Muhammed drawings and free speech

[Qfwfq]

C1ay, I don't think I said anything in justification of the threats of violence. I think I said the contrary.

 

So where do you draw the line? Give me an example of acceptable religious satire that will not offend anyone.

An example? There's no such thing! :surprise:

 

Well, reasonable people will accept reasonable things. There is a fundamental point too: how offensive the author means it to be. Even some religious people have a sense of humour.

 

I think that if someone prints something that is obviously illegal, then a punishment is due. Examples of this is child pornography, racist or hate literature with the intention to proliferate racism and hate, etc.

What annoyed me about one or two of those cartoons is exactly that they show an intention to proliferate racism and hate. Lately there has been excessive tendency to identify terrorism with all Arabs and all of Islam. I've seen a lot of crusade agitation around too.

 

The fact that that paper is rw conservative is quite in line with the episode. Deliberate provocation.

 

I am interested in *why* 12 comics can raise cries for terrorism?

Because there are terrorists around. If you know there are robbers around, do you leave your family jewels on the front gate all night, just so you can hark aboutt your freedom limited limited because they got stolen?

[Qfwfq]

C1ay: If you're eating out with your wife and a stranger from another table shouts across at her "you must be the most rancid pig to ever defile my eyes", do you defend the stranger's right to free speech? If you were to act as this stranger did, would you feel the husband was reacting excessively if he punched you?

I don't agree with you justifying the violent reaction.

 

However, many people would tell the guy he was asking for that punch. I'm sure a reasonable judge would convict them both, often recognizing attenuating circumstances for the on-the-spot reaction.

[ughaibu]

Qfwfq: I am not justifying a violent reaction, I am trying to show that situations exist in which the probably violent consequences of actions are predictable.

[Qfwfq]

Fair enough, so the husband is reacting excessively, but it is typically considered understandable.

[ughaibu]

Qfwfq: Quite. If one wants to get along with other people one doesn't go out of one's way to piss them off.

[Qfwfq]

:surprise:

[InfiniteNow]

If you're eating out with your wife and a stranger from another table shouts across at her "you must be the most rancid pig to ever defile my eyes", do you defend the stranger's right to free speech?

Depends on how good of a fighter he looked like. If I thought I could take him, I'd defend his right to free speech after breaking both of his kneecaps. :surprise:

 

 

In most countries, including here, call somebody vermin in the gutter, call a woman a whore, anything against the persons dignity and you can be criminally prosecuted. By an unwritten law, an eye is usually closed on political satire but offending religion often causes an uproar. Remember when Sinead O'Connor tore up a picture of the Pope on stage?

But I am trying to look beyond that. I am interested in *why* 12 comics can raise cries for terrorism?

I keep asking myself... "What year is this again? Is it 2006 or 1006?" There seems (to me) such a sense of arrogance and ignorance. Okay... you said something that I disagree with and that I take offense to. I will naturally feel the need to defend my position. The issue is, how do I choose to do that? With RPGs (rocket propelled grenades) or by spreading a larger viewpoint and educating people why a broader viewpoint will cure many of the ails of the world?

 

 

If I tell my neighbor, "Hey, I don't think you tend to your lawn very well," I shouldn't have to apologize to him to prevent him from shooting me in the face. The response should be proportional to the offense.

 

 

Looking through the glasses of hatred, we become engrossed in a fog of ignorance. If only this much passion was applied to the real problems in our world...

 

...yeah, if only...

[Tormod]

Okay... you said something that I disagree with and that I take offense to. I will naturally feel the need to defend my position. The issue is, how do I choose to do that? With RPGs (rocket propelled grenades) or by spreading a larger viewpoint and educating people why a broader viewpoint will cure many of the ails of the world?

 

Exactly.

 

I am not defending the *act* of publishing the cartoons, but the paper's right to publish them.

 

Responding to printed insults with threats of terrorism is not a cultural issue as has been suggested in this thread. It is a fundamentalist issue, which is not something only militant Palestinians would resort to.

 

If the offended people were really concerned, there are alternative (and much wiser) options. For example, take the issue to a court of law - something I think is already being done. That's where matters like this belong.

[Tormod]

For the interested, here is an article in Al Jazeera about it. Reading the comments is both frightening and enlightening.

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=10554

[ughaibu]

Tormod: The Danish paper did publish the cartoons, it had that right, so from that side what is there to defend?

I imagine you and I are culturally much closer to each other than either of us is to an islamic terrorist, yet I consider the stranger's words to the wife to be insulting whereas you consider them to be an act of violence, accordingly it should be no surprise if some muslims consider these cartoons to constitute an act of violence even though you or I might consider them merely insulting.

[Tormod]

I imagine you and I are culturally much closer to each other than either of us is to an islamic terrorist, yet I consider the stranger's words to the wife to be insulting whereas you consider them to be an act of violence, accordingly it should be no surprise if some muslims consider these cartoons to constitute an act of violence even though you or I might consider them merely insulting.

 

Yes, but would we react in the same way? I am *not* saying they are not offended. They obviously are. That's not the point. It is their *reaction* I wonder about.

 

I also realize that most Muslims do not threaten to avenge the drawings. A lot of Muslims even accept that freedom of speech means that, on occasion, you have to hear (and read) stuff you don't like.

 

Even if we were to agree that it constitutes an act of violence, it does not imply that we have to agree that violence (or even threats of violence) is the best way to respond. I personally think the Muslims who are behaving in this way is a disgrace to their own people.

 

That said, I also think the people who published the drawings could have thought twice about what they did.

 

It boils down to the famous Voltaire quote, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

 

Voltaire also said, of course, that "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard." :surprise:

[TheBigDog]

The Bill Clinton comment I picked form a Norwegian paper. Now I can't find it again, so maybe that was a silly lie - I hope so.

Even if you got the quote right, chances are good that it was a silly lie.

 

Bill

[ughaibu]

Tormod: If I were Danish or Norwegian, I would be annoyed about the publication of these cartoons. The reaction was easy to predict, I suspect it was intentionally provoked and the result is that large areas of the world have now become more dangerous for nationals of these countries. Do you not think that in cases that endanger the lives of a country's citizens what is here being described as 'freedom of speech' could equally well be described as 'treason'?

[Tormod]

Tormod: If I were Danish or Norwegian, I would be annoyed about the publication of these cartoons.

 

How on Earth do you know that?

 

The reaction was easy to predict, I suspect it was intentionally provoked and the result is that large areas of the world have now become more dangerous for nationals of these countries. Do you not think that in cases that endanger the lives of a country's citizens what is here being described as 'freedom of speech' could equally well be described as 'treason'?

 

No, I dont think so. I also, in fact, think that the militant Muslims have a right to express their feelings, even though I disagree with their methods. I do not however agree with violent acts.

 

Also keep in mind that the Muslims in question are making a BIG fuzz about this. In Denmark, it was a national newspaper and as such it is perhaps understandable that the nation is targeted by people who think taking up arms is the way to defend your religion.

 

However, the paper in Norway has very, very few readers and nobody would have known about it if the Muslim's had not cried wolf.

 

This *is* a freedom of speech issue. It *may* be a case of someone misusing that freedom, but that will not be solved by terrorism. Face it, terrorist attacks would give the cartoons credibility.

[ughaibu]

I also dont agree with violence but some people do.

I know that I would be annoyed because I remember how annoyed I was when Thatcher made islamic countries unsafe for me by allowing the bombing of Libya.

[TheBigDog]

Tormod: We dont live in an ideal world functioning at a theoretical level. This situation now exists, any considerations of free speech as tested by inflamatory cartoons ("Lars Refn is a coward") are theoretical. If terrorist acts can be avoided by an apology, why would anyone hesitate to apologise?

You might think that publishing these cartoons is not equatable with breaking a window but I disagree. Neither you nor I are middle-eastern muslims so we can not pronounce on the damage caused by the Danish magazine, it's a question of cultural perception. It is cultural arrogance to think that the Danish action is "better" than the Palestinian reaction.

Here is the difference here. When heads are being chopped off of civilians, and trains are bing blown up, and other continuing acts of terror, I can count on one hand the number of protests against these acts in the Islamic community. Every day in Islamic newspapers there are calls for death to the infidels, and death to the Jews. And no retractions or protests from the community they serve. The "President" of Iran calls for the elimination of Israel while bucking the international community in the quest of nuclear arms. Hamas, the newly elected party of Palestine has as their central tenet for being the elimination of Israel. No apologies from those who voted for or against that party.

 

Meanwhile, a newspaper in the Netherlands prints 12 cartoons that were intended to feature Mohammad, and from the Islamic community comes shouts of how we are baiting them into hating us, and that the result will be blood in the streets. How can anyone not see the lunacy of that claim? How can progress toward peace be made with a group of people so thin skinned that that pictures in a magazine constitute justification for war? Any society with freedom of speech will forever be the enemy, because as long as they consider the free speech of individuals as representative of the government, they will always use it as an excuse to continue the violence. Where are the leaders of the Islamic community that seek peace? That speak out against their own violence? That seek to bridge gaps, and to be mutually respective of culture?

 

Maybe I need to stop before this becomes a rant... nope!

 

And let us contrast the western reaction to the cartoons. The government in Norway is issuing an apology for the free speech of its citizens, in the name of being sensitive to the Islamics who were insulted by the cartoons. Will we ever see that reciprocated? How long should we wait? What garbage.

 

GROW SOME HIDE ISLAM! This wasn't the Virgin Mary in urine, or Christ under elephant ****, paid for with public money. This wasn't a protest of thousands endorced by a government calling for destruction of your nation and your beliefs ("Death to America Day" Iran?). This was just free speech. If you can't deal with that, you are hopeless in finding peace. Hmmm... that is unless they really don't want peace.... hmmm...

 

People should think very hard about how they justify the actions of terrorists who seek no justification for their own actions. And we should not tip-toe around the sensibilities of such people. They hold that against us too.

 

Bill

[Tormod]

I also dont agree with violence but some people do.

I know that I would be annoyed because I remember how annoyed I was when Thatcher made islamic countries unsafe for me by allowing the bombing of Libya.

 

But see - this is an act of war, brought upon Libya by the Government of England. It was not brought about by articles in a newspaper.

 

If our government went to war against someone I would most definitely understand it if the "someone" chose to fight back.