WSWS: ...anti-Muslim cartoons: An ugly and calculated provocation

[oblivious]

...The World Socialist Web Site unequivocally condemns the publication by a series of European newspapers of defamatory cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist and killer. These crude caricatures, intended to insult and incite Muslim sensibilities, are a political provocation. Their publication, initially by a right-wing Danish newspaper with historical ties to German and Italian fascism, was calculated to fuel anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment.

...The promulgation of such bigoted filth is, rather, bound up with a shift by the European ruling elites to line up more squarely behind the neo-colonial interventions of US imperialism in the Middle East and Central Asia....It is, moreover, a continuation and escalation of a deliberate policy in Europe, spearheaded by the political right and aided and abetted by the nominal “left” parties, to demonize the growing Muslim population, isolate it, and use it as a scapegoat for the growing social misery affecting broad layers of the working class.

...The events that have led up to the present confrontation make it clear that the publication of the cartoons was a political provocation. The Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, which first published twelve caricatures of Mohammad on September 30, supports the right-wing government headed by Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen—a government that includes in its coalition a rabidly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim party.

In the 1920s and 1930s, Jyllands-Posten was infamous for its affinity for Italian fascism and the German Nazi dictatorship. In 1933, it argued for the introduction of a dictatorship in Denmark.....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/cart-f04.shtml

Front-page explanation by Jyllands-Posten editor(the Danish newspaper that started this)

Honourable Fellow Citizens of the Muslim World
Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten is a strong proponent of democracy and freedom of religion. The newspaper respects the right of any human being to practise his or her religion. Serious misunderstandings in respect of some drawings of the Prophet Mohammed have led to much anger and, lately, also boycott of Danish goods in Muslim countries.

Please allow me to correct these misunderstandings.

...I must categorically dismiss such an interpretation. Because of the very fact that we are strong proponents of the freedom of religion and because we respect the right of any human being to practise his or her religion, offending anybody on the grounds of their religious beliefs is unthinkable to us.

That this happened was, consequently, unintentional.

http://www.jp.dk/meninger/ncartikel:aid=3527646

...

[jeannicot]

1. Starlinists prefer censorship

whoda thunk.

[oblivious]

2. Could you point out where in the editorial censorship is advocated?

[formernaderite]

23. I'm sure the Danish paper did mean to aggravate the muslim

population....and?

This is the fucking 21st century. If they want havoc in their own countries...so be it. But in the west we satirize and make fun of stuff. We also have offensive unpopular positions and opinions at times. Deal with it. This extreme reaction is curtesy of a smaller minority of muslims...the whole world is not going to adapt to them.

[JCMach1]

27. wsws are Stalinists....?

give me a break...

[Darranar]

30. WSWS is fanatically Trotskyist. n/t

[jeannicot]

32. what's the diff?

[Hardrada]

33. Lev Davidovitch Bronshtein Trotsky wished to export the

Revolution whereas Josef Vissarionovitch Djughasvili Stalin wanted Socialism in One Country, I suspect Trotsky had the better idea.

[Darranar]

35. Trotskyists don't excuse murderous atrocities, for the most part.

They adhere to the original tenets of Marxism, more or less, if one adds a tinge of Leninist elitism.

[oblivious]

36. Here's an essay by WSWS that may help explain it.

The contemporary significance of Leon Trotsky's life and work

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/oct2000/mtg-o21.shtml

Also Infoshop:

Stalinism versus Trotskyism

In the early 1930's, Leninism itself fractured in two distinct branches: Stalinism and Trotskyism. The reasons for this split revolved around the controversial policies of Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union. Previous to Stalin's rise to power, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union functioned on a democratic system (known as democratic centralism) and members were encouraged to form their own opinions. It was believed that freedom of speech and diversity helped strengthen the Party (and Soviet society in general). As such, a number of different currents of opinion formed within the Communist Party. The two most prominent of these were headed by Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky, respectively. Stalin argued for the consolidation of socialism in one country (even one as underdeveloped as Russia was at that time) and claimed that, due to the aggravation of class struggle along with the development of socialism, it was necessary to enforce strict Party discipline and eliminate all dissent. Trotsky argued that the fate of socialism in the Soviet Union depended on the fate of socialist and communist revolutions around the world (therefore supporting the thesis of permanent revolution), and claimed that Stalin's authoritarian practices were harmful and dangerous (therefore calling for more democracy, both inside the Party and throughout the Soviet Union in general).

