Peaceful cartoon protest (in London this morning)

[Wordie]

Peaceful cartoon protest

By SUN ONLINE REPORTER
SEVERAL thousand British Muslims have gathered in London to protest the publication in other countries of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed.

A diverse crowd that ranged from teenagers in jeans and t-shirts to women in head scarves and senior citizens met in Trafalgar Square with an added intention to condemn the violence that has flared around the world as a result of the cartoons' publication.

...Media director for the Muslim Association of Britain, Ihtisham Hibatullah, said: "It was absolutely wrong to publish the cartoons."

But he said demonstrators also wanted to send the message that "the clash of civilizations is only promoted by fringe minorities. We see the future as one of dialogue between practices, cultures, faiths and ideologies."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006070007,00.html

Many of the protesters carried placards reading "United Against Islamophobia."

[Selatius]

1. It's always the greedy ones and the intolerant who ruin everything

If one is not starting wars for money, then the other is doing something like blowing up abortion clinics to convincing people to strap a bomb on their chests and go for a walk.

[Crazy Dave]

3. But if you've ever noticed...

...they never call people that blow up abortion clinics or threaten their staff terrorists. They don't even consider it terrorism.

[Wordie]

5. That's why this peaceful demonstration seemed like such good news. eom

[mom cat]

34. Such very good news. Thanks for the post. I believe that the

sentiment expressed there is what the vast majority feels. Only the shrill hatemongers want this incident to cause more bloodshead. I appreciate the people who organizied and participated in this demonstration of sanity.

[TaleWgnDg]

2. see also:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=224x1349

[Wordie]

6. I don't think anyone is advocating a *legal* restriction on publication

of material such as the cartoons, no matter how inflammatory. The Oliver Wendell Holmes material you linked to goes to issues of free speech as a matter of the law, which is different. Rather, the approach I advocate is one that urges the wisdom to exercise self-restraint, when one knows that one's actions could cause extreme harm.

Here's another thread that gets into why Americans have a hard time understanding what all the fuss is about, as well as some background info on the genesis of the cartoon furor:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2452036

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Blair was trying to introduce such a restriction a couple of weeks ago

but Parliament stopped him.

Changes made in the Lords now mean that someone charged with an offence would have to be shown to have used "threatening" language - rather than "threatening, insulting and abusive" the test in race cases. It will also mean that the prosecution will have to show "intention" to foment such hatred by the accused rather than intention or "recklessness" as Mr Goggins's compromise had proposed.

Whitehall officials argued that the bill remains viable, but that the Lords has raised the bar to successful prosecution - which carries up to seven years in prison. Critics said ministers had needlessly pandered to Muslim fears since 9/11 and 7/7 attacks, when existing public order law offered adequate protection.

As Mr Goggins struggled to make his case he admitted that the cartoons critical of Muhammad which have triggered boycotts and a political crisis in Denmark after being published there could attract prosecution under the bill.

"The straight answer is (yes) if there was an intention to stir up hatred or if the person was behaving in a reckless way about the impact of his behaviour," the minister told Labour backbencher Gordon Prentice when MPs on both sides pressed him for specific examples of a likely offence. The disputed cartoons included one showing Muhammad, the founder of Islam, wearing a bomb-shaped turban, and another of him telling suicide bombers he had run out of virgins to award them. MPs offered other examples - such as the punishment of death for seeking to convert Muslims - as possible problem areas.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1699343,00.html

[TaleWgnDg]

11. Au contraire . . .

1. Your post: "I don't think anyone is advocating a *legal* restriction on publication of material such as the cartoons, no matter how inflammatory. The Oliver Wendell Holmes material you linked to goes to issues of free speech as a matter of the law . . ."

My answer: Yes, those of the Islamic faith want to censor op-ed cartoons in private newspapers printed in sovereign EU democracies that Muslims view as "blasphemous" against their faith -- in Denmark, in France, and in other EU countries who have re-published these cartoons in solidarity protest. In other words, Muslims demand EU democratic governments censor private newspapers! Yes, this is an issue of law.

Not only is it an issue regarding
(a) censorship about those who want
(b) to push their (Islamic) religious views into EU law but it is also about
(c) extreme over-reactions to the content of Freedom of Speech/Press.

Extremist Muslim response to opinion-editorial (op-ed) cartoons -- cartoons, mind you -- is riots, maimings, killings, burning of buildings, boycotts of Dane goods and services, "cleansing" Danes and others from Muslim countries, etc. This is a "civilized" reaction to their religious demands due to opinion-editorial cartoons??

