidation that some people apparently felt come to public attention? Why, I believe it was through the publication of the "cartoons" under discussion.

Did the newspaper to whose attention the perception of intimidation came bring it to public attention by publishing a factual report of it, and attempting to initiate civil discourse about it? I don't thiiiink so.

The newspaper made the choice to frame the discourse as it did. It made the choice to portray Muslims as the followers of a mass murderer.

There was no discussion of the problem it perceived, no discourse opened for any nice Muslims to join. There was an intentional offence offered, and an intentional misrepresentation of them as irrational and violent. Way to invite respectful reflection and a search for common ground and mutually understanding, eh?

Back to your "conclusion":

That the belief in a violent, hateful Muhammed isn't worth serious debate in the absence of a non-Muslim provocation, and that such views may not be widely approved in the Muslim community, but are tolerated.

Muslims are no more under a duty to "debate" their religion in public with others than is anyone else. And again, your suggestion that any opinion or attitude be attributed to members of a group based solely on their membership in a group defined by its religious beliefs is unspeakably offensive.

In fact, I note that there are two justifications given for the violence: one is the satire, the other in the mere depiction.

The damned thing is that HERE, no one is giving any justifications for any violence. You're jousting at straw.

There are two kinds of objections to the editorial "cartoons" (you can call it satire, but I'm really not seeing any).

The second you site is the violation of the relegious tenet that prohibits graphic depictions of Mohammed (as being likely to lead to worship of graven images). And the question that any Muslim would ask is: why would someone do this? Why would someone do it, knowing that it offends people who have done nothing to offend? Would you stand on the sidewalk outside your neighbour's house telling obscene jokes in a loud voice, just because you can? If your neighbour objected, would you say that s/he was trying to take away your freedom of speech? Wouldn't you really need to have a reason to do something like that? Is there really any good reason for doing something like that? How would you decide which neighbour you were going to do it to? maybe pick someone you'd prefer not to have living on your block, maybe somebody you could provoke into doing something that made him/her look irrational, so the rest of your neighbours would join you in the campaign to get everybody who looked or sounded or cooked or dressed or prayed like your neighbour to move out?

The "satire", well, enough said. Stereotypical negative depictions of vulnerable minority groups are not satire.

Claiming the satire as the justification presumes that the harmful, hateful versions of Islam must never be discussed--if Abu Hamza could preach hate for years and not be rejected, well, it's none of our non-Muslim business.

You seem to be talking at cross-purposes here.

If it's your non-Muslim business, you might want to stop blaming Muslims for it.

But if it's just the latter that's the problem, then we're down to having a provision of shari'a incumbent upon all non-Muslims lest violence obtain, and that's a vile, loathsome proposition that exceeds the requirements of civility and courtesy and, in itself, deserves a response.

Actually, I'd say we're down to having a society devoid of common decency, if no thought is to be given to anyone's sensibilities ever.

There really isn't a binary choice here. The choice isn't between reprehensibly dishonest and ugly depictions of a group and its icons and silence. No "moderate" Muslim would object to depictions of Mohammed in western society in the ordinary course of things; Muslims like Asghar Bukhari of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee of the UK have expressly said as much. And such depictions are highly unlikely to result in any widespread hostile reaction.

Yes, they might result in hostile reaction by extreme, intolerant individuals -- and that's a serious shame, and is denounced by reasonable, decent people of all stripes. But it simply doesn't "deserve a response" that vilifies all members of one particular group they happen to belong to.

[Igel]

111. A response. (no other subject line seems appropriate)

The Xian community I was in policed its own. You say racist things in church, you're pulled aside and told to get in line: they explain why you're wrong, you hear sermons saying such behavior is vile and wrong and un-Xian. Repeat it, you're kicked out. You do it in one or two churches, and you're unchurched. If you're a believing Xian, this becomes intolerable, and people will simply not regard you as Xian.

The moderate Muslim response in Denmark to the intimidation was muted. It had nothing to do with Islam or with Muslims, not their responsibility. It was a civil matter, not a religious one, even if the threats, overt or implicit, were religious. Instead of challenging the intimidation, well, don't publish the book, was the advice. Silence in the face of Muslim extremist intimidation is, well, ok. And little was done to say that the illustrators' fears were unfounded, for the evidence was there.

Upon publication of the cartoons, however, suddenly the clerics could be motivated to do something, asking that something be done about defaming Islam. As though the militants that the Danes were reacting to hadn't already defamed Islam much more than the Danes did.

"How did the intimidation that some people apparently felt come to public attention? Why, I believe it was through the publication of the "cartoons" under discussion."

The matter was discussed widely in the press for several months prior to the publication of the cartoons. It became more heated when the cartoons were solicited. The intimidation became public because of the complaints of the writer of the children's book; the newspaper took up the cause, ostensibly because it, being generally in favor of free-markets, is also in favor of free speech. What the editors said to their bedmates at 3 am is between them and their bedmates.

There was plenty of opportunity for intercultural and interreligious dialog. Few takers that didn't immediately retreat into chanting "We can't help if people are intimidated in the name of Islam, not our problem, but we demand that you don't defame Islam."


"The damned thing is that HERE, no one is giving any justifications for any violence. You're jousting at straw."

You're right; I misspoke. People are giving justification for narrow-minded protests and ill-founded rage.

I wouldn't stand outside a person's house and yell to the neighborhood that they were racist unless I had a good reason. I'm saying the Danes had a good reason: fighting back against perceived oppression. If this is wrong, then Islam is a religion of oppression, and there's no more discussing it. The Danish cartoonists may have approached it in a ham-handed way, but everybody's upset at the effect, not the cause. This belittles the cause, and serves to act as though extremist Muslims are not the problem, only reacting to them is the problem. Submit, and all is well. This is more foolish and short-sighted than I can express in words.

"If it's your non-Muslim business, you might want to stop blaming Muslims for it."

If I'm making dinner and there's a grease fire, my neighbors expect me to handle it. Should it spread so that it threatens my neighbors, I do not expect my neighbors to assume that I'll handle it. That would be idiocy on their part. So, is it my responsibility or theirs? Well, if I take proper steps, it never becomes theirs; if I fail, or shirk my responsibility, I'm suddenly showing myself irresponsible, or incapable of dealing with the matter, and it's their responsibility as well.

When the Danes said they felt threatened, and no appropriate dialog ensued with the clerics in Denmark, it was suddenly a more serious problem. But just as it couldn't possibly be a mosque-internal matter, it also couldn't be an mosque-external matter, because that would encroach on their religious sensibilities. Hmmm ... no internal self-policing, but no society-level examination of the problem. So, how does Muslim extremism get dealt with? Do we only address it on a person-by-person level, even if the evidence is that there is a transnational subset of Muslims who buy into such an ideology? Can we discuss that particular ideology ... oops, no, that's defamation! If the few (let's suppose) succeed in shutting up people by intimidation, this is a problem--but no solution is possible, lest somebody get offended. Dead, perhaps. Defrauded of their rights, perhaps. But nobody--except Danes--are offended. But I'm left without a possible solution: it's not a Muslim responsibility, and it can't be a non-Muslim responsibility. Perhaps we should all just hide until the lion outside goes away. They won't ever bother me.

"No "moderate" Muslim would object to depictions of Mohammed in western society in the ordinary course of things."

Good. In that case the moderate Muslims should have clearly said so, and we can dispense with this "depicting Muhammed is deeply offensive" talk that serves only to impose religious strictures on the non-believing. Perhaps Danish imams considered it to be not-their-problem. Perhaps there were no moderate Muslims in a position to speak. Perhaps they, too, were intimidated. But it's rather like defending a Klan march: you feel dirty defending it, and few enjoy defending such things; moreover, the defenders on the left too frequently get ridiculed for it by their fellow dems who rather like the idea of restrictions on speech they disapprove of. But if we don't have enough spine to defend such things, and instead allow speech to be sufficiently chilled, we're all the worse off for it. Illustrators felt threatened; it was discussed for a couple of months; nothing was done; freedom of speech was given more priority than civility, as it should have been. And we're all worse off for it. Fortunately an illustrator was found for the book; but not before it became a cause celebre, and it moved from a question of civility to a question of basic rights.

And still, the root cause has not been addressed. Muslim groups in Denmark and Europe have loudly protested the pictures. But not the reason for the pictures' production. This silence is deafening.

I have not vilified all Muslims; but at some point one must use fairly simple words, assuming that one's interlocutor is capable of showing a minimum of cooperativeness and good will, with a sensitivity to context. Then again, there's been no cooperativeness, good will, or sensivity to context for the last week or so, so why should I have assumed such a foolish thing? In any event, the Danish Muslim community on the whole did *not* defend the idea of having pictures of Muhammed in a non-Muslim children's book; nor did the Danish Muslim community in general engage in intimidation. They allowed the argument for not producing the respectful illustrations to stand; the extremist thought and moderate thought did not differ in how the respectful illustrations would be viewed, just in what should be done about it; I view the moderate Danish Muslims as having two primary components: fellow-travelers and those who just don't want to be bothered, much like the American Muslim community. There are secondary components, no doubt. But this allows the extremists to carry the day, partly due to complicity, partly due to inactivity. But there I go, suggesting that moderate Muslims have a responsibility not to allow their message to be distorted.

