Why has a cartoon turned into a crisis? (by Indian Muslim Haroon Siddiqui)

[Harper_is_Bush]

We like making sweeping declarations about freedom of speech but that right is fettered by laws of libel and hate, and other factors.

In newspapers, cartoons are routinely rejected for reasons of taste or because they may be unfair or unnecessarily hurtful. A good editor errs on the side of pushing the limits of freedom. But on occasion, she says no.

The artist may not like the call but must live with it. The drawing is his but the space in which it is to run is the newspaper’s.

The Star’s legendary cartoonist Dunc Macpherson once argued that I was misguided to have axed his day’s work on the basis that his premise was all wrong. “Artists are not bound by facts,” he growled. But the paper is, I said.

The Danish paper that invoked freedom of speech to justify caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad is, thus, only half right. But let’s say that it did have an absolute right. Equally, though, Muslims had a right to be offended. Defenders of the first principle have had difficulty acknowledging the second.

“Why the fuss? These are only cartoons,” many said of the Arab boycott of Danish products.

The peaceful consumer revolt was a legitimate response (until overtaken by gun-toting hotheads issuing dire warnings).

Yet many Europeans derided the boycott, with the unmistakable underlying message: “We can treat you the way we want and thou shall shut up.”

read rest here:
http://www.vijaysappani.com/myblog/?p=172

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Excellent article

I hope others follow the link and read it all, especially the history of European/Muslim relations. I would like to share the last two paragraphs:

Conversely, the criticism from Arabs/Muslims has sounded hypocritical, given their own intolerance and an ongoing anti-Israeli polemic. Much of that is encouraged by unelected, despotic governments keen on diverting domestic anger abroad.

This context shows there is a great deal of mutual ignorance. However, it does not prove any inherent incompatibility between Muslims and non-Muslims, as extremists on both sides would have us believe.


Let us remember that behind a controversy like this there is almost always at least one hidden agenda.

[Telly Savalas]

3. That guy is a regular columnist for the Toronto Star

So if you want to check out more of his work, I think the link is www.torontostar.ca

[Harper_is_Bush]

9. I wish others would read it also. I don't think it's exciting enought tho

not about Cheney and his shooting or violent demonstrations.

[Boojatta]

2. Punishing a whole country

“Why the fuss? These are only cartoons,” many said of the Arab boycott of Danish products.

The peaceful consumer revolt was a legitimate response...

If one Irish man committed a crime in New York City, then would it be a legitimate response for employers to put up signs saying "We do not hire Irish"?

[Harper_is_Bush]

4. Hardly the same thing

The Danish government refused to meet with a delegation before any of the violence bullshit started.

It's too bad that all of Denmark is punnished, but "peaceful consumer revolt" is a legitimate response IMO.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. Yes, marches, LTTE, boycotts are the way to go

if something happens that you disagree with. I think back to the time I boycotted grapes in support of Caesar Chaves, the times I've signed petitions, etc. Everyone is rightfully condemning the violence that has ensued, but I think legitimate peaceful protests must be allowed-otherwise, where is free speech?

[Boojatta]

8. Are we talking about the same thing?

...I think legitimate peaceful protests must be allowed--otherwise, where is free speech?

My question was whether or not economic boycott of Denmark was a legitimate response.

If someone who has red hair sells you a product for $100 and you later find out that you could have bought the exact same product for $40, then it would be perfectly legal for you, when hunting for a job, to refuse to be interviewed by anyone who has red hair. However, do you think that would be a legitimate response?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. It doesn't matter what I think

What matters is that that particular person thinks it is the right thing to do. He or she is not breaking the law, but simply choosing not to purchase a product. I have plenty of conservative acquaintences who thought I was silly to boycott lettuce and grapes years ago, and others who now think it is nuts that I will go out of my way to spend my money at local merchants instead of going to the Wal-Mart superstore. And I have friends who work at Wal-Mart. By not shopping there, to their minds, I'm hurting them, and they aren't responsible for Wal-Mart's policies. Why hurt us just because you don't like what comes out of corporate headquarters in Bentonville, they ask. I do it because it's the only way I know to legitamately register my displeasure with the corporate decisions of Wal-Mart.