2. Your post: that gets into why Americans have a hard time understanding what all the fuss is about . . .

My answer: America? America has self-censored (some are frightened about killings, bombings, etc) printing the "blasphemous" op-ed cartoons. So, how the hell can we, Americans, know what it's all about unless we see the opinion-editorial cartoons, first-hand? Why let others decide? Which is why I published them in DU and which is why other sources should publish the cartoons in order to fully inform the public about this issue. This is what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was referring to when he opined his dissent "marketplace of ideas" which became the majority opinion in future SCOTUS 1st amendment free speech case law! "Marketplace of ideas" remains the 1st amendment free speech/press law of America, and justly so, too.

BTW, are you familiar with Falwell v. Flynt (yes, it was a movie too) wherein Larry Flynt printed in his Hustler magazine a cartoon parody of a liquor ad about Falwell being drunk and Falwell having sex with his mother in their "red-neck" out-house? The case went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Flynt was backed by every damn newspaper, magazine, publishing house, television and radio network across America. It had profound legal issues that could negatively impact all had "Reverend" Jerry Falwell won his case. But he didn't. Instead, Flynt won to the great sigh of relief to our 1st amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press. Extremist Muslims are in the same time warp as was (and is) the Jerry Falwells of rightwingnut religion-into-law America!

In short, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" which is the bedrock of Freedom of Speech/Press. (summation attributed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire">Voltaire, 1694-1778)

Think about it.

I will end by saying: Yes, moderate Muslims (and Muslim countries) should attempt to temper the violence of their religious brothers/sisters, as long as they do not attempt to negate freedom of speech and freedom of press.
.

[Wordie]

12. Here's what I think:

We restrict ourselves in our speech. We don't, for instance, as progressives, use the "N" word, do we? And I don't think most of us would side with anyone who did on a "free speech" basis. Even those progressives who would object to legal restrictions on the use of the "N" word would be loathe to defend those who use it, imho. I see these cartoons as being equivalent, so I am baffled about the vigorous defense of the Danish newspaper. Even those progressives for whom the free speech issue was primary would likely understand any effort to restrict use of the "N" word, and would probably include a statement of that understanding in any argument in support of free speech that they raised.

We have in this country laws about hate speech - speech that's so offensive that one might expect a reaction to it. I support free speech, and yet the issue of hate speech is one that gives me pause. (The Falwell case is entirely different in my view, because it was directed at an individual, not an entire religion.) Nonetheless, what I would advocate is self-restraint. But this particular Danish newspaper is known for being highly right wing, and there are indications that the provocation was deliberate.

I guess I'd feel more comfortable with the arguments on the free speech side if they were accompanied with a strong statement of the complete unacceptability of Islamophobia, which is what they represented.

[mom cat]

21. I think that your analogy to hate speach goes to the core of the issue.

Another analogy could also be made and that would be the yelling of "FIRE" in a crouded theatre. The "cartoons" were meant to insite and they did their job ... as those who ate familiar with psy ops would well know. Whoever hatched this plan accomplished their mission.

[Wordie]

37. Yes...

That's a good example. And the cartoons were clearly meant to incite.

I have always supported free speech, in fact I probably go further than many do. But having the right to free speech does not imply that as progressives, we are compelled to exercise it or defend it without question in every case. And even when we do choose to defend it, if the case is one in which the offense is obvious and bigoted, it seems to me that we should always qualify that support with a clear statement of how we also disagree with the offensive statement. I have not heard such from enough of those who are making the free speech argument.

[Igel]

31. I agree that respect and civility are a good reason for

self-censorship.

What about fear and intimidation? Does one respect it, or act against it? Is the atmosphere of fear and intimidation worthy of respect, or does submission to fear and intimidation further fear and intimidation?

Is it worth engaging in mandatory self-censorship over an issue today in order to not be harmed? Isn't this "essential liberty" in exchange for "temporary security"?

These are weighty questions. One should seek not facile, acontextual and afactual answers to why the cartoons were published, but instead inquire of the context and the authors and the publishers. Else we're contemplating our own navels and deciding that our bellybutton lint yields conclusions more valid than those resulting from the consideration of external facts.

Husserl, we do you proud.

[Wordie]

36. Want context? Here it is: RW Fleming Rose did this deliberately.

And it appears Mr. Rose is a bit inconsistent when it comes to the absolute value of free speeech:

...The prolific Danish writer and “father of existentialism” Soren Kierkegaard once said, “People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”

And what would his views be today when future countryman and Jyllands-Posten editor Fleming Rose decided to run caricatures mocking the founder of the religion of more than 1 billion people? It’s rather doubtful Kierkegaard would have been amused given his own writings. But what about Rose’s thoughts? Some say he strived for a message against self-censorship in Denmark. Most others familiar with Rose’s ideological views say those leanings were behind the publication.