That the moderate community only kicked into high gear and suddenly became vocal when it was their ox being gored doesn't speak highly of them, however.

[iverglas]

81. how hard can we work to miss a point?

Yes, but what would be the purpose?
Unless it was in response to another legitimate newspaper or whatever printing it in the first place.

Let's talk about the legitimate newspaper that DID print it in the first place.

In a context -- Europe -- where Muslims / brown-skinned foreigners with funny cultural practices are vulnerable to the effects of racial/cultural/religious/ethnic bigotry every day. Just as African-Americans are.

What would be the purpose of a mass-circulation daily in the US publishing anti-black "cartoons"? What an excellent question. How come it's so difficult to ask the same question about the publication of the anti-Muslim "cartoons" by a mass-circulation daily in Denmark?

You would only see something like that in a Nazi or KKK paper.

Well, duh.

There is nothing in that cartoon you offered that is based in fact, it's just pure ignorant hatred. Those Islamic cartoons have an element of truth to them.

Huh. There's no truth in a "satirical" exploration of the use of illicit drugs by African-Americans in the US? And yet there is truth in a "satirical" exploration of the use of bombs by Muslims in Europe?

There really are a bunch of them that kill people in the name of Allah.

Excuse me. There really are a bunch of African-Americans who use drugs (and engage in all the associated anti-social behaviours).

What's that you say? So do white people? Huh. I wonder whether there might be any non-Muslims using bombs to terrorize and kill in the world today ...

There are serious groups that believe it is their right to kill based on interpretations of the Koran, the words of Mohamed.

And there are African-Americans who steal, rob and kill, often in order to obtain narcotics or secure a segment of the narcotics market. Some of them undoubtedly justify their actions based on something or other; maybe the oppression they suffer as black people.

How's about a cartoon of Dr. Martin Luther King with a gun in one hand and a crack pipe in the other? Think that would go over well? After all, some people justify their violent behaviour by citing the injustice that King fought.

Instead of rioting and acting like fools, they should be trying to rid themselves of this element within their own people.

And now I'm sure we can expect a stern lecture to all the sober, law-abiding African-Americans in the US about how they should be trying to rid themselves of the violent element within their own people. After all, it's their problem, and they are obviously ... somehow that I don't quite grasp ... responsible for fixing it.

By acting the way they are acting only serves to make the cartoons seem true.

Gee. I wonder what message African-Americans who use drugs are conveying about African-Americans ...


Lest anyone get all excited, the African-American analogy was picked as one that USAmericans might possibly get. One might have chosen French Canadians or First Nations people or Caribbean immigrants in Canada, or women just about anywhere, and so on. Anybody who is already victimized based on group hatred, and who is held up to contempt by "caricature" ascribing negative characteristics exhibited by some members of the group to all members of the group.

Bigotry is really such a simple concept. I thought people learned about it in kindergarten.

[athena]

115. I really like your posts on this issue.

I agree completely. No one is saying that newspapers should be banned from publishing such cartoons. No one is saying that the fundamentalist Muslims are right to bomb embassies and kill people. All anyone is saying is that it was stupid of the Danish newspaper to publish the cartoons, since they've accomplished no useful purpose. They've only led to offense, violence, and hatred.

But of course, once again, the right wingers have succeeded in confusing the left. They intentionally misinterpret "abortion shouldn't be banned" as "abortion is a good thing". They misinterpret "the cartoons were offensive and stupid" to mean "newspapers should be banned from publishing offensive cartoons". They misinterpret "the violence and chaos were to be expected" to mean "the fundamentalists are right to bomb embassies". They've refined intentional misinterpretation into an art form.

[iverglas]

134. exactly

and thanks, of course. ;)

They've refined intentional misinterpretation into an art form.

A while back I had a good article bookmarked about the discourse of the right wing, but the danged thing has disappeared. It was about mail the author had got about his opinion on something or other, consisting of things like

So, you're saying ...? (google that one)

followed by things he had of course never said. In the same class, we have things like

Why do you ...? How can you ...?

when of course you never did. (Concurrently, the question mark has become the body armour of the coward, the one who won't come right out and state the false representation of what someone else said.) And the sad thing is that this technique is seen hereabouts a hundred times a day. If I had a loonie for every time it's been used against me in my time here, I'd be rich.

Aha, here's a model:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/13/141448/171
"How conservatives argue"

Divert, distract, mislead ("misinterpret"? too generous! -- "intentional misinterpretation" of course, yes). How much more effective than addressing. In the mouth of the demagogue, anyhow. It must work, at least with some of the people some of the time.

Sometimes, I think that it happens because some people are so eager to read something they can use as a springboard for spewing their own sacred opinion that they just don't pay attention to what they are actually reading. Sometimes.

[Igel]

76. Especially if they're trying to write a history of

blacks in America, and the illustrators contacted say no because they fear that having a honky depict any blacks will result in physical injury.

It's not having Muhammed defiled by the drawings; it's that apparently apostate Muslims (although nobody has the guts to call them that, esp. Danish Muslims) have instilled fear in illustrators in non-Muslim lands in the name of Muhammed and Islam, and have firmly established in the minds of many Danes (and now others) that Islam is a religion of compulsion. As usual, the mild provocation of non-Muslims is a casus belli, but the much greater provocation by those calling themselves Muslims is seen as a benign eccentricity. Of course, this is repeated in that the burning of the embassies, attacks, and threats receive lesser airplay than do the publication of the drawings: yet those burning the embassies make more of a mockery of Muhammed than did the Danish cartoons, IMHO.

The burning of the embassies, in context, makes the Muslims in those countries--or at least a large number, if small percentage, of them--seem mildly insane.

The publishing of the cartoons in Denmark, out of context, makes many Danes seem racist and indulging in provocation.

If we insist of dealing with the Danish cartoons sans the immediate, local context in which they were produced, I think we should be fair and just, and consider the burning of the embassies outside of any context, and discuss exactly what those societies are like in *that* light.

[IndianaGreen]

53. Anti-Muslim cartoons: An ugly and calculated provocation

European media publish anti-Muslim cartoons: An ugly and calculated provocation

By the Editorial Board
4 February 2006

The World Socialist Web Site unequivocally condemns the publication by a series of European newspapers of defamatory cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist and killer. These crude caricatures, intended to insult and incite Muslim sensibilities, are a political provocation. Their publication, initially by a right-wing Danish newspaper with historical ties to German and Italian fascism, was calculated to fuel anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment.

The decision of the right-wing Danish government to defend the newspaper that initially published the cartoons, and of newspapers in Norway, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Iceland and Hungary, both conservative and liberal, to reprint them has nothing to do with freedom of the press or the defense of secularism. Such claims make a mockery of these democratic principles.

The promulgation of such bigoted filth is, rather, bound up with a shift by the European ruling elites to line up more squarely behind the neo-colonial interventions of US imperialism in the Middle East and Central Asia. It is no accident that it occurs in the midst of the ongoing slaughter in Iraq, new threats against the Palestinian masses, and the preparations to launch sanctions, and eventual military aggression, against Iran.

It is, moreover, a continuation and escalation of a deliberate policy in Europe, spearheaded by the political right and aided and abetted by the nominal “left” parties, to demonize the growing Muslim population, isolate it, and use it as a scapegoat for the growing social misery affecting broad layers of the working class.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/cart-f04.shtml

[Harper_is_Bush]

56. I hope this was posted in LBN. n/t

[geezer1]

66. Socialists siding with radical Muslims

What does the World Socialist Web Site have against free speech? And why are they ingratiating themselves with radical Islamists?

[fedsron2us]

104. The WSW is run by vanguardist Trotskyist intellectuals

who have as about as much experience of true socialism and the real class struggle as the bosses of Walmart.

[Chrisduhfur]

159. lol

I laughed out loud with that one.

[DemExpat]

80. I am very pleased to see that the Dutch Socialist Party does not share

this view:

http://www.janmarijnissen.nl/weblog/2006/02/06/over-vrijheid-en-geweld/

He sees the violence as inexcusable, defends free speech unequivocally, and mentions the US/UK war in Iraq as inflammatory for Muslim frustrations.
As many here in The Netherlands see it, as well as the Socialist Party as stated in his last sentence: Muslim extremists are taking these offensive cartoons to use as catalysator for further deepening of the chasm between them and modernity.

DemEx

[rinsd]

89. What a surprise....

Of course the only path to righteousness is through socialist internationalism.

Oh and let's add hypocrisy.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/sep1999/nyc-s28.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/dec1999/dia-d10.shtml

Its okay to be shocking and insulting. It just depends on who is doing what.

[Bridget Burke]

96. Crude caricatures? Look at our own history.

Here are some filthy immigrants, running away with the ballot box:


Here are Know Nothings, burning a Roman Catholic Church. But--religion must be criticized! Of course, the parishioners were mostly Irish immigrants.


Yup, find some scapegoats. Demonize the newcomers.

[uppityperson]

60. I'm offended by not showing them, what is being protested, by...

the fact that violence is being used to protest a caricature of the rioters as being violent. Protest is fine. Violence is not. And being offended does not excuse being violent. Protest non-violently, fine with me. We have the right to do that. Exercise your right to freedom of speech. I am offended that these pictures have been censored because some fundamentalists are using them as an excuse to be violent.

[MrSlayer]

61. Nothing wrong with publishing, nothing wrong with protesting.

Protest and publish all you want, free speech is a cornerstone of our country....for now.

[wordpix2]

64. agreed

[Jacobin]

71. Exactly

:thumbsup:

[rinsd]

91. A-FREAKIN-MEN! (nt)

[Aretha]

62. Good for the Philadelphia Inquirer

And any other news outlet to stand up for free expression in the face of intimidation and threats of violence.

[WinkyDink]

70. Shame on caving in to Freedom of the Press HATERS.

When Christians were offended by "Pi** Christ", when some people were offended by the photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe, when Mayor Giuliani closed a museum showing of a rendering of the virgin Mary some called "sacrilegious": STILL one could see these various works DEPICTED in mainstream media (maybe not TV).

Let's get down to the true brass tacks, and tell it like it really is: Islam is incompatible with Western democratic values.

[The Stranger]

74. "Christians" are installed as the empowered group in this society.

If the Inquirer printed racist, bigoted sterotypes of a disempowered group, such as another religious or a racial minority, there would be far more violence than this little protest.

[The Stranger]

73. Is it a First Amendment issue when the press does not print the "N" word?

[Igel]

83. Depends why they don't do it.

If they don't print it out of civility and respect, and printing the n-word would achieve no further ends, no, it's not a 1st amendment issue. With free speech comes responsibility.

If they don't print it because the government has decreed that such a word must never be printed, yes, it's a first amendment issue. Esp. since the 1st amendment is specifically aimed at government actions.

If they don't print it and other things not because it's terribly offensive or illegal, but because they fear for their lives at the hand of a radical black minority, then it's beyond a 1st amendment issue, it's a civil rights issue and deals with how a society and culture deals with extremist elements in its midst. If there's no actual death threats that the police could investigate, or they're anonymous, we have intimidation that requires some sort of response, else the press is submitting to a minority using force and violence to achieve their ends: and that must never be allowed, because at the end of it probably lurks a dictatorship, or at least the curtailment of liberties that are well within the constraints of civility. In other words, civility is not the end-all and be-all of public discourse; sometimes uncivil things must be said to preserve the right of discourse.

Already, the analogy is becoming strained, and pushing it any further (as is necessary in discussing the Danish cartoons) is untenable, since the intimidation was not directed at disrespectful or hateful illustrations, but at respectful ones intended to encourage tolerance. I suspect that the poster of the "nigger cartoon" knows that such a cartoon is inflammatory, and that her analogy is quickly irrelevant to the point of falsity. But she knows that most people will react to the demagoguery as she intends.

It would be as though a group of blacks objected to the respectful or neutral depiction of Martin Luther King in a history of the civil rights movement for new Russian immigrants' children, and white illustrators felt intimidated by implicit or explicit threats of violence, esp. when other alleged blacks have killed white while shouting, "Long live King's dream!"; let's assume no black illustrator would illustrate such a work. Depicting MLK as a man of violence would then be an interesting bit of satire: some think it true, obviously, and what they've made of King deserves to be mocked; publishing it would also constitute an utter rejection of the extremists threats. I would find, however, a drawing of an illustrator cowering in fear while furtively depicting MLK, with a towel over his lamp lest he be found out, to be embarrassing and saying much worse about the violence-prone blacks. Out of context, of course, the latter cartoon is merely mildly curious, and disregarded; the former, presented stripped of context, becomes inflammatory.

We seek the root causes of the Muslim unrest over the cartoons, on the Muslims' terms (usually) or our own terms (sometimes). We seek the root causes of the Danish printing of the cartoons on the Muslims' or the Socialists or American terms, as though the Danish context is irrelevant to the Danes.

[iverglas]

88. I see I'm being talked about

I suspect that the poster of the "nigger cartoon" knows that such a cartoon is inflammatory, and that her analogy is quickly irrelevant to the point of falsity. But she knows that most people will react to the demagoguery as she intends.

I don't actually read every single post in a thread. I might think that if you've got something to say to me, you'd post it in a place where it might come to my attention -- like in reply to the post of mine that you are commenting on.

So, you "suspect", and I "know". Well, you can claim to suspect anything you like and I can't prove the contrary, but you cannot and may not (at least in the world of civil discourse) make statements about what I know that are false.

the intimidation was not directed at disrespectful or hateful illustrations, but at respectful ones intended to encourage tolerance.

That's your characterization. No one else actually has to agree with it, and it's entirely possible to offer reasonable and honest grounds for disagreeing with it.

The plain fact is that graphic depictions of Mohammed are inherently disrespectful of people who revere him and follow his teachings against practices that are regarded as likely to lead to the worship of graven images, a prohibition found in many religions. And another plain fact is that such depictions may very well serve no other and more defensible purpose at all.

Provocation is not a defensible purpose; lesson-teaching is not a defensible purpose when it is not one's business to teach a lesson and no lesson is needed. And regardless of one's motivation for wanting to publish depictions of Mohammed, they are one's own and they do not necessarily outweigh anyone else's reasons for objecting to them, and do not necessarily make anyone's reasons for objecting to them subject to casual dismissal.

Killing is not an acceptable or tolerable response to provocation or disrespect. How bizarre that in a place like this, with all the posts I have under my belt, I should feel it necessary to type those words, lest yet another false allegation that I defend violence or long for Islamist dictatorship be levelled at me by someone. I guess that's how an ordinary Muslim might be feeling in Europe these days ... constantly having to denounce things that any decent reasonable person would be presumed to denounce, feeling that s/he is not presumed to be decent and reasonable and must go out of his/her way to persuade others that s/he in fact is decent and reasonable in ways that nobody else feels a need to do ...

In any event, you cannot but be aware that the "cartoon" I offered as an analogy was meant as analogous not to illustrations in a children's book, but to the hateful "cartoons" published by European newspapers. Your attempt to knock down my argument, and everything else in your post, was therefore aimed squarely at a straw target.

The opening post was about reaction to the publishing of the "cartoons", the analogy the original poster was attempting to draw was to the publishing of the "cartoons", and the anti-black "cartoon" I reproduced was offered as analogous to the anti-Muslim "cartoons".

I would find, however, a drawing of an illustrator cowering in fear while furtively depicting MLK, with a towel over his lamp lest he be found out, to be embarrassing and saying much worse about the violence-prone blacks.

And gosh, I wonder what a "cartoon" of Dr. King with a gun in one hand and a bag of crack in the other might be saying about whom?

THAT is what might be analogous to a "cartoon" of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, which you seem conveniently not to be noticing. And I'm still failing to see how such a "cartoon" is in any way even related to the issue of writers/illustrators feeling intimidated into not depicting Mohammed in print.

We seek the root causes of the Danish printing of the cartoons on the Muslims' or the Socialists or American terms, as though the Danish context is irrelevant to the Danes.

"The Danes" ... that would be the non-Muslim Danes, I guess.

In other words, civility is not the end-all and be-all of public discourse; sometimes uncivil things must be said to preserve the right of discourse.

And sometimes incivil things ARE said to incite hatred. And some of us can tell the difference between the two.

[Igel]

114. I tend not to engage with some people unless engaged by them.

Hence, I had nothing to say about an obviously irrelevant analogy that served no purpose other than inflaming views to gain agreement for your side. At least I guessed your sex.

However, I just finished an exchange with somebody who claimed that no moderate Muslim would object to respectful pictures of Muhammed in a western context. "No "moderate" Muslim would object to depictions of Mohammed in western society in the ordinary course of things."

Now a poster says, "The plain fact is that graphic depictions of Mohammed are inherently disrespectful of people who revere him and follow his teachings against practices that are regarded as likely to lead to the worship of graven images, a prohibition found in many religions. And another plain fact is that such depictions may very well serve no other and more defensible purpose at all."

From the same pen. My head is spinning. At least you say that such depictions "may" serve no other purpose at all--you allow for there being a defensible purpose. That's a start. And as for the terrorist Muhammed, I'd say that there are already some people, possibly few--call them apostate Muslims if you want--that have made that their mental representation of Muhammed. Committing it to paper may be the problem in the minds of some, but it's a symptom. Finding the most insulting interpretation possible to suit one's own ends may be gratifying in a self-justifying, righteously indignant sort of way, but hardly furthers any sort of dialog.

In any event, one can assert a right, albeit uncivilly, without simultaneously asserting a provocation. There is a difference, in the minds of many, and when looking at intent, the only intent that matters is that of the intender. To that end, the only context that matters in the interpretation of the cartoons is that of the drawers and of the publisher. The context inferred by Uighurs on a farm in western China is unimportant in judging the Danish cartoonists; the context inferred by Arabs in Syria is no less unimportant in judging the cartoonists. The goal is first to understand something on its own terms, *then* to judge. You may understand it, and then disagree with it; but projecting your context is dishonest.