Just so, the government of Denmark did some things that I feel exaserbated the situation (see other threads here). Also, from what I have read here and elsewhere (see NY Times op-ed piece over the weekend), Denmark may have a reputation of tolerance, but that is not the case recently. According to the Times op-ed piece, Muslims were denied a permit to build a Mosque in Copenhagen, and Muslims are not allowed to be buried in that nation. So I see a problem with the government as a whole, and have no problems with supporting this boycott.

[Igel]

16. The op-ed piece, I seem to recall, said

there were no Muslim graveyards in Denmark.

I have to assume there are some sort of requirements for declaring cemetary to be "Muslim-ready", and these are not being met. I doubt the existing cemetaries, to a plot, reject Muslims; I'm guessing (and would appreciate clarification) that there are Muslims that reject being buried in non-Muslim "consecrated" ground. Whatever "consecrated" means. Perhaps it's a Sunni/Shi'ite thing?

I also vaguely recall reading that one reason for the Danish government's not meeting was that punishment was on the agenda, and the Danish government didn't want to be put in the position of saying "no" to the demands. It would have lead to the same sort of strong-arming.

IMHO, the abortive French boycott had more justification: it was the attempt to change a government policy, in a country where the officials are freely elected. Here, they're boycotting farmers and exporters for the purported transgressions of a regional newspaper, over which the government, also IMHO, should have no control. Presumably the justification would have to be to get the farmers/exporters to pressure the newspaper to unpublish the cartoons, or promise never to portray the terrorists' and intimidaters' version of Muhammed.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. Muslim graveyards

don't have to be seperate from other graveyards, nor do they have to have any special preparation. I know this because my uncle and stepfather are buried in a cemetery in Southern Illinois that includes a section for Muslims. In fact, the Muslim section is right next to the Jewish section there. I talked with the funeral director who manages the cemetery, and found out quite a bit about it. As far as I know, the majority of Muslims buried there are Sunnis or Shias; I know there are very few, if any, Sufis in that area where I lived for nearly 20 years.

Your last remark appears to me to be a bit unclear. What do you mean by "the terrorists' and intimdaters' version of Muhammed"?

[Boojatta]

11. Obviously, legitimate peaceful protests must be allowed.

The question is: if a protest is both peaceful and legal then can we conclude that it is a legitimate response?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. As long as it is peaceful and legal, we must

allow it to go on. We don't have to believe it is a legitimate response (look at Fred Phelps!), but just as we Muslims have been reminded, freedom of speech means allowing expression we find personally distasteful. Perhaps what could be done is that people on both sides of the cartoon issue (that the cartoons were ok, that the cartoons were extremely hateful and disgusting) could open up a dialog. This has started here at DU, where more and more people are looking not at the cartoons and the Muslim response but the motives behind publishing them and creating a row at this time. I think this dialog has been extremely instructive.

[Boojatta]

10. Did the Danish government refuse to answer questions or did it simply

refuse to meet in person?

Would simply meeting with the delegation have satisfied people and prevented them from staging a boycott? Alternatively, was the Danish government expected to do something to punish the publisher?

Is the boycott intended to punish the Danish government and not intended to punish Danish businesses?

[Harper_is_Bush]

12. The information about that particular situation is out there...

I'm not really interested.

The point that all of Denmark is hurt by a boycott is unimportant. Boycotts always have unintended victims.

Did you read the topic link?

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

19. why should they have???

They don't control the newspaper; the press is not a state-controlled entity in Denmark, therefore the Danish government has absolutely no business in meeting anyone.

If the press is truly independent of government, why is government suddenly involved? It should not be.

[Harper_is_Bush]

22. That is beside the point

why should they not have?