Keep in mind that Rose refused to publish a British cartoon by the UK Independent’s Dave Brown that won first place in a contest. In an image inspired by 19th century painter Francesco de Goya who painted, “Saturn Devouring one of his Children,” the cartoon showed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon eating a Palestinian baby. Grotesque? Sure, but the idea of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb for a turban is also grotesque to many. Was the Sharon cartoon “racist” as Rose declared? Depends on who you ask.

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/26722

And there's this too:

News Analysis: Cartoons put form to immigrant debate
By Craig S. Smith The New York Times
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2006
PARIS: Europeans hoisted the banner of press freedom last week in response to Muslim anger over a dozen Danish cartoons, some of them mocking the Prophet Muhammad. But something deeper and more complex was also at work: The fracas grew out of, and then fed, a war of polemics between Europe's anti-immigrant nationalists and the fundamentalist Muslims among its immigrants. (emphasis mine)

"One extreme triggers the other," said Jonas Gahr Store, Norway's foreign minister, arguing that both sides want to polarize the debate at the expense of the moderate majority. "These issues are dangerous because they give the extremes fertile ground."

...But this did not take place in a political vacuum. Hostile feelings have been growing between Denmark's immigrants and a government supported by the right-wing Danish People's Party, which pushes anti-immigrant policies.

...In the current climate, some experts on mass communications suggested, the exercise was no more benign than commissioning caricatures of African-Americans would have been during the 1960s civil rights struggle. "You have to ask what was the intent of these cartoons, bearing in mind the recent history of tension in Denmark with the Muslim community," said David Welch, head of the Center for the Study of Propaganda and War at the University of Kent in Britain.

Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University in New York, put it this way: "He knew what he was doing."

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/02/05/news/ink.php

[Igel]

50. The first quote actually doesn't discuss the context of

the publication of the Muhammed cartoons, just another incident. Useful for framing, not for understanding.

The second is more useful. But fails to address the immediate context: the cartoonists, the fracas preceding their publication, or the issue that was allegedly driving their solicitation and publication.

The anger of the Muslims that protested is understandable. We bend over backwards to understand it. Understanding it is, I would say, actually required. I'm not sure we want to understand it entirely on their terms.

But we bend over backwards to refuse to understand that the other side may also have a point; this point gets addressed in some ways, but overall people tend to try to deny it. The fracas between anti-immigration folk and fundamentalists may be entirely racist: Arabs hate Europeans and Europeans hate Arabs. Or it may have a cultural premise. Or possibly there's something deeper that nobody likes addressing: to address any real anti-immigration gripes provokes an unreasonable outcry that few have an intellectual framework to address, to address the immigrant Muslims' gripes supports the intellectual framework that we're familiar with. This is disturbing, for the other side has no such problem. You can't hold a dialog if you cut out your own tongue, and if the other side (however we construe it in this case) rejects that you ever had a tongue.

[iverglas]

41. essential liberty / temporary security

Funny how so many of us here and elsewhere would frame the issue using similar words, but quite differently.

It seems to us that the people who created and published some of these materials were engaged in exercising a liberty for a petty reason (if, that is, we accept the reason given at face value) and at the expense of the essential security of someone else -- the people very foreseeably likely to be victimized by others whose hatred is legitimized by seeing it in print, or whose ignorance is reinforced by it and becomes a fertile field for other promoters of hatred.

Giving up one's own liberty to secure one's own security is one thing; exercising one's liberty in a way that reduces someone else's security is really quite another.

Your framing of the choice is valid if we go with your framing of the question:

Is it worth engaging in mandatory self-censorship over an issue today in order to not be harmed?

If we try framing the question as many of us find to be a better representation of the reality of the choice (I don't know how "self-censorship" can be "mandatory") --

Is it worth engaging in self-censorship over an issue today in order to reduce the likelihood of someone else being harmed?

-- I fail to see how any decent person cannot at least be given pause by the question.


One should seek not facile, acontextual and afactual answers to why the cartoons were published, but instead inquire of the context and the authors and the publishers.

I'm seeing a lot of facile, acontextual and afactual answers to that question, but they're coming entirely from the keyboards of the "it's just a cartoon!" crowd, and its their bellybutton lint I'm seeing spewed around these discussions.