I'll stand by my MLK analogy in context. And point out that out of context it means something completely different. If somebody feels that twisting the context, and therefore the meaning, is a valid form of argumentation, that's not something that I can be bothered with, except to hope for more education funding and better trained middle school teachers for the next generation.

There is no Danish context that's best described as Muslim or non-Muslim. There's a single, unitary, context. That subgroups decide to project their context on society as a whole is a serious matter, however, that merits Denmark-internal discussion. As I mentioned, this was broached last summer; one partner didn't step up to the plate in a meaningful way--again, assuming that there is a partner, and not a disparate mass of people that lack a voice. Then again, I constantly make the simplification of speaking of "Islam" as though there were just one, instead of the many distinct and divergent Islams that exist, and of one Muhammed, when there are such different conceptions of him that there surely can't be just one. On the other hand, the Danish Muslims on the whole seem to have suddenly found a voice when it mattered to them, and all the various conceptions of Islam and Muhammed again become united.

[iverglas]

123. quelle dog's breakfast

I tend not to engage with some people unless engaged by them.
Hence, I had nothing to say about an obviously irrelevant analogy that served no purpose other than inflaming views to gain agreement for your side. At least I guessed your sex.

Your problem here is that you had quite a lot to say about it, just not to me. Nice try. What my sex has to do with anything, I don't know.

However, I just finished an exchange with somebody who claimed that no moderate Muslim would object to respectful pictures of Muhammed in a western context. "No "moderate" Muslim would object to depictions of Mohammed in western society in the ordinary course of things."

My statement was based on comments I have read and heard from non-fundamentalist, non-Islamist Muslims (and inferred from my own intimate acquaintance with scores of Muslims from a wide range of backgrounds over many years). I should perhaps have made that clearer; I don't purport to speak for any Muslims, and anything I say in this regard is subject to correction.

Now if I could just get your point.

Graphic depictions of Mohammed are inherently disrespectful. "Moderate" Muslims would not object to them (i.e. make an issue of them, aloud, publicly, that being what we're talking about) in the ordinary course of things. The two statements are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you imagine that they are.

At least you say that such depictions "may" serve no other purpose at all--you allow for there being a defensible purpose.

Perhaps you think that my words mean something other than what they mean. Concise Oxford says:

defensible
justifiable; capable of being defended by argument

-- I direct you to the emphasized bit. The fact that something can be defended by argument does not mean that the argument advanced in its defence will score a knock-out.

And as for the terrorist Muhammed, I'd say that there are already some people, possibly few--call them apostate Muslims if you want--that have made that their mental representation of Muhammed. Committing it to paper may be the problem in the minds of some, but it's a symptom.

And the mental representation that some USAmericans hold of people of colour would be what, and committing it to paper would be what? What might it be a symptom of?

I'm not even sure what the "it", in your statement, is. "Committing it to paper", or "their mental representation of Mohammed"? I assume the latter, in order to make sense of the statement. So I'm curious what it is allegedly a symptom of. I have my own ideas about what this representation of Mohammed is considered to be a symptom of by many readers of those publications -- just as drug use by African-Americans is considered to be a symptom of something by the dishonest or ignorant segments of the USAmerican population -- and that's kinda my whole point.

Finding the most insulting interpretation possible to suit one's own ends may be gratifying in a self-justifying, righteously indignant sort of way, but hardly furthers any sort of dialog.

My interpretation of it is neither here nor there, and I have never suggested that it is, so we have more jousting at straw.

The interpretation given to it by readers of the publications in question is the issue.

But perhaps you could apply your opinion to the actions of the "cartoonists" and publishers in question here. Offering the most insulting representation of a complex issue, righteous indignation, and whew, talk about yer self-justification, eh? And damn, it sure did further the dialog -- just as it was intended to ... not, as we know from the lips of the person responsible himself.

In any event, one can assert a right, albeit uncivilly, without simultaneously asserting a provocation.

I assume you mean exercise a right, and engaging in provocation.

Indeed one can. The question is whether that was what was done here. Very little point in stating the issue when it's obvious what it is.

There is a difference, in the minds of many, and when looking at intent, the only intent that matters is that of the intender.

Ah, if only that were true in the real world. You've heard of people being presumed to intend the foreseeable (natural and probable) consequences of their actions? That's the basis on which we pretty much all assess the things other people do in the real world. You know: what did you think was going to happen if left the dog home alone?

How did the "cartoonists" think their readers were going to interpret their works?

The goal is first to understand something on its own terms, *then* to judge. You may understand it, and then disagree with it; but projecting your context is dishonest.

My dear fellow, what do you imagine I have been saying? Perhaps that no one who hasn't a clue, and perhaps least of all USAmericans yammering about their first amendment, has much worthwhile to say about the foreseeable effect of the editorial material in question in Danish society? Talk about projecting one's own context. I might give benefit of the doubt, however, and attribute it to ignorance, perhaps not even wilful in some cases, rather than dishonesty in all cases. Since I have not projected my own context on anything, I'll assume that your comment about "projecting your own context" being "dishonest" was just a general observation, and not a baseless slur.

If somebody feels that twisting the context, and therefore the meaning, is a valid form of argumentation, that's not something that I can be bothered with, except to hope for more education funding and better trained middle school teachers for the next generation.

I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you, and do sincerely hope that someday more USAmericans will learn something about the world around them. If only a few more in the here and now would consider doing it, and not continue twisting the context in which these materials were actually published, that would be even nicer.

As I mentioned, this was broached last summer; one partner didn't step up to the plate in a meaningful way--again, assuming that there is a partner, and not a disparate mass of people that lack a voice.

First, we have the problem of sub-groups in a society, and then we have an onus being placed on members of those problematic sub-groups to appoint spokespersons and act as a unit.

I guess that failure of the group to speak with one voice then justifies the choice by other players on the stage to do things that, dishonestly and foreseeably harmfully, ascribe a particular voice to all members of the group.

Then again, I constantly make the simplification of speaking of "Islam" as though there were just one, instead of the many distinct and divergent Islams that exist, and of one Muhammed, when there are such different conceptions of him that there surely can't be just one.

What a fine and nuanced analysis you have. How terribly unfortunate -- for your arguments, and for Muslims in the countries where these materials have been published -- that it is not shared by many people in the context in which this thing actually happened.

On the other hand, the Danish Muslims on the whole seem to have suddenly found a voice when it mattered to them, and all the various conceptions of Islam and Muhammed again become united.

Oops. So much for nuance. They are all the same after all.

[rinsd]

90. No, it would be if they were prevented from doing so by law.

[Bacchus39]

125. not really, no one is forcing them NOT to print it

and if they choose to print it, its not against the law.

[Harper_is_Bush]

161. But if they printed it in the same offhand way that these pictures were

ie. "Let's do a 'freedom of expression' experiment....everyone print some Mohammed cartoons!"

switched up with

"Let's do a 'freedom of expression' experiment...everyone print some nigger cartoons!"

there could very well be demonstrations and violence. You cannot possibly deny that.

So they are self-policing and not printing because they recognize the damage and possible consequences. The "forcing then NOT to print it" - as you put it - is exactly the same type of force.

[Freddie Stubbs]

145. Yes, the press is free to publish or not publish what it pleases without

government interference.

[Freddie Stubbs]

75. What a wonderful contrast

between the forward thinking muslims who live in this country and the ones who live in places like Lebanon, Afghanastan, and Syria. Appenerntly is is possible to express outrage without resorting to violence.

[rd_kent]

78. Thats B.S.!!!!!!

These muslims should be protesting their brothers and sisters who are killing people across the world over a fucking cartoon!!!!!!

[lumpy]

84. One way to sell newspapers.

Print something the public is dying to see, to hell with the consequences. Print a full frontal view of Bush in the buff sitting on the john and observe the reaction.

[Samurai_Writer]

92. As a rape survivor, I find that totally offensive.

..."If a woman was a rape victim, you wouldn't publish her name," she said...

She's comparing a CARTOON to being raped?

I wouldn't wish rape on anyone, even an ignorant, self-absorbed, fanatic like that.

[iverglas]

93. as a sexual assault victim, I can read

..."If a woman was a rape victim, you wouldn't publish her name," she said...
She's comparing a CARTOON to being raped?

No. Why would you think that, or ask a question that implies that you think that?

She was comparing publishing a bigoted stereotyped representation of a group of people to publishing the name of a rape victim.

The POINT OF COMPARISON -- all analogies have 'em -- is the publication: it is regarded as ill-advised to publish something that could expose an individual to ill feeling among the public, in the one case, and it is argued that it should likewise be regarded as ill-advised to publish something that could expose many individuals to ill feeling among the public, in the other case.

I'd thought that was kinda obvious.

[Samurai_Writer]

95. OK, let's nitpick, that always helps

Please explain to me how a CARTOON of a guy who's been dead for centuries compares to publishing the name of a rape victim who is currently living and most likely in fear from her attacker if her name was published?

Political cartoons are meant to offend people. That's the nature of them. I don't get offended and start rioting and killing people when we had 8 years of cartoons making fun of Bill Clinton.

This issue has gotten beyond ridiculous. It's a diversion from other, more important issues.