It was an intentional slight. There was no reason not to meet.

[Harper_is_Bush]

5. "Europe's 20 million Muslims have borne the brunt of this Islamophobia"

Europe’s 20 million Muslims have borne the brunt of this Islamophobia, from rightwing anti-immigrant parties and conservative media. Here’s a sample from the Danish People’s Party: “Muslims who come here reject our culture. Muslim immigration is a way for Muslims to conquer us, just as they have done for the past 1,400 years.”

Add to all this some contemporary realities affecting Muslims.

Iraq was illegally and unjustly invaded and remains occupied, with contemptuous disregard for Iraqi lives. Palestinians have just been warned they may be starved because they dared to elect Hamas. Iran is being isolated over its nuclear intentions, even though it has not violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has signed, while non-signatories Israel and India enjoy full American backing.

[tocqueville]

6. obviously not upset by the nude painting of Hindu Gods by Muslim artist

the blowing up of Bhuddas by Talibans...

When a Muslim paints nude Hindu gods
By Siddharth Srivastava

NEW DELHI - Fortunately, there have not been virulent protests in India against the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, though close to 150 million Muslims reside in the country. However, attention is being drawn to Hindu fundamentalists taking umbrage at India's top artist, M F Husain, who has been booked by police for "hurting sentiments of people" with paintings that depict nude gods.

The tirade against Husain also puts into question the often-held perception that Islam is the least tolerant of all religions to any act that is perceived as blasphemy. Fringe elements exist everywhere, though it is also true that the extent and intensity of protests by some of those who follow Islam set the religion apart.

Last year, Husain's painting The Last Supper sold through an online purchase for US$2 million, the highest ever by an Indian. He is more than 90 years old, sprightly, very creative, known for quirks such as walking barefoot and having an obsession for Bollywood actresses, prominent among them being Madhuri Dikshit, whom he has painted as well as featured in a movie.

He is not new to controversy and has invited the ire of right-wing sections in the past because of his naked and provocative paintings of various Hindu deities (Durga, Sita, Draupadi, Saraswati), though such depictions are very much part of Indian heritage, whether at Khajuraho or the Konark Sun Temple.

read the whole article, it"s worth it

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HB11Df06.html

[RapidCreek]

15. It's a cartoon

Let's make one with jesus carrying an M-16 blasting Muslim kids. That's what our military is doing right now...whether directly or indirectly. That bit of film we witnessed with the British troops beating two children who threw some rocks is hardly a documentation of something which happens rarely. It happens quite frequently. What happens rarely is it's taping or filming. Why aren't our Muslim friends demonstrating over that? That would be worth demonstrating over. Unfortunately it happens with such regularity that it's not an issue to them anymore. Nope, some silly assed cartoon is.

For christs sake, Muslims (or browned skinned people) do have quite a few valid complaints....being suckered into making this one ain't one though. These people live in free countries. If they don't appreciate their Deity being made fun of then they should make fun of the christian one, they should not be burning cars and businesses, smashing windows and other ridiculous shit. You see that IS NOT peaceful. Far from it. The sons of bitches should be boxed up and sent back to where ever they came from. I mean this. I really truly do.

More to the point though, I hardly believe that the Muslim Deity would appreciate these types of things being done in it's name. Much the same as the Christian one. Religion, it is demonstrated once again, is nothing more than an excuse to feel justified in ones degrading of others. In that regard Muslims have quite a bit in common with Christians it would appear.

RC

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. Perhaps what needs to be done is this:

Taken from an article in the Dec. 2005 WSJ by a brother Sufi from Indonesia:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007743&mod=RSS_Opinion_Journal&ojrss=frontpage

Only by recognizing the problem , putting an end to the bickering within and between nation-states, and adopting a coherent long-term plan (executed with international leadership and commitment) can we begin to apply the brakes to the rampant spread of extremist ideas and hope to resolve the world's crisis of misunderstanding before the global economy and modern civilization itself begin to crumble in the face of truly devastating attacks.