It's Joe McCarthy and his 17th century USAmerican predecessors I see being done proud, I'm afraid. With a big dollop of Jerry Springer, of course.

[Igel]

51. I framed it the way the issue was originally framed.

It's the immediate framework that informed the soliciting of the cartoons, and seems to inform the drawing of at least a few of the cartoons. The ones that I find disturbing, but which don't get printed or commented on because people don't understand why they're disturbing.

Whether it plays into some larger fracas is beside the point: Do we not address an issue that is a problem just because the side that we are fundamentally opposed to looks to that same problem for justification? Only if we view everything rather too narrowly, in political terms, and say that issues of fairness and understanding are secondary to painting our political opponents, or the political opponents of allies. I can't do this.

If we assume that the only right way to interpret something is the way we, and not the cartoonist or producer, intends it--well, solipsism comes to mind as the proper description for that.

I object to the printing of racist and hate-inciting cartoons or "artwork". I objected to "Piss Christ", the crappy-Madonna, and numerous other things that incited ill-will. But I also understand why Serrano did "Piss Christ" and numerous other things. "Piss Christ" did not refer to my Jesus, but to others that I figure Serrano had a right to express his contempt for. It pissed off the believers in such a Christ. Good. They pissed off Serrano.

The cartoons were not just cartoons any more than a Tom Tomorrow strip is just a cartoon. They were expressions of how cartoonists perceived Muhammed, and of how they viewed some fundamentalist Muslims' interpretation of Muhammed. Nobody could get their thinking and views to extend beyond their own brain-boxes: The cartoonists had a very valid point, one that is less salient here, but palpable a few months after the van Gogh "execution" by someone that yelled out "Allah is greatest" and did so in the name of Muhammed and Islam. His Muhammed was a terrorist. It was publicized that other illustrators would not respectfully represent Muhammed to a non-Muslim audience in the interest of intercultural understanding out of fear of what some fundie Muslims would do. To take them as a dogmatic assertion of the cartoonists' beliefs is quite possibly narrow-minded and petty.

To hand victory to those that would intimidate, in the name of "tolerance", is to make "tolerance" something that can be coerced by the intolerant. This can easily lead to greater demands for "tolerance", similarly accompanied by an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. It may not do so. But if it does, it would be because those who initially yielded to intimidation didn't stand up for their rights. Whether the Danes involved did so properly is between them and their own Islamists.

To take them as necessarily expressing hatred and intolerance, instead of being a possible reaction to hatred and intolerance, is to assert that Syrians in Syria and Palestinians in Palestine have more insight into the mindset of a Danish cartoonist than any Westerner could possibly have, including those who followed the prior discussion. Not only do they have the only possible interpretation of their religion, but they also have the only possible interpretations of some "Other's" view of their religion. This is nonsensical, IMHO. What bothers me is that everybody assumes that the Danes had to be racist because Muslims were offended, but Muslims don't fear offended because people claiming to be Muslims created a perception that is loudly proclaimed wrong.

It may be possible to claim that the entire perception is rooted in racist views and beliefs by the Danes. This needs proof. I've seen claims, largely derived from what Muslims have told sympathetic Danes, but nothing actually dealing with the Danes perceptions. This, logically, is what need to be considered: To what extent are their perceptions rooted in fact and to what extent in misunderstanding and to what extent in bias and myth? Then they can be logically discussed, understood, and, plausibly, condemned. But that's hard, and facile condemnation is, well, facile.

[bloom]

38. Well said - I think it does go beyond mere "speech".

It's what that speech implies.

There is all kinds of discrimination possible in "speech". Like signs in the windows "No Jews" in Germany or in India (I saw mentioned on a blog) it wasn't that long ago that there were signs in the British shops that said, "No dogs or Indians". And less than 50 years ago in this country a simple sign with the words "colored" for a certain drinking fountain or restroom. Someone could say it is just letters, just "speech".

There is a lot of "speech" that isn't tolerated. And shouldn't be tolerated.


From an editorial in today's New York Times:

<snip>"What foreigners have failed to recognize is that we Danes have grown increasingly xenophobic over the years. To my mind, the publication of the cartoons had little to do with generating a debate about self-censorship and freedom of expression. It can be seen only in the context of a climate of pervasive hostility toward anything Muslim in Denmark.

There are more than 200,000 Muslims in Denmark, a country with a population of 5.4 million. A few decades ago, Denmark had no Muslims at all. Not surprisingly, Islam has come to be viewed by many as a threat to the survival of Danish culture.