[iverglas]

97. okay

Please explain to me how a CARTOON of a guy who's been dead for centuries compares to publishing the name of a rape victim who is currently living and most likely in fear from her attacker if her name was published?

Maybe you really still don't get it.

Published CONTENT -- content that portrays individuals who are part of a group that reveres a particular person as revering a person who commits/approves of mass murder -- legimizes hatred of those individuals and increases their risk of suffering harm at the hands of people who harbour that hatred.

You can call a depiction of Mohammed as committing/approving mass murder a "cartoon of a guy who's been dead for centuries" if you like. I'm not gonna. No more than I'd call the horrors being perpetrated in Iraq "the recent unpleasantness".

You seem not to think that most people accused of sexual assault are already aware of the victim's name, either because they were previously acquainted with her or because it is stated in the charge laid against them. The reason for not publishing victims' names has pretty much nothing to do with shielding them from retribution from the accused; it has to do with shielding them from the shame and embarrassment that public knowledge of the sexual assaults women suffer is thought to cause women.

If it's reasonable and decent to shield women from the potential shame and embarrassment resulting from how some of the public regards sexual assault victims that would result from publishing something there is no need to publish, but it's not reasonable and decent to shield Muslims from the hate and discrimination and harassment resulting from how some of the public regards Muslims that would result from publishing something there is no need to publish ... well, I don't get it.

I don't get offended and start rioting and killing people when we had 8 years of cartoons making fun of Bill Clinton.

Somehow, I suspect that if said cartoons had portrayed Clinton as a mass murderer and you Democrats were already being denied jobs and housing and your kids were being assaulted for their family's political affiliation and you were hearing calls to deport you, you might have been just a tad "offended".

Political cartoons are meant to offend people.

Goody. Now bring on the front-page "cartoons" poking fun at rape victims, eh?

[superconnected]

98. Free speech ends when you start saying racists and sexist

remarks to your co-workers.

These cartoons portrayed ALL muslims in a bad light. Not just terrorists or actually "dirty" people.

It's facist propaganda. Just like running a series of cartoons about blacks and making them all look like they are drug addicts.

Once you start tolerating the facist propaganda, I'm sure the right wing will move right in with theirs for hatred of Gays and immigrants - all under free speech, then so what? It's only a cartoon?

This is how hitler started, remember, P R O P A G A N D A.

I don't blame these people for being ticked. Lots of people were killed in the rodney king riots, and on the other side lots of women have been bombed right on our soil at abortion clinics, lots of gays have been killed by hate crimes. These people have a right to protest, and of course some will wrongly protest violently on both sides of issues and make the rest look bad.

[iverglas]

101. "it's only a cartoon" ...

... until it's a cartoon about you.

I say to you, not about you. ;) You've know it already, of course.

Those Muslims in Europe should just shut up and put up, 'cause free speech. So should Jews when they are viciously stereotyped in "cartoons" where they live and African-Americans who are viciously stereotyped in "cartoons" where they live, obviously.

Lordy, if anybody doesn't think that there'd be rioting and burning if a mass-circulation daily in a large US city published the "cartoon" that I offered and that has been reproduced enough times now

http://www.freespeech.com/archives/ OffensiveRacistCartoon.jpg

under the guise of using humour to make a serious comment about a social issue, well, s/he is dreaming in technicolour, I'd say.

Nonetheless, the fact is that mass-circulation dailies in the US don't publish such material, even though it might appeal to many of their readers and entirely regardless of whether they fear any retribution from the people "offended", because it simply is not decent to do so.

Freedom of speech is nice. So is common decency. So, as you say, is not pursuing fascistic political agendas while pretending one is making either humourous or serious points. And so is calling a spade a spade when the spade in question is indecent, vicious, unfunny, right-wing speech.

[Bassic]

172. As a French-Canadian I have seen many ridiculous cartoons.

in the Naitonal Post for example. I remember Lucien Bouchard and Bernard Landry being depicted dressed as Adolf Hitler. And are you familiar with Diane Francis?

And yet not once did we advocate violence. In fact I believe that the fiercest response was Normand Lester's Black book of English Canada. Which in turn was depicted as hate litterature.

Still, even if thye were about my people, they were still just cartoons.

[iverglas]

174. give me a break

And yet not once did we advocate violence.

S/he who lives by the pronoun ... "we"? You mean you French-Canadians? You've completely forgotten the FLQ? That violence wasn't just advocated; it was committed, and it resulted in deaths.

If you want to pretend that the reaction to the "cartoons" was just about the "cartoons", go right ahead. It's plain to a lot of others that it is about a lot more than that, just as FLQ bank robberies weren't about interest rates. That having been pretty much the point of the post of mine you replied to.

I remember Lucien Bouchard and Bernard Landry being depicted dressed as Adolf Hitler. ... And yet not once did we advocate violence.

I wonder whether that just might have something to do with the fact that French-Canadians these days don't actually hear many calls for their expulsion from the country or the bombing and occupation of a country they still feel attachment to, and don't fear physical assault on the street and in the schoolyard, and do exercise considerable political power.

And indeed, are not being manipulated and misinformed by people exploiting their legitimate grievances for their own ends. (Well, not that today's sovereignists aren't doing that, they just aren't manipulating and misinforming people to incite them to violence.)

'Cause, we all know but many of us don't want to mention, far more Muslims than not are *not* advocating or engaging in violence, and many are denouncing it.

[NNguyenMD]

118. there's a name for people who act on violent impulses after being inflamed

by offsensive material...


criminals

[Megahurtz]

191. Agreed! n/t

[madmark]

99. I think these protestors should get some credit; at least they didn't

burn down the newspaper's building.

[dmallind]

103. Methinks there's some political opportunism here

Certainly I know the idea of portrayals of Muhammed being anathema exists, despite numerous images from almost concurrent with his life to present day, from Islamic as well as other artists.

Here's one:



They have not caused riots or embassy bombings. They do now?

But wait I hear you say - these portrayals are deeply offensive and show the prophet in a bad light that besmirches all Muslims. THAT'S why there is a huge furore now!

Well the worst of them according to reactions from the Muslims and the apologists for them seems to be the one with the bomb...



Yep that's insulting (most actually are not that insulting at all), based on the assumption that planting bombs in the name of religion is normally seen as a negative anyway.

But wait a minute - is this unusual? You can say mainstream newspaper all you want but one of the greatest works of literature in the Western canon, with a readership and impact that makes a Danish tabloid look insignificant, has this illustration in its most famous editions - Gustav Doré's woodcuts in Dante's Inferno



Muhammed is the guy with his entrails ripped out, specifically named as an inhabitant of the 8th Circle of Hell amongst the "Sowers of Discord" (and he has a rather unimpressive endowment too - to add further insult to great injury)

Any Muslims rioting against publishers, bookstores or Italians?

OK but that's history!

Well right now - as it has been for centuries - a Catholic Church in Bologna, has this fresco:



Yep guess who that is tortured in Hell? Now is that, to religious person, more or less offensive than the prophet shown with an implication of violent behavior that is, in fact, carried out by a decent number of his followers? You'd think burning in hell is a bit more offensive than planting a bomb surely.

So why this catalyst for violent protest (FWIW I have no problem at all with any non-violent protests) instead of those? Perhaps because the vigorous anti-Western preaching of reactionary mullahs has been building for the last few decades (since Israel was founded for sure). Perhaps because the Islamist (as opposed to Islamic) blocs see an opportunity to energize the latest wave of martyrs they need for their ever so positive contributions to the reputation of Islam. The intifada and resistance to the US occupation of Iraq need more fuel, and creating anti-Europe/US sentiment amongst disaffected Muslims is the best way to get a refill.

This whole outrage is the Islamist equivalent of a Faux-news "War on Christmas" engineered response, and the manipulative SOBs behind it don't give a damn about religious tolerance or an end to bigotry - they just want to pounce on anything to fire up their gullible followers.

[Harper_is_Bush]

106. Are you an expert on Islam?

You provided a picture of Mohammed to make the argument that this situation is "political opportunism", but you gave no context or source.

You talk about "numerous images" of Mohammed existing with the implication that implication that this outrage is baseless and - again - opportunistic.

When I see thousands of people all over the world protesting something I have to assume it's a little more than "opportunism". Any intelligent person would assume such.

I find your attempt to suggest the offense is not real to be intellectually dishonest.

[dmallind]

146. Oh dear

Expert? Not really. Interested layman? Yep. Not important really.

The issue is it's very easy for manipulative people to fan the flames of outrage. Do you think some people aren't really outraged by "the war on Xmas"? The outrage can be real at the present time and still be manipulated and based on false ideas.

Do people who call the RNC blast-fax manipulated outrages or Pat Robertson-inspired protests about Disney the result of a mendacious leader and gullible followers have to be an expert on political science or fundy Xianity? Do they have to provide context or sources? Isn't it ethnocentrism to assume that Muslims are not equally capable of being manipulated by the more wacko of their religious leaders just like Americans are by Robertson et al? I find the idea that there is that much of a difference between Muslims and Christians rather telling.

[Harper_is_Bush]

162. The comparisons you make are not applicable

war on Xmas?

Pat Robertson?