Stalin eventually succeeded in gaining full control of the Party and the Soviet government. He went ahead with his policies, which became known as Stalinism. Trotsky and his supporters organized into the so-called Left Opposition, and their platform became known as Trotskyism. However, their attempts to remove Stalin from power failed. Stalin imprisoned, executed or exiled all dissenters - especially the Trotskyists. Trotsky himself was exiled, and eventually assasinated in Mexico in 1940 by a Stalinist agent.
http://www.infoshop.org/wiki/index.php/Communism

[Fenris]

3. Ah yes, the onus is so clearly upon the cartoonists.

They're clearly responsible for making those people burn embassies.

Damn these notions of free speech!

[oblivious]

4. The article is about the political forces and motives behind this.

It is not about the cartoonists.

[Taxloss]

7. What about the political forces behind the rampaging mobs?

There are two sides to this.

[oblivious]

9. True. Why don't you start a thread on that then?

[Taxloss]

10. I already have.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=322801&mesg_id=322801

Arab elites are fond of stirring up trouble against outsiders. It directs attention from their own horrible failings.

[NashVegas]

28. Two Sides? More Like 8

Or maybe it's just the Libra in me ...

First you have the cartoonists who were asked to provide illustrations for what we are told was to be a relatively harmless book on the life of Mohammed.

Then you have the newspaper or whomever it was who publicized that fact, and made what may have been a provoking call for cartoonists to submit to them depictions of Mohammed.

I think it's a safe guess that the publisher of the original book, unless it was their intention to provoke, would have ixnayed pretty much all of the cartoons the paper published.

Now. That does not, IMO, de-legitimize the cartoons themselves. While hardly any of them have the insighfulness of say, Rex Rabin, there are a couple that are quite telling. Overall what shows is how unimpressed the cartoonists are with Mohammed and his legend. That's expression and it deserves to be protected.

Now let's throw in some asshole provocateurs: The Norwegian paper that sided with the Danes, but did so in the most obnoxious way possible. And their friends who followed. The clerics who took the cartoons to the ME and added a few extremely obnoxious ones that weren't in the original collection.

All in all this thing is a cluster-fuck. But you're right about the political forces. The clerics and leaders in Islam who are provocating owe just as many apologies as their European counterparts. And you won't hear their apologies anytime soon, I suspect.

[Fenris]

14. Alright...

The implication in the article is that the newspapers are right-wing and their motivation in publishing the maligned cartoons was a calculated effort to "insult and incite Muslim sensibilities." Assume for a second a Muslim paper was to depict either the Hebrew God, or some aspect of Judaism, equating it with fascism or genocide or oppression (which they regularly do). And assume that Israelis retaliate by attacking anything connected with the country of origin, causing property damage and outrage from the rest of the world. Now, does the fault lie with the paper for publishing the cartoon, or with those who chose to react to it in a destructive manner? Even if the paper did intend to impugne Jews, the destruction of property and rioting is the fault of those who chose to react to it in such a violent way.

[CJCRANE]

15. Both are wrong

it's not necessarily an either/or situation.

[wtmusic]

16. Why publish stereotypical, racist cartoons in the first place?

Why would the paper want to lower themselves to that level? If I owned the paper you're goddamned right I'd censor it.

[oblivious]

18. The article does not justify the reaction. It explains the provocation.

[CJCRANE]

6. Since the Nazis there has never been the concept of

unlimited freedom of speech in Europe.

[Hardrada]

34. You are right. People get in trouble on eBay

for offering Nazi books in German and forgetting to limit sale to the US.