For 20 years, Muslims in Denmark have been denied a permit to build mosques in Copenhagen. What's more, there are no Muslim cemeteries in Denmark, which means that the bodies of Muslims who die here have to be flown back to their home countries for proper burial.<snip>

But the real story is that they and their followers ran out of options. They tried to get Jyllands-Posten to recognize its offense. They tried to enlist the support of the government and the opposition. They asked a local prosecutor to file suit under the country's blasphemy law. And they asked ambassadors in Denmark from Muslim countries to meet with Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. They were rebuffed on all counts, though a state prosecutor is currently reviewing the case. But, really, what choice did they have? <more>

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/opinion/12burcharth.html?th&emc=th

I think it's a matter people wanting to live in peace with each other or not. This newspaper was saying that they did not.

Plus I think the matter is a part of the larger effort to demonize Muslims. The world needs a bad guy and for a lot of people it's Muslims. You see it here. People who would be outraged if similar things were said about Jews - another religious minority group - will say that it perfectly acceptable to sling insults at Muslims.

And then there is the war issue - BushCo needs support for his war.

[Wordie]

40. Thanks for the additional context, bloom. There's a lot that we are only

now learning about the situation. Jeez...no cemetaries or mosques.

And the part about how they were trying to resolve the issue for quite a while (all peacefully) puts to rest the argument about how there is something peculiar about how there was not any outcry when the cartoons were first published.

Thanks a lot for your post.

[alarcojon]

16. Your lack of qualifiers is telling

To quote you:

Yes, those of the Islamic faith want to censor op-ed cartoons in private newspapers printed in sovereign EU democracies that Muslims view as "blasphemous" against their faith -- in Denmark, in France, and in other EU countries who have re-published these cartoons in solidarity protest. In other words, Muslims demand EU democratic governments censor private newspapers! Yes, this is an issue of law.

Why not replace "those" with "some"?

[High Plains]

28. But they should say nothing about the offensive cartoons?

I'm a big free speech person myself. I defend the right of the newspapers to publish the cartoons. But just because they have the right doesn't mean they need to exercise it that way. Given the political context, printing the cartoons seems to serve no end other stir shit up.

You can gussy this up in the lofty principles of free speech all you want, but this was deliberate provocation plain and simple. Surprise, it worked.

And who benefits? I would say the warmongers in Washington and Teheran.

Newspapers have the right to publish the cartoons. They can legally be asses.

[mom cat]

20. If you could imagine the furor if someone portrayed a cartoon of Jesus

molesting children. The outrage would be thunderous, especially if it came from a source that was anti-Christian. I can see how the Muslims wuold feel offended.

[alarcojon]

22. Further, if such a cartoon were published here

I could easily see some Christian fundamentalists burning down some mosques, beating up people who "look Muslim," etc.

[mom cat]

26. Which is why hate speech of any ilk is dangerous.

[High Plains]

29. I knew a young cartoonist who was actually jailed for that in

Florida in the early 1990s. His name was Donny something. Since this was back in the days of yore before everything was on the internets, I don't have quick link for you.

He did something like 30 days, and a condition of his probation was no cartooning.

His cartoons were very, very offensive, but still...

[Igel]

32. If it were in the context of a pedophile priest or

minister scandal, would it be less offensive?

I think that if it came at such a time, and the fundies were wise enough to consider the context, the offending denomination would be embarrassed and engage in a bit of introspection as to what or who, exactly, defamed their Jesus.

If not, it means either they don't care about the scandal and the problem (possibly seeing it as irrelevant, possibly considering pedophilia as good, among other possibilities), or they're too ill-informed, selfish, or foolish to consider the context and its implication.

This can be carried over quite nicely to the fracas under discussion.

[iverglas]

42. uh huh

I think that if it came at such a time, and the fundies were wise enough to consider the context, the offending denomination would be embarrassed and engage in a bit of introspection as to what or who, exactly, defamed their Jesus.

And what about all the millions of non-fundies (RCers in this instance, I think we mean, not "fundies"), all the Christians who have never molested children and would never tolerate clergy molesting children?

What would a "cartoon" of Jesus molesting a child, published in a major urban daily, say about them, and to them?

And what if the society it was published in were overtly hostile to Christians, who were a small minority and already disadvantaged by various social and economic factors, and that society included people and political parties calling for Christians to be expelled from the country?

If we're going to construct analogies, let's at least make our hypothetical situations passingly similar to the one they're being cast as similar to, eh?

This can be carried over quite nicely to the fracas under discussion.

And the fact that you and many others keep saying so just don't make it so.