How exactly are these akin to holding the most precious element of a religion up for ridicule by a mainstream media source?

[dmallind]

173. Ask a fundy Fox watcher

Because I believe they used exactly the same words - the most precious element of our religion - Jesus himself - being ridiculed and secularized by the mainstream media. They just wrote nasty letters and boycotted Target instead of burning embassies. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent fundies I guess - although Rudolph and McVeigh certainly may have marched to the beat of the same drum.

Again if you can't see the connection between Robertson riling up gullible fundy Xians to protest "Happy Holidays" and idiot Mullahs riling up gullible fundy Muslims to protest cartoons then I can't help you, but will ask you to consider one thing:

Is there anything that you would blame fundy Muslims for in this whole mess?

If Xians were doing the same thing about real or perceived insult to their religion would you blame them more or less? Why?

[Megahurtz]

102. I just think that this whole thing is

incredibly stupid. Over a stupid cartoon? Give me a fucking break!
If someone created a cartoon about me or anything about my life and I didn't agree with it
I really wouldn't give a shit. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Ohhhh waaaaaa!!!:cry: Your cartoon hurt my precious little feelings!:nopity:
Now just for hurting my feelings I am now going to pillage and destroy all!}(

:sarcasm:

Nothing more than a low IQ reaction over a stupid goofy fucking cartoon.
Holy Kripes seriously what the hell is this world coming to???:wtf:

[superconnected]

105. ever notice how people who call low iq when someone doesn't agree

with them, always look like THEY have low iqs?

wierd huh.

I guess I should go get some nazi propaganda cartoons and post them here. They're just cartoons.

[Megahurtz]

188. Oh really, so YOU think?

Who the hell knows why you personally insulted me when I was not responding to you at all.:wtf:

Looking smart!:sarcasm:

Keep your snarky assinine personal insults to yourself.

[Harper_is_Bush]

110. It is more than just the cartoon. It is the deliberate provocation...

by the newspaper, and then the refusal of the government to even meet with a Dutch Muslim delegation to discuss the situation.

Please refrain from abusive and gratuitously insulting comments against people who are offended by these depictions.....recognize that the majority of people deeply offended by these depictions are not engaged in "pillage and destroy" as you say.
in light of that, your comments are unfortunate to say the least.

[PBass]

112. The reaction against "political correctness" here seems to be

to show support for people making an effort to be deliberately offensive (?)

Is it freedom of the press to go out of your way to delberately offend people and manipulate conflict between different religious groups? That's a stupid and low form of "freedom".

Also, it's weird to see people on DU denigrating the concept of "political correctness" (which is basically about making an effort to do the right thing). I'm supposed to think being politically correct is bad???

[madmark]

149. the bomb in the mohamed's turban apparently hurt feelings and

you know why; the truth hurts, and the truth is this religion has allowed itself to be hijacked by a violent medievalist subsect that is now its face. It proselytizes through violence and the fact that the religious response to the cartoon is violence just proves the point again.

[EXDIA53]

136. Is it a Human Right not to be offended?

I see things that offend me every day. I guess I just don't have the time to turn over and burn cars, break windows, etc. So I guess if the GOP takes over the government and cancels all further elections I should cross Canada off my list because there is no freedom of speech if someone is offended? I really looked up to Canadian society until now. Is it that no speech is really that important or is it that everyone needs to be in a safe, happy, un challenging environment?

[iverglas]

144. ah, the ubiquitous "so"

So I guess if the GOP takes over the government and cancels all further elections I should cross Canada off my list because there is no freedom of speech if someone is offended?

You appear to be using the word in this sense (per the Oxford Concise at my elbow):

so
with the result that
(there was none left, so we had to go without)

So ... where is the "there was none left" in what you were responding to? What was it that resulted in your thinking that there is no freedom of speech in Canada if someone is offended? I'm not seeing anything in the post you were responding to that would give a reasonable person that impression, or prompt a sincere person to claim to have it.

Is it that no speech is really that important or is it that everyone needs to be in a safe, happy, un challenging environment?

"It"? What is this "it"? The fact that there is no freedom of speech in Canada -- that non-existent fact you have made up out of whole cloth?

And heck, even if that "fact" were true, could there be no more than two possible explanations for it? Is the fact that USAmericans who wish to express dissent when their President is in town must consent to be corralled like cattle a result of concern for the President's safety or is it a result of concern for their own safety? Beep. Neither. Not that this is particularly relevant, since the fact I have cited is true and the fact you have alleged is false, but your little trick of discourse still merited notice, given how ubiquitous it too is.

Did you have some point you wished to make other than the obvious one: that you wished to insinuate things that are not correct about a matter of no relevance to the discussion here, and took a quite inopportune opportunity to do so?

[Megahurtz]

189. Sorry I don't agree.

Anyone who gets bent over a cartoon enough to cause worldwide violence and hatred
is off the deep end.

A cartoon is a cartoon.
If ya don't like it, don't look at it!:think:

[iverglas]

192. wow, that was persuasive

Someone says It is more than just the cartoon. It is the deliberate provocation... (and more)

... and you say Sorry I don't agree. Anyone who gets bent over a cartoon ...

So, you don't agree with what?

Since you've simply restated your premise -- the one the other poster offered facts and argument to rebut, that this was "just a cartoon" -- it's hard to tell how you're disagreeing with anything.

Nobody else said anything at all about anyone getting "bent over a cartoon". I suppose if you'd wanted to address what someone else said, you would have clicked on the reply button and written something. Oh, wait ... you did that ... and yet you didn't. Funny way to spend one's time.


A cartoon is a cartoon.
If ya don't like it, don't look at it!

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. If you don't like it, leave.

Oh, just mind you don't get trampled on the way out.

[Megahurtz]

195. It's very simple,

A cartoon is a drawing on a piece of paper. Cartoons are an expression of humour, sometimes satirical. I'm sure you know that a piece of paper cannot hurt you.

I think you're taking my posts way too personal.
I am not referring to you or any other posters when I said "Anyone who gets bent over a cartoon" etc....I am referring to all of the Muslim protesters who are taking this way too far with violence.
Not to mention that the protesting is lasting way behond the ridiculousness of the subject.
I'm really tired of hearing about it, aren't you?

People say offensive things to other people daily. Cartoons are published daily and no matter what, there is always going to be someone somewhere who feels offended by them.

If someone published a cartoon about me and it offended me for instance, I would probably say
"You Asshole!" but I wouldn't throw a fucking hissy fit and drag it on and let it ruin my life.
Actually I would probably laugh about it, after all.

Now iverglas,
if someone drew an offensive cartoon about me, you would make sure to defend me, wouldn't you?;-)

[iverglas]

197. maybe you can't tell the difference ...

I think you're taking my posts way too personal.

... between argument and "taking it personal". I don't find the two things difficult to distinguish, myself, but that's just me. And I don't have the slightest idea why you would have thought that I had taken anything personally.

I am not referring to you or any other posters when I said "Anyone who gets bent over a cartoon" etc....

Duh. Why would you think I had thought you were? Perhaps I take no more kindly to mischaracterizations of other people than I do to mischaracterizations of myself. And I will say again, as appears to be necessary, that representing what has happened as someone getting "bent over a cartoon" is a mischaracterization, and simply disingenuous.

I am referring to all of the Muslim protesters who are taking this way too far with violence.

Now how about anyone who objects strongly to the cartoon and has not committed violence? I would have to assume that you would say they (we) have got "bent over a cartoon" to only a lesser degree.

People say offensive things to other people daily. Cartoons are published daily and no matter what, there is always going to be someone somewhere who feels offended by them.

Well you see (I really don't know how you could fail to see, that is, unless you've decided to go live in a cave), some people feel "offended" by these things because they are vicious and dishonest portrayals of an entire group of people based on something a very few people who share one of their characteristics -- their religion -- have done.

And you can characterize what we feel as "offended" if you like, but your calling it that doesn't mean that how we feel isn't how decent, reasonable people feel when faced with such phenomena.

I assume it would be safe to say that you are offended by murder and theft and drunk driving. Saying that would not change the nature of the acts that offend you, any more than saying it about reaction to the images in question changes the nature of the images.

If someone published a cartoon about me and it offended me for instance, I would probably say "You Asshole!" but I wouldn't throw a fucking hissy fit and drag it on and let it ruin my life. Actually I would probably laugh about it, after all.

Yes, yes, I know; it's all about you.

if someone drew an offensive cartoon about me, you would make sure to defend me, wouldn't you?

Well, if you are a member of a vulnerable minority, or the image could otherwise be reasonably expected to result in you being unfairly harmed, I'd certainly denounce whoever published it -- whether I particularly liked you or not.

So in that sense, I would defend you against the unfair attack, even if I didn't like you. Just as so many people stand ready to defend speech they don't like, eh?

They actually wouldn't be defending the speech (at least so I'd hope, say in the case of KKK speech), of course, they'd be opposing attempts to suppress it. Just as I'd be opposing attempts to expose you to discrimination or worse.

I'd be perfectly comfortable saying that you should not be exposed to discrimination or worse, even though you may be a shit. What I'm not seeing too much of hereabouts is anyone saying that publication of vicious and bigoted material should not be suppressed even though people who publish it are shits.

