Is there a correct 'liberal' approach to the cartoon issue?

[entanglement]

:rant:

(A) Consider the problem from the "minority rights" angle (one that I haven't seen too many people do)

(1) Yes, it's Islam the religion that's involved; but most of it's practitioners in Denmark are also ethnic minorities facing increasing hostility due to the re-emergence of the far-right in the past few years. The forces opposing 'Muslims' in these nations OPPOSE ALL ETHNIC IMMIGRANTS irrespective of their religion. However, they have successfully utilized the perceived threat posed by Islam to the West to whip-up xenophobia. Thus, the power equation between Danish Muslims and their host society is an inherently asymmetrical one.

(2) It is to be noted clearly that over and above being offensive to Muslims by depicting the Prophet, there are strongly derogatory racial / ethnic (sp. to Arabs) overtones to the cartoons. So IMHO it's not just about religion.

(3) The stated purpose of 'starting a dialog' seems hollow and untrue; at the very least it is naive. If I want to start a dialog with someone, I don't begin by berating their race / religion / culture.

OTOH

(B) From a "freedom of speech" perspective

(1) I confess I STRONGLY DEFEND THE RIGHT OF THE DANISH NEWSPAPERS TO PUBLISH these cartoons. This is NOT NEGOTIABLE.

(2) However, (1) does not mean I approve of the content of these cartoons: I place these cartoons in the same category as "hook-nosed money-lender" or "Sambo" cartoons. FREEDOM OF SPEECH and EDITORIAL
DISCRETION are not mutually exclusive, and at the very least, the newspapers that RE-PRINTED these cartoons could have exercised better discretion. (It is also notable that none of the European countries has the same level of unfettered free speech like the US)

(3) I strongly condemn the violent protests that have erupted worldwide (burning of embassies etc). Islamic extremism is for real and needs to be dealt with firmly. However, people need to be careful before shoving collective responsibility for these foolish actions on ALL Muslims (if there is a backlash in Europe, it will be European muslims that bear the brunt of it, not the extremists in Beirut)

(C) How to deal with the "we must not give in to them or this is the death of the West" feelings that so many of us have? A course of action based on points (B1-B3) above helps (at least, it helped me)

Finally, from an anti-imperialist perspective, it is good to remember that the violence is not one-sided; If we condemn "them" for this violent reaction, surely "we" should acknowledge the violence perpetrated by "us" against "them"? After all, consider that it is their powerlessness that leads them to scream outside embassies. We didn't scream at the Iraqi embassy or set it on fire because we had more lethal options!

:rant:
entanglement

[Hatalles]

1. Bravo.

I'm worn out on this issue... but this is a breath of fresh air. :applause:

[The Magistrate]

2. An Excellent Summary Of the Matter, Sir, In All Its Complexity

There is no doubt these cartoons were published in an attempt to stir up anti-immigrant senbtiment for rightist gain in Danish politics. They are certainly offensive and racist in intent.

[entanglement]

4. Thank you

:hi:

[tocqueville]

12. if it was the case, the freedom of expression argument is irrelevant

because it would fall under hate speech which is illegal here.

I think you see it from an US perspective and not an European. Besides if you really look at the cartoons most of them are harmless (from the xenophobic point of view). One is even self-ironic : it depicts the cartoonist unable to depict Mohammed (since he is "undepictable" - no real historic sources).

"Everybody" agrees in Europe that the intent was not to incite to hatred from the "christian/secular" population.

Due to the large muslim population in Western Europe (even if the vast majority is everyday in breach against the classical tenants of Islam - they drink alcohol, eat pork, celebrate Xmas and the women wear g-strings on the beach) there are quite active militant groups. These groups consider that their lifestyle is non-negotiable, even if it comes in conflict with the SECULAR laws from the countries they are now dwelling in and in a majority are citizens of).

These groups want exceptions : scarves even for small girls, no sexual education in schools, no pork at school lunches, no mixed sport girls/boys, cruel ritual slaughter by western norms etc... etc...

The argument is : I am Muslim first, French, German, British, Dane later...

