The Muslim protest

[Scurrilous]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/679107.html

<snip>

"The violence that has accompanied the outbreaks of protest in the Arab and Muslim world against European countries in which caricatures of the prophet Mohammed were published deserves harsh denunciation. The torching of embassies, the commercial boycotts, the kidnappings, the beatings and certainly the calls for murdering the desecrators of Islam must be condemned.

Nevertheless, it is impossible not to understand the feelings of insult among Muslims worldwide, including in the territories and in Israel. The West's preaching of the value of multiculturalism cannot be taken seriously if it does not include both religious and secular people, members of different communities, religious minorities and Muslims and Christians alike. No society can remain apathetic to offensive publications that insult values held sacred by certain groups within it.

The publication of these cartoons was a display of insensitivity - and so was their reprinting by various European media outlets, which sought to express solidarity with those responsible for the initial publication."

<snip>

"The publishers argued that they have the right to publish these drawings, in the name of freedom of expression and to protest the self-censorship that Europeans are imposing on themselves with respect to Islam. But even freedom of expression - noble though it is - requires limits. Jewish communities worldwide, and even the official Israeli government, have always been sensitive to, and protested vigorously against, anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish publications throughout the world. In this context, Israel has no right to adopt a discriminatory policy - especially since it is usually in the forefront of those hurt by such publications."

[rudeboy666]

1. 'freedom has limits'

Of course, freedom of expression(e.g. speech) has limits.

You cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.

You cannot libel someone.

However, the above cases are exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression. Otherwise, offensive, vulgar, blasphemous, etc. speech is protected by the principle of freedom.

Granted, sometimes there is a conflict between protecting freedom and protecting sensitivities. In this conflict, freedom of expression should be primary.

[Tom Joad]

4. Compare this with the US response when it was offended by Al Jazeera

Because it has broadcast the truth about what is happening in the Middle East... the massive destruction of Fallujah, and so on, this media outlet is itself a target of US warplanes. The US bombed offices in Afghanistan, Bush supported bombing offices in Qatar. Israel has its own history of attacking journalists. Remember James Miller? There were other instances where the Israeli military deliberately attacked media offices.

So you might just say, well, then they are all wrong. Maybe. Certainly in some sense I would agree.
Still, i think we need to look at the context. it is the US and European nations that at this moment are conducting a brutal occupation of Iraq, that is done things that no civilized nation or entity should do:
Started a war of aggression
Engaged in torture (there is nothing new in this... check out the history of the Vietnam War, the idea of the use of torture by the US is not the original idea of this Administration)
Engaged in collective punishment of the civilian people of Iraq.
Kidnapped Wives of "wanted" men to force them to give themselves up
The use of White Phosphorus against civilians, which constitutes a war crime.

It just seems incongruous for people to speak in defense of "free speech" applying to cartoons that denigrate a whole people, who are at this moment under such attack and the object of "official hatred" for the purposes of making it easier of expanding empire that will benefit the few.

What we must do is speak clearly for a world where the powerful are not allowed to attack, with bombers and occupation troops, the weak, the powerless, the masses of men and women who want nothing more than their dignity that all people are entitled.

It is hallow to speak of ideals like "freedom of speech" unless we do all we can to stop the war in Iraq, US support for the military occupation of Palestine, and the barbaric practices of our own government.

"The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government." Martin Luther King, 1967 Speaking of the violent regime of President Johnson.

[Igel]

2. No society can remain apathetic to perceptions of

fear and intimidation, and coerced respect in the name of one's god and compulsion of religious tenets on non-believers.

One cannot take seriously the claims to respectability on the part of adherents of a religion who do not feel embarrassment at having the perception that their religion is intimidating or intolerant. Ignoring or denying these perceptions is a display of insensitivity to values held dear by certain groups within it, shows deep disdain and contempt for the beliefs of others while simultaneously affirming the supremacy of one's own beliefs.

All groups are free to protest, within the bounds of legality and the minimum required degree of respect. All groups are free to present themselves as tolerant or desirous of not giving offence. All groups are free to present themselves as self-centered, hypocritical and intolerant. However, if all groups present themselves that way, society is too fractured to be termed a society; and if most groups feel compelled to submit to the dictates of a small number, it is not possible to term it free.

There is a prior offense, but before we even consider that, I've realized that first we must all agree on the definition of "freedom". Without that, discourse is impossible.

[Colorado Blue]

3. Here's a link to a Muslim site, which defines the Five Pillars

of Islam:

http://www.islam101.com/dawah/pillars.html

"Freedom" isn't mentioned as a primary value; but indeed it appears that adherence to a set of precepts or rules is central to the religion.

Perhaps this puts Muslims in conflict with our ideas of freedom?

On the other hand, MOST religions rely upon dogma, rules, etc. So maybe this is a blind alley?

Also, I read an interesting post from an Arab participant on a Ha'aretz feedback forum. He said, in reference to antisemitic cartoons, that the Danish cartoons were worse because, "Mohammed is better than an ordinary Jew, because he was a prophet."

This struck me immediately as being antithetical to our own notions of democracy. The very core of Western democracy relies on the idea that ALL people are created equal - even prophets(?)

[Tom Joad]

5. For some reason, I don't give anonymous posts on

Haaretz much weight.

Your citation is not relavant. No more than saying the Ten Commandments does not mention freedom is relevant.

I think we should be fighting for real press freedom, not the "freedom" to denigrate other whole peoples, even while the US is bombing cities and using torture and all the rest. Let's start by putting our own house in order first.

Edited for slight grammatical error.

[Colorado Blue]

6. And would that include overturning hate law legislation?

There is a good reason why hate crimes and hate speech, have special laws governing them.

Victimization of small minorities is a problem even in the most enlightened democracy. Regard attacks on gays, on Arabs, on Jews, on black people, here in America.

We respect the fact that "democracy" and "mob rule" are separated by a very fine line.

One problem with the ungoverned internet, where anybody can publish anything - is that people DO. Hate sites, frequently disguised as scholarly and thoughtful purveyors of fact, are flourishing. They are nurturing and creating yet more bigotry. I don't know how this is going to play out but I suspect it won't be good.

The only antidote to bigotry, hatred and fear, is knowledge - knowledge and mutual respect and a DESIRE to respect others. Barring those elements, there's no line of defense against absolutist thinking and agressive pursuit of those considered to be inferior - or merely different - as we saw in Nazi Germany.

[Colorado Blue]

7. By the way - you would do well to pay attention to a certain

fact: people from all over the world and all across the political spectrum, take advantage of Israel's free press - often to mount vicious antiIsrael propaganda.

That is interesting, isn't it. One wouldn't see this on a Syrian paper, would one?

I give a lot of weight to what I see on those discussion boards. People on unmoderated boards speak their minds. Some of what they say is ugly and biased and stupid; but one can learn from them as well.

Meanwhile, do you have anything to contradict the idea that Mohammed ISN'T regarded as "better than" an ordinary person? Isn't that what this is all about?

[Darranar]

10. Of course he is.

And the same thing is true in every religion with holy figures, including Judaism.

[Colorado Blue]

11. "Better than"? You see that's just exactly why democratic

values and theocratic values can't intermesh.

Democracy states that ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL. This INCLUDES PROPHETS.

Otherwise just call them gods and get it over with.

[Darranar]

14. Then religion and democracy don't mix.

Because in pretty much every religion, some people are "holier" than others.

[pelsar]

13. real press freedom????

so does that mean censorship or not....who decides which information is denigrate vs satire...or should satire which makes fun of jews, gays, blacks, whitetrash, politicians be "outlawed" as being "denigrated" and who decides that...the Master censor? and which culture values will he/she use (trashing jews is ok in the arab press but not allah...is that a good censorhip value?...the egyptians think so)

perhaps instead of empty slogans an attempt to applying such "real freedom" would be appropriate.....

[Igel]

8. It leads to a dead end.

That's where I thought it would end. And probably has to end, as long as it's all framed in terms of religion.

Now, posting from a RW (much less libertarian) site is fairly verboten, but I'm curious: http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html was linked to at a RW site. I can't read the Arabic; I know maybe 100 words of the language and struggle with the pharyngeals.

Questions abound: Are the images photoshopped? Is the paper for real, and with even a superficial distribution in Egypt? Did it provoke any outrage?

But, mostly, could somebody post the translation of the surrounding text?

[Djinn]

9. none so blind...

"Freedom" isn't mentioned as a primary value; but indeed it appears that adherence to a set of precepts or rules is central to the religion.

as has already been mentioned, and even sort of acknowledged by yourself, it is not a primary value in any of the monotheistic religions and to my knowledge not in ANY other religion either, p'raps something to do with the scriptures of said religions being written in a time when personal freedom wasn't a big note item, d'you think?

"Mohammed is better than an ordinary Jew, because he was a prophet."

This struck me immediately as being antithetical to our own notions of democracy. The very core of Western democracy relies on the idea that ALL people are created equal - even prophets(?)

really? try telling that to your average Christian, that Jesus was just some bloke, no better or worse than any other

seriously that was one of the more stretching posts I've seen here over the last few years and that's saying something :eyes:

[Colorado Blue]

12. No, I think it's an important distinction. Jesus is considered

a god, worshipped as a god. This is why Jews aren't Christians.

And, democracy says that people are all equal.

Respect for the average person, for the small person, has to be the same as respect for the great person. Otherwise there can be no democracy.

There's an inherent conflict here.