Standing up for freedom of speech is charming; so is standing up for human decency.

[Megahurtz]

200. Right. It's all about me. You're funny!

:spank:

You're making it too complicated!

It's about Freedom of Press, and people lightening up a little on the subject!
Don't you think it's ridiculous for anyone to get a heart attack over this???

Remember it's only a piece of paper with a goofy drawing on it.:think:
A piece of paper cannot hurt anyone. And a piece of paper cannot force anyone to do anything.

Nobody yelled, nobody threatened, really, no harm done!

And they are free to draw stupid goofy cartoons as well!

Holy Crap I'm going to need a beer pretty soon after this thread:beer:

[IndianaGreen]

113. Jyllans-Posten needs to explain itself (anti-Islamic cartoons)

Here is a press release from Danish industry.

27-01-2006

Jyllans-Posten needs to explain itself

Open letter to Jyllands-Posten from the Confederation of Danish Industries.

It is now time for the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to use its freedom of expression to explain its own reaction to the fact that drawings of the prophet Mohammed, published in September 2005, have offended the feelings of a large number of people. Since the publication of the drawings, the editors of the newspaper have remained silent and chosen not to comment on the consequences of the drawings.

Obviously, Danish companies are in no way direct parties in the dispute between Jyllands-Posten and religious leaders. Nevertheless, companies have experienced a number of repercussions in the Arab World during the past week: boycotting of their products, cancellations of sales and project meetings, lost orders etc. Furthermore, the personal safety of their employees is now also at stake. In this way, Danish companies and their employees are paying for the unsolved dispute between the newspaper and religious groups. This situation calls for a reaction from the editors of Jyllands-Posten.

In our view, it is no longer sufficient just to discuss whether a newspaper has the right to publish drawings of the prophet Mohammed. Our freedom of expression does not make us unaccountable for our actions. Accepting its responsibility in this respect, Jyllands-Posten now has to show whether it has any sympathy and respect for the people whose feelings have been hurt by the publishing of the drawings. It is now that the newspaper's editors have to break their silence in this respect.

Freedom of expression is one of the basic values of our society, but until now Jyllands-Posten has only invoked this freedom to explain its actions. I now urge the newspaper to acknowledge the fact that many people have been offended and that this has negative consequences for third parties who are not directly involved.

Yours sincerely

Hans Skov Christensen
Director General, CEO
The Confederation of Danish Industries

http://www.di.dk/DI/English/Press+Release/Jyllands-Posten+needs+to+explain+itself.htm

[iverglas]

129. in a nutshell

In our view, it is no longer sufficient just to discuss whether a newspaper has the right to publish drawings of the prophet Mohammed. Our freedom of expression does not make us unaccountable for our actions.

What a simple and obvious thing, and how often I've said it myself ...

Freedom of expression is one of the basic values of our society, but until now Jyllands-Posten has only invoked this freedom to explain its actions.

The fact that one is free to do something never explains why one did it.

Of course, no one ever has to explain why one did something that one is free to do. Women don't have to explain why they are terminating their pregnancies, I don't have to explain why I am eating pizza for breakfast.

But decent people explain why they do things that have effects on other people, and honest people don't pretend that they didn't have a reason for doing them.

[NNguyenMD]

117. I have a solution...

American Muslims should stop reading the Philadephia Inquirer.

[superconnected]

119. Or better yet, since the muslims haven't killed ANYONE over this

how about police just stop killing muslims.

Let them protest. If you guys actually believe in free speech, then they have a right.

The rodney king protests got violent and saw a lot of people dead. But the protestors killed most of them. This with only 4 people dead world wide- killed by police, is nothing. But I see people here don't care who killed whom, they just want to go after the muslims. Oh and they've proved a nazi-civilian level of support for hate propaganda against a people.

[NNguyenMD]

124. if you don't like it, then don't read it

[superconnected]

126. You're missing the point.

I bet the jews refusing to read strichers political magazine didn't make a dent in the genocide - which was instilled by propaganda.

The point is there is a difference between political opinion and denoucing a whole race, in a series of cartoons.

[iverglas]

130. do you think?

Sometimes it can be so hard to tell who is missing a point, and who is pretending not to have been pricked by it.

Doesn't get it, doesn't admit it ... doesn't get it, doesn't admit it ...

[superconnected]

131. I see you aren't the poster who wrote, just don't read it.

hmmm.

Now you're confusing me.

Yes, the person may have gotten the point and just doesn't want to admit it, for their own racist reasons.

[iverglas]

150. got it on the second try

Except I wasn't actually talking about anyone in particular, of course!

[Harper_is_Bush]

160. self delete

[superconnected]

121. Just a cartoon

"The Nazi emphasis on anti-Semitism and hatred of Jews was widely spread by means of virulent anti-Jewish propaganda, in films, posters and publications. The image of the corrupt Jew trying to conquer the world was frequently presented as a legitimate reason for their ill-treatment."

from "http://motlc.learningcenter.wiesenthal.org/pages/t024/t02404.html"




"The caption: "One eats the other and the Jew devours them all..." The cartoon promotes the Nazi claim that the Jews were behind World War II, having orchestrated it to destroy Nazi Germany."

from http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/lustige.htm&h=444&w=326&sz=19&tbnid=SJUWLZrPNivxXM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=91&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnazi%2Bgermany%2Bcartoons%2Bjews%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D

Just a symbol



a cool site on propaganda
http://janesville.k12.wi.us/cra/showcase/web/propaganda/Content/..%5CContent%5Cmedia.html


" Posters for the support of the Nazi regime and discrimination of the Jewish population were found everywhere. Political cartoons became popular. Jews were portrayed with huge hooked noses, bulging eyes, large ears, swollen lips, unshaven beards, long hairy arms and hands, and short crooked legs. The dominant characteristics were swindling and sexual perversion. The most notorious host of these anti-Semitic visuals was the newspaper Der Sturmer, written by Julius Streicher. It had started as a political paper, but by the time Hitler had a firm hold on Germany, it specialized in selling the idea that the Jews were the worst enemy of the Germans. "


"It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them." - Adolf Hitler

[iverglas]

148. and continuing the analogy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism#The_demonizing_of_the_Jews

Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution. The highly explicit ideology of Adolf Hitler's Nazism was the most extreme example of this phenomenon, leading to a genocide of the European Jewry. Anti-Semitism has historically taken different forms:

Religious anti-Semitism, or anti-Judaism. Before the 19th century, most anti-Semitism was primarily religious in nature, based on Christian or Islamic interactions with and interpretations of Judaism. Since Judaism was generally the largest minority religion in Christian Europe and much of the Islamic world, Jews were often the primary targets of religiously-motivated violence and persecution from Christian and Islamic rulers. Unlike anti-Semitism in general, this form of prejudice is directed at the religion itself, and so generally does not affect those of Jewish ancestry who have converted to another religion, although the case of Conversos in Spain was a notable exception. Laws banning Jewish religious practices may be rooted in religious anti-Semitism, as were the expulsions of the Jews that happened throughout the Middle Ages.

Racial anti-Semitism. With its origins in the anthropological ideas of race that started during the Enlightenment, racial anti-Semitism became the dominant form of anti-Semitism from the late 19th century through today. Racial anti-Semitism replaced the hatred of Judaism as a religion with the idea that the Jews themselves were a racially distinct group, regardless of their religious practice, and that they were inferior or worthy of animosity. With the rise of racial anti-Semitism, conspiracy theories about Jewish plots in which Jews were somehow acting in concert to dominate the world became a popular form of anti-Semitic expression.

One might even see a parallel between the depiction of Mohammed as committing/rewarding terror bombers and the blood libel committed against Jews -- the portrayal of their religion as calling for the killing of nice white European Christians.

[Spinoza]

177. I am opposed to any and all governmental restrictions on

free speech and freedom of the press.. That included anti-semitic, racist or anti-muslim expressions. As the son of Holocaust survivors that includes overt German anti-semitic expressions. No exceptions. Period.

[iverglas]

178. I love an opinion

Actually, I prefer it when someone offers up some reason why I should adopt his/her opinion.

Otherwise, I tend to think that s/he feels somehow entitled to impose rules based on that opinion on me and the rest of the world.

Of course, that's just moi.

[Spinoza]

181. My reasons are best found in the extant writings of

Voltaire, Diderot, (the leader of the 18th century French Encyclopedists) Locke, Jefferson, John Stuart Mill and (most especially) my nom de plume, Spinoza. In essence government has no moral right to forcibly prevent the expression of any opinion, however ugly or distasteful. Using force to prevent the expression of ANY opinion is immoral. For a brilliant exposition I would urge you to read the entire Ethics from Spinoza. (Be sure to get a good translation.)

[iverglas]

182. more opinions

<list of names> Using force to prevent the expression of ANY opinion is immoral.

Again: sez you.

I do have a degree in philosophy, over three decades old as it is.

I also have a degree in law and a whole lot of experience in the game of persuasive speech. And I've seldom been persuaded by anyone reiterating an opinion s/he has already stated, or quoting a bunch of people who agree with that opinion.