[TaleWgnDg]

48. There is a distinct difference . . .

.
There is a distinct difference regarding:

1. the legal right to publish, i.e., to print, to inform, to draw art, to write in a blog, etc., under Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press guarantees; and
2. prohibitions against publishing due to subjective offensive content.

The first is a choice, a legal right to choose. The second is a prohibition, sans any choice to publish. The operative issue is choice, freedom of speech and freedom of press guarantees choice (with some legal restrictions only as to injuries). That's what democracy is all about. That's what our and the EU's and other democracies' Society of Laws are all about. And, that is what extremist Muslims want to prohibit, free choice due to a subjective offensiveness. These Muslims want to mix their own religious beliefs and its prohibitions into EU law!

An excellent example of constitutional freedom of choice despite content offensiveness:


Chris Ofili's "The Holy Virgin Mary" w/ elephant dung strewn upon a depiction of Christ's mother, Mary



Andres Serrano's urine soaked photograph, crucifix of Christ.

Offensive? Yes, to some. Published? Yes, because it is legally defined as art u/ our first amendment's freedom of speech. Did bombings happen? Burned buildings? Cars bombed? People killed? No, because we are a society of laws and respect such structure of laws and courts to resolve our differences. But apparently not extremist Muslims who react not w/i a Society of Laws but w/ killings, bombings, maimings, the "cleansing" of Danes from Muslim countries, etc. Some call it "culture" differences while others call it ignorance disguised as religious beliefs and the inability and/or lack of desire to evolve into an age which embraces freedom of choice.

All that being said, your hypothetical of a "cartoon of Jesus molesting children" would be offensive but not prohibited u/ freedom of speech and freedom of press. Parody (jokes) or art are not prohibited u/ freedom of speech and freedom of press no matter how offensive they may be. See, e.g., Flynt v. Falwell (wherein Flynt's Hustler magazine ran a cartoon ad (parody) for liquor of a drunken Reverend Jerry Falwell having sexual intercourse w/ his mother in a "redneck" outhouse, which was upheld as constitutional in favor of Larry Flynt).

see also: http://tinyurl.com/exm5e
(Jim Lehrer's NewsHour discussion of art and responsibility "artistic responsibility to publish," September 30, 2003)

BTW, you are aware, of course, that the issue is about opinion-editorial (op-ed) cartoons. Cartoons, mind you! Cartoons!!



See also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=224x1349
.

[iverglas]

49. the oft forgotten LIBERAL in "liberal democracy"

First:

Offensive? Yes, to some. Published? Yes, because it is legally defined as art u/ our first amendment's freedom of speech.

So what? Can you USAmerican types not try, occasionally, to discuss issues that are common to all of humanity without citing your own private dusty parchments?

Let's pretend you did, and ignore the "constitutional" bumph in your post. The concept of freedom of speech does not originate in your constitution, is not defined by the manner in which your constitution is applied in jurisdictions to which it is applicable, and exists independently of your constitution in the context of this discussion.

All that being said, your hypothetical of a "cartoon of Jesus molesting children" would be offensive but not prohibited u/ freedom of speech and freedom of press.

Yes, and I'm sure everyone needed that little lesson. Was there actually some doubt or disagreement on the point?

Now let's (as I and others have repeatedly suggested) consider an actual analogy for the "cartoons" in issue here: a "cartoon of Jesus molesting children" in a society in which Christians are victims of widespread negative public opinion, discrimination, social exclusion, economic disadvantage, and actual physical harm perpetrated by people acting out their irrational hatred.

Here's where the "liberal" in "liberal democracy" comes into it -- keeping in mind that this is a noun phrase that is not correctly understood by breaking it down into its component parts and announcing that what is meant by "liberal democracy" is neither liberal nor democracy, of course.

Liberal democracy is not made up of laissez-faire construct of liberty, or the majority-rule construct of democracy. It is a construct in which the rights of not only individuals, but also members of minority groups, are recognized and protected. Laws like those in the US that prohibit discrimination in employment or housing based on sex or race are not "liberal", in that they restrict individual liberty, and are not necessarily "democratic", in that they do not necessarily reflect the will of a majority at any given time.

There simply IS NO ABSOLUTE RULE that individual freedoms, or the will of the majority, trump minority-group interests, or public interests, in a liberal democracy.

In a liberal democracy, it is ARGUABLE that a particular individual freedom should trump a particular minority-group interest, but the REVERSE is also arguable, in both cases without necessarily violating the principles of liberal democracy.