Basically it is trying to diminish the power of the separation of Church and State, in a situation where there is a broad consensus about that among the other major religious communities, Jews included.

Those groups even if they are in minority, want to be an EXCEPTION to that rule. Most Europeans don't believe in communautarism US-style (and the ones that did - the Brits paid dearly for that). They believe in equality in front of the law, which means that religion belongs to the private sphere and NOT to the public sphere. In other words you cannot IMPOSE your views on the system in name of religion, if you want to live within that system in peace and democracy with others.

That's why the primary intent of the cartoons was : can you take a joke, Christians and others can do it without making a big deal of it, so why can't you... ?

Obviously there is a long way to go... outside Europe. With a few exceptions the protests have been minimal in Europe : 1000 in Paris, 700 in London...

what happens in the Muslim world OUTSIDE Europe is dictated by an entirely different political agenda both from Islamic fundies and from other special agendas like Syria...

[Wordie]

26. I think an equivalent statement in the US might be using the "N" word to

refer to a black person. So although I can understand all the European issues you bring up in your post (and understanding all those things is important - thank you for bringing those up), I personally feel that in this instance a line was crossed. The cartoons were not at all "harmless" from a Muslim's POV.

Here are a couple of interesting threads to read, that go into a little more detail about this controversy:
Did You Know That Islam Prohibits ANY Image Of Mohammed? (by omega minimo)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2440485&mesg_id=2440485

And...
"The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr" (by benburch)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x327183

It seems to me that the right of free speech carries with it an individual responsibility for self-restraint.

[patcox2]

30. Bullshit, re: self-restraint.

People should restrain themselves from taking offense so easily. Your premise that 'responsible" people "restrain" their free speach is identical to what Bush says when he criticizes "irresponsible" criticism of his policies.

[Hatalles]

33. I agree w/ you.

Most African Americans are opposed to non-Blacks using the "N" word. Many aren't even comfortable with other African Americans using the term.

Just because someone can say something, doesn't mean they should.

Fighting words doctrine. The First Amendment doctrine that holds that certain utterances are not constitutionally protected as free speech if they are inherently likely to provoke a violent response from the audience. N.A.A.C.P. v. Clairborne Hardware Co., Miss., 458 U.S. 886, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982). Words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, having direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, remark is addressed. The test is what persons of common intelligence would understand to be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. City of Seattle v. Camby, 104 Wash.2d 49, 701 P.2d 499, 500.

The "freedom of speech" protected by the Constitution is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances and there are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which does not raise any constitutional problem, including the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031.

[patcox2]

31. Mr. Magistrate, is there no racist-political intent in fomenting the anger

? Is there not an equal, if not greater, "racism" (not my preferred term for whats going on here, I think both sides simply perceive the other as "other," its more xenophobia) among the radical muslims fanning these flames of outrage against the west?

Colonialism died its last gasp with the Shah leaving Iran a generation ago. This lingering hatred of europeans is now stoked by local religious and political leaders for their own purposes. Are they innocent?

I still say f them, the intolerant fundamentalist savages. Past victimhood, cry me a river, I don't care, what, they get to wear their special victim status forever and we have top tiptoe around so as not to offend their ever so sensitive sensibilities and force them to declare jihad and fatwa against us (two charming concepts their "peaceful" religion condones, if not requires, in the circumstances).

[EST]

3. My take is that, just because one is free to say something

objectionable, one is not required to say it. Freedom of speech must come under the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" test. Saying something cruel, even in cartoon form, still has its consequences, as many of us learn in childhood. Failure to anticipate the punch in the nose that may result is a sign of immature reasoning.

[entanglement]

7. I agree with you, but that line of reasoning is invariably

countered by something like "So you're saying we should be afraid of them?"

[EST]

14. Well...

Yeah, after thinking about it, we should be afraid. In the modern, largely educated world, there is no excuse for silliness. This whole bunch of crap is not just stupidity and mistaken thoughtlessness. This is blatant manipulation by cynical string pullers.
I hate to sound like a tin foil addict but, in light of even a cursory examination of recent history, given the communications available, today, there is simply no excuse for such insensitivity, even among ill informed bottom feeders. The guiding hand of malevolent (to us "average" folks) purpose becomes so evident.

