The secular response to the Danish cartoon controversy

legspin

I am curious as to the thoughts of the board on the cartoons and the subsequent protests?

My own thought is while militants in the islamic world are looking for the destruction of western secular values and also the annihilaition the jewish state they are fair game. I am no apologist for Israel as I believe it should have never been set up, but as it says in the book we are here and this now.

Just curious:)

Zillah

Its a matter of rights.

A human right as promised by the constitution is inviolate so long as it does not impede another right.

I have the freedom of speech to say what the hell I like about Allah or Muhammed. Muslims then have the right to say what the hell they like about what I said about Allah.

When it comes to the point of people telling me "You're not allowed to say that" is the point where I tell them to go shove it. There is no such right as "Your religion must be practiced by everyone else" or "People are not allowed to say things you don't like". The way it works is, that if someone says something you dont like, you can respond.

Cronus333

Here Here!!

Stephen

Freedom of speech > muppets who can't take criticism of their religion

Check this out:

http://www.supportdenmark.com

robindch

Well, as a skeptic who's got no time for organized or disorganized religion, I think that this whole hoo-hah hasn't shown much more than the basic, even obvious, fact that there's far more hatred stirred up by religion than any of the more sociable aspects of humanity, all claims on behalf of religion notwithstanding.

Dades

I thought it either a mistake to publish the cartoons. They were not just poking at a religion, they were poking a religion with a reputation for being volatile and uncompromising. What exactly did they expect? (Or maybe they got what they expected).

It's not a matter of freedom of speech. It's a matter of comon sense. The cartoons didn't need to be published. There are other ways of voicing your aversion to a world religion than publishing cartoons guaranteed to have hordes out in the streets of the middle east shooting AK47s into the air.

Chirac said in France:

"Freedom of expression should be exercised in a spirit of responsibility"

But of course it makes great news, and there was no shortage of cameras worldwide to cover every reaction.

Meh. I might change my mind.

Beruthiel

I think the whole thing is a joke
sure
the cartoon was not in the best of taste, but how many times have we seen that type of thing before?
jesus cartoons happen all the time, I've seen more than one thread on boards with jesus LOL in more ways than one.
talk about an over reaction, it's ok to be upset about it, if you are, write a letter to the editor - but burning buildings, boycotting all Danish products in Iran is totally over the top

robindch

> There are other ways of voicing your aversion to a
> world religion than publishing cartoons

FYI - the cartoons were originally published because a children's author couldn't find anybody willing to draw Mohammad for a book he was writing. Wind of this got to Jyllands-Posten who then polled around for cartoonists who'd be willing "to draw Muhammad as they see him.", not as a way of "voicing their aversion to a world religion", but simply to represent Mohammad. The fact that a few of the twelve cartoons turned into political statements about islamic fundamentalism was hardly unexpected, nor was the one in the bottom right corner of the page showing a cartoonist clearly scared to hell to draw anything.

A good account of the history of the controversy can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons

binaryboy

Zillah wrote:

Its a matter of rights.

A human right as promised by the constitution is inviolate so long as it does not impede another right.

I have the freedom of speech to say what the hell I like about Allah or Muhammed. Muslims then have the right to say what the hell they like about what I said about Allah.

When it comes to the point of people telling me "You're not allowed to say that" is the point where I tell them to go shove it. There is no such right as "Your religion must be practiced by everyone else" or "People are not allowed to say things you don't like". The way it works is, that if someone says something you dont like, you can respond.

totally agree.

Asiaprod

binaryboy wrote:

totally agree.

I also agree with Zillah on the freedom of speech part.

But I think Atheist point rings more true with me based on the current state of things

It's a matter of comon sense. The cartoons didn't need to be published. There are other ways of voicing your aversion to a world religion than publishing cartoons guaranteed to have hordes out in the streets of the middle east shooting AK47s into the air.

Yep, that sums it up.

binaryboy

why wasnt there this kinda reaction whent the south park episode with "the super best friends" aired? watched it last night, its brilliant!