Muslims themselves can and must propagate an understanding of the "right" Islam, and thereby discredit extremist ideology. Yet to accomplish this task requires the understanding and support of like-minded individuals, organizations and governments throughout the world. Our goal must be to illuminate the hearts and minds of humanity, and offer a compelling alternate vision of Islam, one that banishes the fanatical ideology of hatred to the darkness from which it emerged.

This is what I am trying to do, with the help of folks here at DU.

[genie_weenie]

20. There is so much more at work here

Everyone with a "dog in the fight" wants to set the rules in this debate.

Why? Because one way to secure victory for your ideology/your side is to set the ground rules.

Now to look at the link: (from Mr. Haroon Siddiqui)

By now, readers know that Islam forbids depictions of the Prophet. Non-Muslims can no more mock that than Muslims can deride some aspect of the Christian or Jewish faith. (emphasis added)

Why can't they mock Muhammed? What if my religion believes that Muhammed is the Devil? What if I believe the Devil is doing this to foment discord? I can't mock him because you say I can't? What if I'm an Atheist and I want to do a book which focuses on the military exploits of Muhammed? What if in this book I condemn his exploits as barbaric, sub-human and I equate them as terror tactics? Am I wrong?

The drawings were hurtful to a people who are, arguably, more attached to their prophet than others may be to theirs.

Okay. Muslims are pious. Great. What if I'm "more attached" to the Founding Fathers? And I hate the campaign (which I view as false and set up by those who wish to do harm to the memories of the Greatest Men who ever lived) which is being waged to belittle them. What am I justified in doing in response?

It also seems odd to me that the boycott of everything Danish due to the actions of some Danes
is not viewed as equivalent to the condemnation of everything Muslim due to the actions of some Muslims.

Meaning: Why is it okay to punish all Danes for the actions of a few?

Mr. Haroon Siddiqui rightly points out the evils done to indigenous peoples by European Colonialists and he denounces the Islamophobia of Europe. But, like many people he is simply choosing a side. And in conflicts, one always tries to portray his side as the aggrieved, the righteous, the slighted, the underdog fighting against overwhelming odds. It of course becomes necessary to exclude or ignore the evils and excesses done by your side.

Islam like most religions spread through violence, bloodshed, genocide, hate, rape and every other "tool" of war. Does that damn Muslims living today? Of course not!

So, what's the point? I don't know. Are there some things too awful to ever be uttered? Are there some images too terrible to ever be seen? What are the boundaries? Who decides? And what happens when some crosses these lines?

[Harper_is_Bush]

21. "Why can't they mock Muhammed? "

You're reading it wrong. Of course non-Muslims can mock Mohammed. That's not what he's saying.
The point is they can't do it and have it considered acceptable or non-offensive by Muslims.

[genie_weenie]

23. See I think the "they" of your post is telling

I was trying to get at the they and the terrible problem we as humans have of generalizing a diverse group of people as a "they".

One problem I have with the boycott message is it is a power play, designed to bring the force of the Government of Denmark and perhaps the UN down on a Danish newspaper. Boycotts are however acceptable displays, but that where it begins to go haywire in my brain.

It falls in line with the US forcing the UN to embargo Iraq. It didn't hurt Saddam one whit (it probably helped destroy his military equipment, but graft, corruption, and sloth were as much to blame) but it sure starved a lot of innocent Iraqis to death. That was wrong, and it irks me.

So, it comes back to the age old human demand of you shall not. I don't like when people tell me I can't do something, sometimes I lash out childishly, sometimes I restrain myself. But, I'm not a Buddha, though I try, it is difficult to have infinite compassion and forgiveness.

Look I'm not saying I'm right, it's just my stomach gets a little queasy with all the Vulgar Displays of Power going on in the world today...

[Harper_is_Bush]

24. The boycott is a civil act.

Of course it's a "power play". Power to the people.