NO ONE gets to say "my interests trump yours" and automatically win, in a liberal democracy. It may well be that this conclusion is MORE arguable than its opposite, and MORE consistent with the principles of liberal democracy, but it is not necessarily so, and s/he who claims the trump card must ALWAYS make that argument.

Freedom of speech is a principle of liberal democracy. SO IS protection of minorities from discriminatory treatment.

I AM NOT SAYING that any minority's claim that some exercise of the right of free speech violates its right against discriminatory treatment automatically trumps the right of free speech. (Damn, I get tired of saying I AM NOT SAYING something I have never said, but it often seems, sadly, to be as necessary a prophylactic here as it is when engaged in discourse with the demagogues of the right wing.)

I AM SAYING that no such claim can be countered SOLELY by saying "free speech! I win!"

If that were the case, all laws against perjury, inciting riots and advertising snake oil to cure cancer would have to be struck down. All claims for protection from the allegedly foreseeable harmful effects of such speech would be instantly and completely trumped by a claim to be exercising the right of free speech.

Cartoons, mind you! Cartoons!!

Yes, and the attack on the WTC was a plane crash, mind you. A plane crash!! Imagine anyone getting so exercised about such a silly thing.

I guess you wouldn't be one of the crowd getting exercised about cartoons like this:



Jew with an impaled baby, Mohammed with a bomb in his turban ... the message looks a lot alike to me.

Yes, yes, of course; you can perfectly answer it all by saying that no constraint should be placed on either the former or the latter.

But what I'm saying is that you need to offer some defence of that position that doesn't involve claiming to have won the game by a set of rules that simply are not what you're representing them as. Freedom of speech simply does NOT trump everything else, as a matter of plain fact; and the question of when and whether it does will always be a matter that can be debated in good faith.

Apart altogether from the theory of it, there's the practice. The victory claimed for free speech may turn out to be just a tad Pyrrhic in some situations -- like when your rules aren't recognized by the other side, and s/he clubs you over the head despite your claim to victory. How much more effective a little persuasive speech, used for the purpose of coming to agreement on the rules themselves, might have proved to be.

And it just might be useful, in that endeavour, to provide some assurance that what one is wanting to do isn't really just to advance a hateful agenda with the other party as the victim. And that's precisely where the publishers of these "cartoons" fell on their faces, and set back the possibility of agreement on the rules themselves to no small extent.

[demosincebirth]

4. I say, get over it!!

[smirkymonkey]

8. Hear, hear!

This has been dragged on long enough. Leave poor Denmark alone.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. Then you don't want people demonstrating against the violence?

I've read a lot of posts here asking what the moderate Muslims were doing about this. Now we have a post showing that moderate Muslims ARE doing something, and you say just forget it? Ok, then next time something happens and the extremists do something terrible, please don't come online and ask what moderate Muslims are going to do about it.

[alarcojon]

14. Strongly seconded

Exhibit A: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x383753

This is good news, and should be getting wide coverage. I keep seeing people on this site making hyperbolic statements like "why aren't any moderate Muslims denouncing this violence." I hope they see this post, and others like it.

:kick:

[KittyWampus]

17. Yes, that's why I recommended this thread. It's important!

[Harper_is_Bush]

23. Get over what?

You mean they should just decide to not be offended by the insulting depictions of thier prophet?

Muslims should just shut up and go home I guess, huh? Take the blasphemy and STFU?

[brentspeak]

30. They're "offended"? How will they survive?

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[Harper_is_Bush]

39. You win the irreverent post of the day award

:party:

[f-bush]

7. Finally and sensible protest!

[Harper_is_Bush]

24. This belies a stunning lack of knowledge about events.

There have been many peaceful protests in the last week.

If you're not paying attention, don't weigh in and spread false information please.

[f-bush]

35. I should heve said...

that was finally reported widely by the MSM all we've heard about in the small burg I've been in this past week is the violence!

[Wordie]

47. Thanks for the clarification, and you're completely correct about msm. eom

[f-bush]

56. Thanks

I was in a hurry when I typed the first post, thanks for calling me on it...to get my attention to expand in greater detail-Mike C.

[Spankydem]

13. I like that.....

I also love freedom of speech.

[Wordie]

15. Welcome to DU, Spankydem!

:hi:

What do you think of the issues I raised in post #12. I'd be interested to hear what you think.

[iverglas]

43. do a little search

and you'll see what our new friend SpankyDem thinks about these things. You might be surprised ... you might not ...

[Harper_is_Bush]

25. I think that is freedom of speech.

I'm curious, do you also like intentional and insulting blashphemy?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Wordie]

19. This issue is a complex one...not black and white.

Please read and respond to my post #12.

