Danish (anti)-Islamic Cartoons

IdleRich

IdleRich
I wondered what everyone else thought about all the fuss regarding this. It seems to be a classic instance of rights (freedom of speech) vs responsibility (not to offend) and shows the difficulty of reconciling liberalism with fundamentalism and vice versa, by which I mean saying "live and let live" won't do when the very act of living can mortally offend someone else.
It also seems strange that Islamic countries have demanded apologies from the leaders of Denmark, France etc when surely the nature of a free press means that these leaders have no jurisdiction over the papers. Or are they expected to apologise for having a free press?
Also interested in the fact that no British papers (as far as I'm aware) have published the pictures, is this due to reasonable desire not to offend or is it just fear?
Anyway, I'll stop rambling there but I would like to see what everyone else thinks?
 
D

droid

Guest
I totally support the right of anyone anywhere to take the piss out of any religion, so I dont think the cartoons should be banned or censored, and its interesting to note that many 'moderate' Muslims have come out in support of free speech in this case - the cartoons have even been printed in Jordan!

What bothers me about the cartoons themselves is their utter crassness, and seemingly deliberate attemp to offend. Depicting Mohammed as a terrorist plays up to the Islamophobic and totally unfounded view that all Muslims are inherently terroristic... the Christianophobic equivalent would be a cartoon featuring Jesus torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib or bombing a marketplace at the controls of an F-14... and even with the well known anti-semitism of Muslim and Arab cartoonists, I have yet to see a cartoon featuring Moses as a Shin-Bet agent, or David tatooing Palestinian prisoners at Ansar...

In my opinion, the editor of the original paper that pubished the cartoons should have exercised the same judgement he uses every day to weed out falsified and/or blatantly bigoted articles or letters rather than to put out something that is deliberately provocative and promotes an extremely prejudiced and utterly irrational view of Islam.

But hey - they're out there now - and even though I disagree completely with the message they send, I dont think they should be censored either.
 

milkandhoney

Well-known member
droid said:
What bothers me about the cartoons themselves is their utter crassness, and seemingly deliberate attemp to offend. Depicting Mohammed as a terrorist plays up to the Islamophobic and totally unfounded view that all Muslims are inherently terroristic... the Christianophobic equivalent would be a cartoon featuring Jesus torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib or bombing a marketplace at the controls of an F-14... and even with the well known anti-semitism of Muslim and Arab cartoonists, I have yet to see a cartoon featuring Moses as a Shin-Bet agent, or David tatooing Palestinian prisoners at Ansar...

that's almost exactly what i thought until i was alerted to the actual details of the situation. originally the cartoons were commissioned to explore a growing concern in denmark that fear of violent reprisals from radical islam was compromising freedom of expression. it was described as 'a test of danish free speech in the face of religious fundamentalism'. it wasn't, as i had thought, simply a case of an idiotic cartoon being printed in a newspaper.


i find it quite funny how arab nations think they're going to make any sort of impact by boycotting danish produce, a lot of which is dead pig and alcohol...
 
D

droid

Guest
milkandhoney said:
that's almost exactly what i thought until i was alerted to the actual details of the situation. originally the cartoons were commissioned to explore a growing concern in denmark that fear of violent reprisals from radical islam was compromising freedom of expression. it was described as 'a test of danish free speech in the face of religious fundamentalism'. it wasn't, as i had thought, simply a case of an idiotic cartoon being printed in a newspaper.

Hmm.. so it was designed to offend as many Muslims as possible and then printed as an attempt to deliberately provoke? :confused: Why not the hypothetical anti-semitic cartoons instead then? Why pick Islam?

Much as I admire the commitment to free speech, that seems like a remarkably insensitive thing to do considering the fact that Europe is (at least tangientally) engaged in the illegal invasion and occupation of a Muslim country...
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I think you're right Droid. You are allowed to print things like that but why exactly did they want to? "I disagree with what you're saying but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" in other words.
On the other hand, if an Islamic country printed one of those cartoons you mentioned would there be Christian fundamentalists burning that country's flags? Possibly but it does seem particularly strange to take revenge on all Danes for the actions of one newspaper.
I haven't read many moderate Muslims on this however, you say that a Jordanian newspaper printed the pictures but that was only to show everyone "how offensive they are" and the editor has since been sacked.
I must say I'm not sure how the newspapers in German, France etc have reprinted the cartoons. Is it in a spirit of "freedom of speech demands we print these" or have they just appeared in columns that report the story in a more matter of fact manner?
 

milkandhoney

Well-known member
droid said:
Hmm.. so it was designed to offend as many Muslims as possible and then printed as an attempt to deliberately provoke? :confused: Why not the hypothetical anti-semitic cartoons instead then? Why pick Islam?

Much as I admire the commitment to free speech, that seems like a remarkably insensitive thing to do considering the fact that Europe is (at least tangientally) engaged in the illegal invasion and occupation of a Muslim country...

yes i think it was totally idiotic too but meanwhile i really do think that their concern that western european values are being compromised by radical islam is legitimate. however surely they could have chosen more sensitive ways of exploring this issue...

i think they probably chose islam as a target rather than judaism because there haven't recently been any high-profile cases jews being involved in violent retributions on artists or writers whose work they considered anti-semitic.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I was agreeing with your first point there Droid, not your second which was written as I was writing.
 