[tocqueville]

16. punching in the nose somebody for a joke is a sign of

even greater immaturity, which bottoms in a lack of inner security and low self-esteem

[EST]

20. I agree.

Does that also apply to burning down their houses?

[entanglement]

5. Shameless self-kick

:kick:

[Bark Bark Bark]

6. In The End...

...This was a very deliberate provocation. The publishers knew the situation, and knew the reaction they would get. Whether the reaction is justifiable or not is besides the point; this was like sneaking into an emergency brain surgery and blowing a trumpet.

One point to consider: while hardly all Muslims are reacting violently to this issue (contrary to the opinions of Kathleen Parker, Michelle Malkin, and other shitheels), many Muslims have been taught by experience that they only way they get any respect is through violence. Who provides that experience? Hint: usually the same people who provide the explosives and other weapons.

Another point: if the publishers knew what would happen, why did they do it? Who had anything to gain from the obvious response? Hint: see hint above.

[Wilms]

8. K&R n/t

[libodem]

9. I asked myself this:

What would I expect if the daily cartoon, in the local paper, had some sac-religious depiction of, Jesus. I think of what the Christians would do. I don't think they would go burn down buildings but they would be outrageously offended. I'm sure some LTE would be written. Maybe a boycott. I think the Muslims are looking for any excuse to rise up. We just had several Judges sign a letter of disapproval over a controversial cartoon, recently. Cartoons, of a political nature, offer much insight into current events. They often tell the true story; more honestly than newsreporting. I worry about censorship. I care about free speech. I care about the truth. I like honesty. I like to be informed of events in the world. I like to make my own assessments. I don't like secrets. I'm tired of the Secret Government. Everything is topsecret and a risk to national security; so everything is covert. The Covert Government. They can operate undercover and it is business as usual. And point (C) is a very interesting question. Post 9/11 I thought what did we do to THEM? Whatever it was it sure made them mad. They are trying to get our attention somehow. Just when you should turn the other cheek and kill them with kindness, we go to war. What would Jesus do?

[malaise]

10. And there you have it

Indeed the West has encouraged and cheered on protests, burnings and even public hangings (Romania) when they were in their perceived interest.

[gunsaximbo]

11. Yes. Disavow it then let it go.

We have bigger fish to fry. Let the conservatives look like jerks without us pointing it out so forcefully all the time.

[radwriter0555]

13. The cartoon is nothing more than hate speech, the same tactics hitler used

against the jews.

It should not be tolerated by anyone.

Ever.

THAT is the position a liberal should take.

[neweurope]

15. Agree n/t

-------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Behind the Aegis]

18. Not quite.

While some of them were offensive, others confusing, they did not border on the propaganda leveled against us by the Nazis.

They, the cartoonists, had every right to draw what they did. The publishers had the right to publish them. The Muslim community had the right to be outraged.

The position of the liberal is to recognize that the drawings had the right to be created and distributed. The position of the liberal is to recognize that Muslims and others would be offended and disgusted. The position of the liberal is to support the freedom of speech/press, no matter how odious, with the exception of the call to violence against a people, as a collective.

[tocqueville]

19. wrong : see my post above in reply to the magistrate

Have you SEEN the cartoons ? 2 out of 12 might fall in that category. Probably only one.

have you wondered why the WH sounds very much like the critics of the cartoons, even if it mumbles about "freedom of expression"?

My answer is : they are very afraid that their own fundies would be joked about in the same way... Then what Bush thinks about the 1st amendment is well known...

[radwriter0555]

22. What's the difference between that piece of racist trash and this one?

This is the cover to the most infamous issue of Der Stürmer, the 1934 issue accusing Jews of practicing ritual murder to secure the blood of Christians to use in Jewish religious rituals. The headline reads: Jewish Murder Plan against Gentile Humanity Revealed. The issue actually got banned by the Nazis after it had been out for a while, not because of anti-Semitic content, but because it compared alleged Jewish ritual murder with the Christian sacrament of communion. A full English translation of the issue was published in the United States in 1976 by a group in the "Christian Identity" tradition.

http://history1900s.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sturmer.htm


Or this one? Title: The Decent Jew

The cartoon shows a Jew politely asking for room on the bench, after which he shoves the previous inhabitant off. The poem notes that Jews behave the same way in other situations.