[Malikshah]

27. Wow-- this message alone shows how much further some

on this board need to go in terms of...whatever.

To refer to a group of approx 1.2 billion as less evolved than others...

Wow-- bigotry, eugenics, and hatred all in a few little words.

[iverglas]

44. a few little words

You mean, words like "jungle bunnies"? You know, the kinds of words people use when they are talking about groups of people who need to "evolve" ...

I feel a wave of nausea coming on, myself.

[Wordie]

33. More good news (Greetings from Denmark)

Greetings from Denmark

10.02.2006

Cyberspace has become an important arena for activists to communicate their opinion in the Mohammed cartoon case

Grassroots organisations in Denmark unveiled webpages this week that reach out to Muslims worldwide and offer their sympathies regarding the contested Mohammed drawings.

One page, anotherdenmark.org, had been growing at an exponential rate. Since its launch on Thursday, over 8500 people had offered their greetings and written short messages.

Lillian from Ikast in Jutland wrote: 'Hi all muslims . Hope for a better world where all of us can be accepted for the one we are and NOT what others think we are and should be. Inside we all are the same.'

The website included a letter printed in Danish, Arabic, and English that 'strongly condemns the actions of Jyllands-Posten that have offended Muslims around the world' and that called for an apology from the newspaper.

The website's spokesman, Nicolai Lang, hoped the site could show Muslims that 'another Denmark' exists besides the one represented by Jyllands-Posten.

'If we want to break down prejudices on both sides, then it's important to show that the majority of Danes aren't hostile toward Islam, and that there are many of us who believe that we can live together with respect for each other's culture and identity,' said Lang.

The organisers of the page hoped to spread word of their project by purchasing advertising space on al-Jazeera TV station to tell about the project, Lang told public broadcaster DR's internet site.

Another site, forsoningnu.dk (reconcilliation now), gathered 36,000 electronic signatures in its first four days of existence.

The website's designer, Hans Hüttel, a computer programmer in Aalborg in norhtern Jutland, organised an electronic petition that criticised the cartoons for showing 'a serious lack of tact and sensitivity'. At the same time, the campaign encouraged people to 'make a distinction between opinions expressed by a Danish newspaper and the opinions of the Danish people as a whole'.

'Everyone, in Denmark and elsewhere, must recognize that the meeting of cultures requires mutual respect,' the petition stated.

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/93863.html

[iverglas]

45. another voice you'd be interested in, Wordie

Links in my post here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2089742

to video of interviews with Asghar Bukhari, speaking for the Muslim Public Affairs Committee of the UK. Condemning the violence ... and the vicious speech ("cartoons") that preceded it.

[Wordie]

46. Thanks, iverglass...that's a great thread, and also

the comments section of the MPACUK link you posted were really good to read. Most agreed that the violence was the work of only a small minority, and do not represent Islam.

Link posted here for anyone who wants to follow up:
http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4/1351/103

I'm sorry I missed your thread earlier.

[meganmonkey]

52. You aren't supposed to post things like this

You can only post things that solidify people's stereotypes, you know, "Violent Muslim Extremists Set Fire to...." or "Protests Against Cartoons Turn Violent".

But pointing out that the vast majority of Muslims who are protesting are doing so peacefully...one might say 'democratically', ruins years of effective brainwashing!

Especially the non-Muslim London Mayor pointing out the context for the cartoons, and calling them "a calculated and gratuitous insult to the Muslim community, a deliberate provocation designed to destroy trust and understanding. Had such images, bordering on racist, been used to portray other groups they would rightly have been condemned as racist or anti-Semitic," the Mayor said.

Geez, Wordie, you're ruining the master plan, right before we start bombing our next country? Why do you hate America?

:sarcasm:

[Wordie]

53. Shhhh, meganmonkey...

...Agent Mike might notice.

Wave to Agent Mike: :hi:

Seriously, it's really true that there have been decades of derogatory images of Muslims and middle easterners in the msm, all showing them as crazed and scary terrorists, and that propensity sure was in evidence in this latest cartoon issue too.

I so hope that in the end something positive will result from all this. It does seem that the moderates are speaking out more and more, which is very good.

[meganmonkey]

54. Heh...

Hi Agent Mike! :hi:

[Megahurtz]

55. Their subject is getting REALLY OLD.

Due to the ridiculousness of their complaint and dragging it out for so long
I think that they're just making themselves look bad to a lot of people all over the world.

Enough already!
We got the message, just don't always expect to get what you want!