D

droid

Guest
IdleRich said:
I haven't read many moderate Muslims on this however, you say that a Jordanian newspaper printed the pictures but that was only to show everyone "how offensive they are" and the editor has since been sacked.

Just saw that myself... :(
 

Paul Hotflush

techno head
IdleRich said:
It also seems strange that Islamic countries have demanded apologies from the leaders of Denmark, France etc when surely the nature of a free press means that these leaders have no jurisdiction over the papers. Or are they expected to apologise for having a free press?

Presumably, yes. Popular Islam in the middle east isn't compatible with freedom of any kind, as far as I can see.
 

Pearsall

Prodigal Son
Anyone who has yet to see them can see them here.

the original context of the publication was the fact that a Danish author of a children's book on the life of Mohammed couldn't find an illustrator for fears of violent reprisals by Islamic zealots (a fair judgment, I'd say!)

so, Jyllands-Posten commissioned thirty cartoonists to provide their own images of Big Mo, twelve actually provided them, and those twelve were published. Immediately, a group of Muslims in Denmark tried to take the paper to court (which the state prosecutor refused), and a group of ambassadors from Muslim nations demanded an official state apology from the Danish PM (which he refused, saying that he has no control over the private press). the story sort of percolated away in Denmark without really hitting the outside world until December, when a group of Islamists left Denmark to tour the Arab world, bringing with them not only the original twelve cartoons, but a variety of other materials they had collected (or even created themselves?) that were far more offensive. (see this story).

Now, of course, the whole thing has blown up (well, not literally. Yet). Frankly speaking, my opinion of Islam can be characterized as "it's fucking nuts", so none of this is particularly surprising to me.

Would I personally have published the cartoons? Well, in the context of the original debate in Denmark, I would probably have published the most innocuous four or five of the original twelve, to prove the point. Some of the others are just belligerently offensive, which doesn't mean that I think they should be banned, but merely that if I was the editor in question I wouldn't have printed them, just because I wouldn't want to be aggressively a dick. Of course, on a webforum like this I have often had fairly harsh words to say about Leftist Multicultists, but that is a different proposition, and a newspaper should be more sober and reflective than the sort of stuff you'll say in the course of a shit-talking argument on the net.
 
D

droid

Guest
Paul Hotflush said:
Presumably, yes. Popular Islam in the middle east isn't compatible with freedom of any kind, as far as I can see.

Not only that - but they hate our freedoms as well....


yawn.gif
 

jasonh

Newbie
Not a very good idea to publish the cartoons, but I would defend the right to do so to the hilt.

I wonder if Islam is a religion that has a major problem with representations of God? Christianity isn't (witness any church window). Maybe this is part of the problem...

A lot of the protestors have had a major sense of humour bypass. The fact that there were protestors outside the BBC waving signs saying "The West - Bin Laden is coming for you!" just because the BBC showed a brief glimpse of one of the cartoons was not the best idea, particularly with the BNP getting away with murder (figuratively) yesterday. Incidents like this give the hate mob more ammunition, if any were needed.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Not only that - but they hate our freedoms as well....

I guess that that's what I was asking really. Liberalism cannot just tolerate a fundamentalism that hates it can it? Is it possible for these different views to be reconciled?
The Danish newspaper was originally printed in Denmark and seen only by Muslims who had, to a certain extent at least, chosen to live or remain there which seems to imply some kind of implicit acceptance of the secular laws of the country and freedom of speech. They then use this freedom of speech to make their points which I find somewhat galling although of course that is the consequence of having that freedom, some people are going to say things that I disagree with and I have to accept that just as they do.
I know that in Holland the anti-immigrant parties base their attack on (Islamic) immigrants on their lack of "Dutch tolerance" with some success at times. This is unlikely to happen here of course because, as I understand it, the BNP and their ilk are rampantly homophobic and as an intolerant as anyone else. To whom exactly do they expect to appeal?
 
D

droid

Guest
jasonh said:
I wonder if Islam is a religion that has a major problem with representations of God? Christianity isn't (witness any church window). Maybe this is part of the problem...

Images and representations of Mohammed are forbidden in order to prevent any kind of Idolatry... or so i hear.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that the BNP hate so many people that they can never get anywhere in what is basically a popularity contest. I would be a lot more worried if they campaigned along the lines of Pim Fortyn List (must be wrong spelling) in Holland. I can see how their idea of restricting immigration of people who challenge the traditional Dutch ideas of tolerance can appeal to more than just extremists. Their message is, on the face of it at least, not "let's get rid of people who are a different colour" but "let's get rid of people who oppose rights for women and homosexuals".
 

bassnation

the abyss
Paul Hotflush said:
Didn't say it was, but that's where the biggest concentration is (whatever various middle-class hand-wringers might insist).

well, they have rushed into the old labour heartlands to pick up people disaffected by labours move to the right (ironically), so i take your point.

there is, however, a long tradition of anti-racism from the working class - cf. the reaction in the east end to moselys blackshirts. this should not be forgotten.
 

Asger

Matki wandalki
Just a quick note

droid said:
Images and representations of Mohammed are forbidden in order to prevent any kind of
Idolatry... or so i hear.

Apparently the Koran only contains a dogma forbidding images of Allah, not Mohammed. Up untill 1940 Mohammed was freely illustrated, with and without his face, but from that point the interpretation of the dogma started to include Mohammed.
 
Top