[Left Below]

5. Where will this (proposed) kow-towing to Islam end?

If newspapers must respect Islam and censor their writers -

Must magazines?

Must the motion picture industry? (sorry, Van Gogh answered that one)

Must NGO's?

Apparently, Muslims find pretty much all of the West "decadent". Let's just change our culture in order to suit them....

[CJCRANE]

8. So should European newspapers also

publish caricatures of black people and jews to protect the far-right's freedom of speech?

[Tom Joad]

11. Just because the West is killing, torturing, occupying their land.

There is no reason to be upset!!
What possible serious grievance could Muslims possibly have?

Killing, torturing, military occupations, control of other people's resources.... That is Western culture, and it should be respected. :sarcasm:

Reporter: "Mr Gandhi, what do you
think of Western civilization?"
Mr.Gandhi: "I think it would be
a good idea!"

[Igel]

25. So *that's* why the Danish

illustrators felt intimidated when asked to draw for a book explaining Islam and Muhammed to non-Muslims?

Because the US bombed Iraq.

Was van Gogh killed because the Mongols invaded Baghdad, or do we continue to seek even to China for the knowledge that will make the obvious irrelevant and the self-serving tru(thy)?

[Tom Joad]

29. Danish govt was part of the "coalition of the willing".

Joined Bush the Butcher of Baghdad in his self-described "crusade".
These things happen in context.

Read the newspaper or something. Please.

[Coastie for Truth]

39. Tom - Please read

- would Jews (not "Zionists" or "Israelis" which you distinguish from "Jews") be justified in picketing the Masjid on California Street near El Camino Real in Palo Alto? over this.

You know - some "Jews" and "Israelis" and "" actually support a two state solution and support ""

[wtmusic]

12. What happened to all those great 'N' word jokes about black people?

Must newspapers respect blacks and censor their writers?

Must magazines?

Must the motion picture industry?

Must NGO's?

Let's just change our culture in order to suit them....

(A little perspective on why your post is ridiculous.)

[Ms. Clio]

13. Yes, it's about power relations

It's quite one thing to lampoon and caricature the dominant group of a society--white Protestants in the U.S., for example. It's like the Boondocks episode where a black man tries to insult a white man, who just laughs and remembers, "I'm white!" and walks away.

It's quite another for members of the dominant social group to viciously mock and degrade minorities who lack economic and political power.

[baby_bear]

21. well put, Ms. Clio

This WSWS editorial really opened my eyes. This is much more than the "Just get over it" I first reacted with.

b_b

[Jim Sagle]

17. Trotskyite rubbish.

[oblivious]

19. Could you elaborate? Why is it rubbish?

[WinkyDink]

20. yeah, because it ain't no cartoon. It's the OBSERVABLE REALITY

right NOW.

[baby_bear]

22. Kick and re-kick!

This is an editorial that deserves consideration and debate. I found it fascinating.

b_b

[rpannier]

24. Interesting...

Especially since this dispute between Islamic countries and Denmark started before those pictures. There was a children's book on the life of Mohammad that was written by a Danish publishing company. They showed it to many Islamic scholars, all of whom gave it very high marks. But, they objected to the book having the picture of Mohammad's face on the cover and in the book. They claimed it promoted idolatry. So, they would not endorse the book and DEMANDED that the book not be published.
I am in the "Get over it crowd." There are elements within the Islamic community that are looking for any excuse to claim they are being abused by the west. They want the west to observe their Sharia's. If they don't get what they want they esort to fatwahs (Salaman Rushdie) and kidnapping. If the west criticizes their laws, their treatment of women, their demonizing of Jews, etc they get angry. But, they expect the west to acomodate them.

Source for the info on the Mohammad book controversy is Asia Pacific Broadcasting. This story was reported on last fall and has been re-reported this past week.

[enigma000]

26. When did these Socialists convert to Islam? n/t

[Darranar]

31. So only Muslims should take offense at bigoted filth? n/t

[enigma000]

38. I'm just surprised at their defense of religion

I mean, aren't they Marxists?

[Karenina]

37. Good article.

:kick: