Muhammed drawings and free speech

[Tormod]

It is incredible. A Danish newspaper asked 12 cartoonists to draw the face of Muhammed, the Muslim prophet.

 

They did, and the paper printed the drawings.

 

A bit later, the drawings were reprinted in a Norwegian fundamentalist Christian paper.

 

Palestinians are now threatening Norway and Denmark with terrorist attacks, and are chasing citizens of these two countries out of the Gaza strip.

 

You can see the drawings here:

http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/

 

The Palestinian representative in Norway is saying that "this is asking for a war among the civilizations" (ie, Islam and Christianity).

 

Even Bill Clinton is saying that the drawings are horrible, and also that they are disprespectful of Islam. Bill Clinton even compares the drawings to zionism and anti-Jewish propaganda.

 

I can understand that some people can be offended. The issue seems to be that it is against the teaching of the Q'uran to draw the prophet.

 

I do, however, strongly support the right to publish drawings like these.

 

The Norwegian Secretary of State has (for inexplicable reasons) written a letter to all Norwegian consulates and embassies, telling them to apologize for the drawings when asked to do so.

 

I am so appalled by the actions of these militant Palestinians that I lack words. Is threatening with violent action a way to respond to 12 cartoons?

 

I am also amazed that 12 drawings are compared to endless years of persecution of Jews. This is a ridiculous comparison and smells of a lack of historical insight.

[InfiniteNow]

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...

 

 

Some might find these interesting anyway...

I really don't know why they call them "Brief Histories" since there are three, but here's some cool notes on the topic of Satirical cartoons.

 

A Brief History of Political Cartoons: PART 1

A Brief History of Political Cartoons: PART 2

A Brief History of Political Cartoons: PART 3

[Qfwfq]

I can't agree with you 100% Tormod. Free speach should be restrained from serious offensivity including offence of an entire religion; some of those drawings are acceptable and some aren't.

 

I agree about overly violent protest against sacrilege but many religious people do tend to react visciously, not only Muslims and sometimes even about things not sacrilegious. Further, it is wrong to portray the whole of Islam as being so violent. The extremists have given it such an image in the eyes of many non Muslims but that is the fault of only some Muslims and terrorism is an abuse of what the Qur'an preaches. To put the blame for terrorism on the Prophet is a lack of insight.

 

I am also amazed that 12 drawings are compared to endless years of persecution of Jews.

Who said that? I had heard of this story but I wasn't aware of this comparison having been made.

[Tormod]

Q, I have no problems accepting a disagreement on this. But the real issue is that we are talking about *cartoons* which are published in *Scandinavia* and not in Palestine or the Middle East. I refuse to accept that this is a religious issue. It is a political issue. Militant Palestinians (I have not said "all Palestinians" or "all Moslems") act as if they think they have a right to wield a gun in any Scandinavian's face.

 

They are blowing this beyond all proportions.

 

When people take up arms against printed matter of this kind I cannot look at it with anything but disbelief.

 

As for the comparison of this to the persecution of the Jews I have only Norwegian sources. But suffice it to say that several of our government members have said words to that effect.

 

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.

[Qfwfq]

You have not said "all Palestinians" or "all Moslems" but some of those cartoons implied it.

 

Whether it's in words or pictures, religious people take offence regardless of where something offensive was published. I believe free speach should be respectful and there certainly are limitations on it, including things such as libel and slander being crimes.

 

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?

 

Walking into embassies with guns is a different thing, you might expect that from the militants of a religion. I'm against such acts, even when they have been done in the name of Christianity and of Judaism.

[ughaibu]

One has to feel the magazine's motives were suspect, it's seems to me a pointless and provocative project and the result was predictable. If a Lebanese (for example) magazine published photo-shopped images of the Danish queen having sex with goats, some Danes would be upset and I wouldn't be surprised if the Danish government requested an apology. Commissioning and publishing these cartoons was at best the height of insensitivity and I hope that Danes will realise that. Cultural arrogance is indistinguishable from racism.

[Tormod]

One has to feel the magazine's motives were suspect, it's seems to me a pointless and provocative project and the result was predictable.

 

I agree with that. But questionable motives do not mean it should be outlawed.

 

If a Lebanese (for example) magazine published photo-shopped images of the Danish queen having sex with goats, some Danes would be upset and I wouldn't be surprised if the Danish government requested an apology.