July 1936 (Issue #28)


or this one, depicting a jew as satan?

They're all HATE SPEECH.

It's not to be tolerated. It's not free speech, it's racist HATE.

If WE don't speak against it, WHO WILL?

[neweurope]

17. K & R

-------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[GeorgeGist]

21. Yes

[Dunvegan]

23. I like Ted Rall's Approach...

[entanglement]

25. LOL Rall captures the hypocrisy of the rabid RW so well!

n/t

[bunkerbuster1]

28. Excellent take. And then there's Rude Pundit--

He get it as well:

from
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/crappy-cartoons-and-burning-flames-if.html

If, say, in the middle of Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen, Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark unveiled a giant bronze statue of Mohammed on his knees getting teabagged by a smiling, standing Jesus Christ as throngs of gathered Danes, all hoisting sugary Danishes in the air, sang, "There Is a Lovely Land" before they pelted Mohammed and his scrotum-filled mouth with thousands of sticky buns, well, shit, okay, then we'd have something to talk about.

But the thuggery that's being done allegedly in the name of a few shitty sketches of Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper is smoke and mirrors, a bullshit blow-up over a few bullshit cartoons that a bunch of bullshit opportunists used to create bullshit advantage to their bullshit causes. Such utter nonsense, because not only are the cartoons themselves six months old, but that Mohammed's kisser's been "depicted" since, you know, say, the start of Islam. So, hey, hush, don't let anyone know that Mohammed's one of the Super Best Friends on South Park or they might start burning Cartman in effigy.

The majority of the riots went something like this: Some idiot with a megaphone yells how everyone needs to show how much they love them some Mohammed. One guy tells another guy in the protest crowd that he loves Mohammed more. Guy 1 says, no; in fact, he loves Mohammed more. Guy 2 says oh, yeah, he'll show you how much he loves Mohammed, and Guy 2 breaks a window. Guy 1 says, fuck you, fucker, he'll show you how he loves Mohammed more, and launches a Molotov cocktail through the broken window. Guy 3 announces that there's shit to steal and all hell breaks loose, as man with megaphone looks on proudly. This is not to mention whoever sent megaphone man out there in the first place.

...

It's all about exploitation. Whether its Donald Wildmon, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, or whoever, someone's gonna be there to manipulate people into believin' that their god is so much fuckin' bigger than everyone else's. Behind almost every action where someone's wielding a Bible or a Koran or Dianetics, there's someone who wants money and/or power, and he or she is gonna convince the least among them that their really big god needs him some lovin' and obedience by everyone goin' a little bugfuck insane.

[PATRICK]

24. An inversion of "the War on Christmas"

In this case some made a routine charade of a societal shibboleth, no more than an occasional person might of the Christmas commercialization debacle. But the commercialization aspect was surgically separated from the fictitious attack on Xmas. The free speech nobility was grafted on the gratuitous, flippant Mohammed lampoons. They both should be equally ignored and ridiculed for the pomposity of the inane and the belittling of important issues disguised as championing of rights, the superiority of separate cultures. LOL. What a sorry bunch to be casting aspersions on either side. Disguised in such a way as to divide and embroil decent people in degrading ways.

This is just another side of the coming war, the fanning of flames, the ignorance of peoples, the cruelty of attack dogs. And I don't think it is accidental, emblematic of genuine divisions, or coincidental. In fact it is not coincidental now because it IS being linked forcibly to the purposes of war- if it was not before.

Liberals should promote freedom and respect. Freedom which lashes the other out of pride and righteousness is not freeing, righteous or honest. Fascism can wear any mask. Many such masks are routinely manufactured by cynical US ops. Others are just natural lies from places of safety. Yeah, you can have your free speech. It can still be wrong and stink. It can even attack the principle of free speech. The content of freedom can be sick and twisted. So it isn't about just theoretical freedom but the whole enchillada. And the majority should use all their free speech to get on the best track together. No policeman will give all the speakers wisdom.