I'm not saying there are first principles that an opinion must relate back to. If I were, I'd be some sort of theist, which I'm not; there are no first principles, there being no source to fetch them from. I'm saying that if you want to persuade me to your point of view, you need to show me how it is consistent with principles that I recognize.

The opinion that speech should not be restricted is simply not such a principle; it simply is not a trump card, except among those who have already agreed that it is a trump card. It is an opinion.

Principles that might be agreed to in undertaking an attempt to resolve differences of opinion on matters like that should, in my own submission, include things like those spoken of here:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, ...

-- basically, that things that promote the equality and dignity and security of the individual, and freedom and justice and peace in the world, are "good".

And any act, or rule that permits such acts, that foreseeably will lead to the contrary is arguably "bad".

You yourself appear to limit the scope of the rule you propose to the expression of "opinion" -- and yet there is far more to speech than expressions of opinion. You apparently would not object to prohibitions on the shouting of "fire" in crowded theatres, or the telling of lies in courts, and would not extend protection to such speech.

Well, others would not extend protection to blasphemy.

And some of us would not extend it to speech consisting of opinions but plainly used for the purpose of inciting denials of dignity or equality, or acts that result in denials of life, or freedom, or security.

Now, mightn't the world be a better place if we all set about trying to persuade those who disagree to our views of matters, instead of telling them to go fuck themselves because we're right and they're wrong?

You can cite the most illustrious names you like at your adversaries, but actually engaging those others is rather more likely to produce the effect one wants.

[Spinoza]

183. Have you ever read Spinoza?

[iverglas]

184. there ya go

You just won an argument, I guess.

Now you just have to hope that I don't have a bigger stick than you have, or you might lose what you were arguing over anyhow.

Anyhow: free speech absolutist, was he? Hadn't thought so.

Believe in "natural law", or "self-evident" truths, do I? I assure you not.

Do I respect various people's efforts to come to grips with the unknowables and inherent paradoxes of human existence? Yup. Do I buy into anybody's claim to have determined and resolved them? Nope. So will I agree to any such claimed determination or resolution as a basis for resolving any difference of opinion? You got it: nope again.

[Spinoza]

185. You don't have to answer my last post.

I know you haven't. Jesus, spare me the "whereas" bullshit. Your post is a great example why people often cannot stand lawyers. I summed up an enormous body of work by stating that it is immoral to forcibly prohibit an opinion from being expressed. To properly elucidate this matter would require discussions on the nature of morality, the definition of "opinion" and the ethical and political contexts in which force is proper or improper. For those who want to pursue this issue I suggested primary sources to read. If you don't want to, whats it to me? One point I will make. All the words you used: dignity, rights, tyranny, oppression, equality, freedom, security, blasphemy, are subject to differing opinions among human beings. There is no consensus as to their meaning and applicability. You have no right to forcibly prevent me from expressing my opinions, whatever they may be. To argue that shouting "fire" in a theatre, which people will act upon as a direct and imminent physical peril, is somehow similar to a cartoon which is offensive to the religious sensibilities of some people, is ridiculous in the extreme. When 'blashpemy' can be forcibly prevented from expression, who gets to define what blasphemy is and means. You? No thank you.

Finally, "Now, mightn't the world be a better place if we all set about trying to persuade those who disagree to our views of matters, instead of telling them to go fuck themselves because we're right and they're wrong?" Say, what? Where did I tell you, or even intimate that you should,.... go fuck yourself?

[iverglas]

186. what don't you get?

I summed up an enormous body of work by stating that it is immoral to forcibly prohibit an opinion from being expressed.

Nope.

You can only sum up that enormous body of work by stating that IT SAYS THAT it is immoral to do whatever.

It is not a summary of anything to state an opinion. You may purport to derive an opinion from something, but you may not state that the opinion is a summary of anything. It isn't.

To properly elucidate this matter would require discussions on the nature of morality, the definition of "opinion" and the ethical and political contexts in which force is proper or improper.

Yup. But in the meantime, we could all just refrain from stating our favourite opinions as either revealed or demonstrated truth. They aren't. Not yours, and not any religious fundamentalists'.

For those who want to pursue this issue I suggested primary sources to read.

Again, there is no primary source when it comes to OPINIONS. The source is the place to find the opinion; it does *not* establish the unassailability of the opinion, simply because *no* opinion is unassailable.

It is indeed worthwhile to read things in order to understand what some people derive their opinion from; this might even persuade them to that opinion. But it simply does not prove the rightness of the opinion, because even to say that is a nonsense.

All the words you used: dignity, rights, tyranny, oppression, equality, freedom, security, blasphemy, are subject to differing opinions among human beings.

Duh. Although actually, I would say that the level of importance assigned to them -- or, as you said, their applicability in any situation -- is what is most relevantly subject to differing opinions.

Some things are the subject of sufficient consensus that we don't need to continually go behind them. That's what constitutions and charters of rights are for: to lay out that consensus and secure formal adherence to it.

If agreement on the basic importance of certain values is not present to start with, then it may be necessary to go behind them and try to persuade others to adhere to them. It may also be necessary to use force to prevent those others from acting contrary to those values, if their adherence cannot be secured. At some point, one does indeed say "fuck you", for instance to people or bodies acting contrary to the values that the collectivity they belong to has chosen to adopt -- but when that point is reached is of course a subject of yet another potential debate among people who recognize that it exists.

You have no right to forcibly prevent me from expressing my opinions, whatever they may be.

Jeezus fucking christ. SEZ YOU. I don't happen to agree with you. Now wasn't that a worthwhile exchange of views?

To argue that shouting "fire" in a theatre, which people will act upon as a direct and imminent physical peril, is somehow similar to a cartoon which is offensive to the religious sensibilities of some people, is ridiculous in the extreme.

And to persist in this pretence that the cartoons were ONLY "offensive to the religious sensibilities of some people" is the height of disingenuous.

As is your attempt to distinguish speech that you don't like from speech that someone else doesn't like, btw. Nothing wrong with arguing for the distinction you wish to make, of course; it's just that positing the validity of that distinction as a given doesn't wash either.

Where did I tell you, or even intimate that you should,.... go fuck yourself?

At the precise moment when you asserted that something that is nothing but your opinion is a non-debatable principle and made it plain that nothing I might have to say in disagreement with that assertion was of any import to you or, if you had your way, in the rule-making process.

Just as everyone telling Muslims who object to degrading and dishonest representations of themselves, in all these many threads, has been telling them to fuck off, in many instances literally, that being was what I was actually talking about.

I have at no time said that your opinion about what rules should be made regarding speech is automatically trumped by any opinion of mine. All I ask is the same consideration for myself and anyone who holds any differing views, and I find that it is in much less than short supply in this "liberal" (open-minded, is that?) place.

And I really, really don't give a crap what Spinoza or anyone else not a party to the discussion had to say about anything. I might find it persuasive, and I might not. I'm not talking to Spinoza, and perhaps more importantly, Spinoza isn't the one who's going to have to live in the world that the talking is being done in.

[The Straight Story]

198. Here may be a reason:

Muslim countries want the freedom to be as they are, publish what they want, and worship how they desire. Even if it seems hideous to us and our values.

The key here is they want their freedom from our oppression, freedom from us beating them up and making them do things our way.

So they set a baseline of wanting freedom within their borders to act as they desire. Ergo others who feel the same way with respect to muslim nations should logically have no issue with other countries having the same rights (ie, the right to do things within your borders without other people attacking you over it).

Freedom of the press, even if it is run by the government in a country, is pretty much a given that is universally desired by either nations or the peoples of nations in more open countries.

So the protestors of this who want to change the rules for others are attempting to impose morals and values on others which they would protest if someone was trying to do the same to them and their presses/speech.

Freedom of speech is a universal desire - if not by the people than by the government that is over them. Iran wants freedom to print the stuff they do without physical retaliation, so do the danes, china, et al.

[Megahurtz]

190. And THERE you have it!

:applause:

[iverglas]

193. oh look

It's a Spinoza fan.


Hahahaha. Private joke, I'll bet.

[Megahurtz]

196. AR-AR-AR!

:silly::rofl::silly:

[kwolf68]

153. Welcome to free speech

...In this nation we are free to trash your deity if that is what we want to do. Hey, it may be wrong and classless, but we call it free speech for a reason, and on that I am non-negotiable.

I have less sympathy for these folks than the Maplethorpe protesters

[superconnected]

155. so much for reading the thread.

Missed the point totally.

[iverglas]

156. "on that I am non-negotiable"

Well, I don't think anyone was planning to try to cash you ...

But back to our sheep.

S/he who proclaims his/her refusal to negotiate without addressing the merits of the other party's claims simply excludes him/herself from the discourse.

As has been pointed out, you've failed to see, or decided to ignore (who knows?), even what those claims are, so why you bothered to say anything, who knows?

[BookemDano]

164. PC and the Muslims

I think the demonstration's are out of control and should not be condoned by anyone.Yet I think freedom of speech is the #1 thing yet w/Bushy trying to bring freedom and Democracy to the Middle East are back firing I think it is a reality that the Middle East wants a Theocratic government and now that is super clear in my eye's!This is just one big mess!

[Name removed]

201. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.