 

Undoubtedly. But Denmark would not expel Lebanese people, nor threaten to go to war against them.

 

Commissioning and publishing these cartoons was at best the height of insensitivity and I hope that Danes will realise that.

 

A lot of Danes disagree with the publishing of these drawings. I however, don't.

 

Cultural arrogance is indistinguishable from racism.

 

I disagree. Cultural arrogance is much broader than racism.

[Tormod]

You have not said "all Palestinians" or "all Moslems" but some of those cartoons implied it.

 

My feeling towards this is, "so what?", but I agree that this is perhaps too simple a response.

 

I *do* understand that people are offended. I do *not* however understand why they feel a need to go to militant action. So I think we agree to a large extent, even though there is a disagreement on how far these drawings are taking it.

 

Whether it's in words or pictures, religious people take offence regardless of where something offensive was published. I believe free speach should be respectful and there certainly are limitations on it, including things such as libel and slander being crimes.

 

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

[ughaibu]

Tormod: I'm not suggesting that it be outlawed, just that the consequences were predictable and so responsibility lies with the Danish publication.

I also think the action of the Norwegian Secretary of State is understandable, if a member of my family throws a brick through my neighbour's window, I apologise. I dont stand behind the action merely because it was performed by a family member. Likewise, a right wing christian publication doesn't represent Norway and the general population as represented by it's government has no reason to support the actions of that publication.

Is there a threat of war? I thought it was a threat of terrorism. Of course I think there's been an over reaction but I'm not religious, so I'm in no position to understand.

You're right, my remark about cultural arrogance was an over simplification.

[Tormod]

Tormod: I'm not suggesting that it be outlawed, just that the consequences were predictable and so responsibility lies with the Danish publication.

 

Responsibility for what, exactly? That's maybe what's at the heart of the issue here. I just heard on the radio that 8 out of 10 Danes support the newspaper editor and their Prime Minister's decision to NOT apologize for the printing of the cartoons.

 

I also think the action of the Norwegian Secretary of State is understandable, if a member of my family throws a brick through my neighbour's window, I apologise. I dont stand behind the action merely because it was performed by a family member. Likewise, a right wing christian publication doesn't represent Norway and the general population as represented by it's government has no reason to support the actions of that publication.

 

Why should a Secretary of State apologize for something that was printed in a country where there is a free press? It seems pointless to me. He is effectively saying that "we are sorry that this happens but we don't apologize unless someone asks". What the heck does that mean? I sure don't know.

 

Also, I do not think it is okay to equate throwing bricks through a window (ie, destructive actions) with uttering opinions.

 

Is there a threat of war? I thought it was a threat of terrorism. Of course I think there's been an over reaction but I'm not religious, so I'm in no position to understand.

 

Not a threat of war (I hope). The Palestinian representative in Norway says that printing these cartoons is asking for a war between the civilizations. Militant Palestinians attacked a EU embassy in Palestine and are burning Danish and Norwegian flags. They are threatening our citizens and say we should expect acts of terrorism.

[ughaibu]

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.

[Tormod]

Yeah, but see, we can disagree but I'm not going to come over to break your window. There ARE people who would come over to break your window - all over the world. It has to do with culture but perhaps more to do with personality.

 

I am defending the Danish action in principle. I am saying they can print anything they like (with the exception noted below). I am not saying the Danish can break windows.

 

I do respect cries for taking responsibility. 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.

 

I also don't particularly like the conservative Christian mag that printed the drawings here in Norway. They are extremely double-standarded (they complained about a play that portrayed God as a smoker two years ago) and would never *dream* of offending their own readership.

 

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

[C1ay]

Free speach should be restrained from serious offensivity including offence of an entire religion.....

Sometimes I refer to Jesus as a "dead-man-on-a-stick" with the intent of being offensive to certain fundamentalists. Should that make it OK for christians to threaten my life or my family's for disrespecting their God? Free speech should be exactly that, free.

[ughaibu]

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?

[Tormod]

Ughaibu, you keep equating printed statements with acts of violence. I would consider someone shouting like that to be acting violently (unless I knew the person and it was an obvious joke).

[C1ay]

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?

Yes and yes. Censorship and violence are both bad.

[ughaibu]

Tormod: Apparently some muslims consider images of the prophet to be insulting, I would say the words of the stranger were insulting, not acts of violence.

 

C1ay: Fair enough and all respects to you.