[centristo]

27. there were 12 cartoons.

some are obviously offensive (the one with the horns) and some not so on a basic level. However the depiction of Mohammad is in and of itself offensive for Muslims.

Liberals must be careful about the concepts of "moral relativism" and "values pluarism". The answer for me, comes down to this: was the reaction of the Muslim world equivalent to the offense committed against them? For me (a non-Muslim) the answer is a big fat "no". People died over a cartoon. Let's repeat that. People died over a cartoon.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11164386/
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1584824

I am a Jew, so believe me I know that hate-speech and offensive materials should be taken seriously. However it is a scandal that anyone had to die or get injured over these cartoons.

A true liberal also has to weigh the freedom of religion against the civil rights of women in Islamic societies. If you believe that a culture is entitled to its beliefs, than you will defend the treatment of women in Islamic societies. If you think that we live in the 21st century, and women should be granted the same rights as man than you will criticize Islamic law for its blatant sexism. There appear to me many injustices in Islamic societies that are beyond criticism, simply because to do so would be to critize Islam. Indeed, it is difficult to criticize any religion for even a just reason in our PC society without raising the ire of the targeted group.

This issue is not outside the scope of your post. At its core, the cartoon row is directly about this issue. Can we talk plainly about the problems with Islam or do we need to continue tip-toeing around the issues that divide us? Religion is the unbreakable barrier blocking the honest dialouge that the West desperately needs to have with the Muslim world. How we break this barrier is beyond me.

This incident has shown that a meaningful dialogue can be had about Islam, but with consequences. At some point we need to stop worrying about what would a liberal do, and start thinking about what a moral, peace-loving human being would do. Also, I will rely on my common sense and moral code to guide me, not any DNC talking points. A Dean-bot isn't much better than a Bush-bot IMHO.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Hatalles]

32. Freeperland is THAT way.

[patcox2]

36. No thanks, I like it here.

I am accustomed to it after 4 years.

I am very concerned about mindless groupspeak, however, and the idea that there is an "approved" opinion on any given issue. Sad and pathetic, really, to be so eager to conform that one would post plaintively asking for the "approved" opinion to hold, so as to avoid the risk of thinking for oneself.

As for me, I have no problem with rejecting the validity and values of fundamentalist islam, just as I reject the values of fundamentalist christians here at home. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the middle ages ruined an advanced cutlure and plunged it into a dark age it has never recovered from. It deserves no respect, it is a malignant thing which destroys civilizations.

[McCamy Taylor]

35. This is sarcasm, I hope.

[patcox2]

37. Nope. Fundalmentalists are dangerous and not worthy of respect.

Just as I reject american christian fundamentalists who want to create a theocracy here, I reject muslim fundamentalists and their efforts to hold onto the theocracy that destroyed their civilization. The muslims were more advanced than the europeans, once, they destroyed the Byzantine empire and conquered Spain and the balkans, threatening all of europe. They preserved classic literature, invented many important mathematical and astronomical concepts, began the science of chemistry. They had a rich literature as well.

Then there arose islamic fundamentalism and it destroyed their civilization, in just the way christian fundamentalism will destroy ours if it is allowed to.

It will get no respect nor sensitivity from me, it is a malignancy which produces closed minds and hatred and is antithetical to civilization.

[McCamy Taylor]

34. Leftist approach--end European muslims second class status.

This is the root problem here. The violence in Europe is a reaction to the way that powers that be are treating the muslim immigrants. There is no Freedom of Speech in Europe. The "norm" there is self censorship to avoid giving insult to other groups. The deliberately insulting nature of these cartoons shows that muslims are despised and openly ridiculed by too many Europeans in power.

The situation of European muslims is not unlike that of African-americans. Europe is playing blame the victim, and I worry about that, because Europe has a long history of genocidal behavior---not just the Holocaust.