Dades

Beruthiel wrote:

jesus cartoons happen all the time, I've seen more than one thread on boards with jesus LOL in more ways than one.
talk about an over reaction, it's ok to be upset about it, if you are, write a letter to the editor - but burning buildings, boycotting all Danish products in Iran is totally over the top

Overreaction is subjective don't you think? Of course I believe that burning buildings is extreme, but then again I'm not a devout muslim. Boycotting Danish products is a good example of a peaceful protest that illustrates just how seriously these people take their faith. And that should be nothing new to us.

Re Jesus, let's not forgot that his image is one of the most prevelant in the modern world, not one expressly forbidden from speculation.

robindch wrote:

FYI - the cartoons were originally published because a children's author couldn't find anybody willing to draw Mohammad for a book he was writing. Wind of this got to Jyllands-Posten who then polled around for cartoonists who'd be willing "to draw Muhammad as they see him.", not as a way of "voicing their aversion to a world religion", but simply to represent Mohammad. The fact that a few of the twelve cartoons turned into political statements about islamic fundamentalism was hardly unexpected, nor was the one in the bottom right corner of the page showing a cartoonist clearly scared to hell to draw anything.

That's interesting stuff alright, although it doesn't change anything for me. The cartoons could have been from the Texaco Childrens' Art competition and would had the same effect if published in the communication age we live in. It sounds like it was an interesting project - but IMO someone should have known better to share it with the Islamic world.

John Doe

The Atheist wrote:

I thought it either a mistake to publish the cartoons. They were not just poking at a religion, they were poking a religion with a reputation for being volatile and uncompromising. What exactly did they expect? (Or maybe they got what they expected).

It's not a matter of freedom of speech. It's a matter of comon sense. The cartoons didn't need to be published. There are other ways of voicing your aversion to a world religion than publishing cartoons guaranteed to have hordes out in the streets of the middle east shooting AK47s into the air.

Chirac said in France:

But of course it makes great news, and there was no shortage of cameras worldwide to cover every reaction.

Meh. I might change my mind.

This mirrors my view on the matter exactly.

robindch

> That's interesting stuff alright, although it doesn't change anything for me.

May be. But you should know that much of the irritation of the Islamists seems to come not so much from the cartoon-element which we in the west would assume is the worst part of it, but rather the simpler notion of the representation of Mohammed in the first place, which as I pointed out in another thread recently, is as illegal in Islam now as representations of Jesus was during the Christian Iconoclastic period (roughly 700AD until around the last Iconoclastic riots dribbled it to a conclusion in the early 1500's).

Needless to say, there's a certain measure of religious hypocrisy in all of this, because Islam used to permit Mohammed to be represented too -- thousand-year old representations of the Prophet can be found at Dublin's Chester Beatty Library, for example:

http://www.cbl.ie/imagegallery/gallery.asp?sec=2&order=8

...and elsewhere. Just off to Dublin airport now, to catch a plane to the Middle East myself, where I will be staying stiocally silent upon the topic of the cartoons.

Dades

robindch wrote:

But you should know that much of the irritation of the Islamists seems to come not so much from the cartoon-element which we in the west would assume is the worst part of it, but rather the simpler notion of the representation of Mohammed in the first place, which as I pointed out in another thread recently, is as illegal in Islam now as representations of Jesus was during the Christian Iconoclastic period

Maybe that's my mistake then assuming everybody already knew this...

robindch wrote:

Just off to Dublin airport now, to catch a plane to the Middle East myself, where I will be staying stiocally silent upon the topic of the cartoons.

Good luck with the lecture tour.

the real ramon

From a (sort of) religious point of view I understand their anger, though not the burning of buildings, but that's mob mentality for you. Some fundies think my beloved Goddess is Satan's whore, if I saw a cartoon depicting her in that way I'd be pretty P***ed off too.

The quote by Chirac and the sentiments of The Atheist sum up how I feel on the subject. The cartoon seemed intent on provoking a reaction, which was irresponsible. A bit of respect isn't out of order. Imagine JC portrayed as a paedophile and some of you may see why the got so upset in the Muslim World.

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

I thought it either a mistake to publish the cartoons. They were not just poking at a religion, they were poking a religion with a reputation for being volatile and uncompromising. What exactly did they expect? (Or maybe they got what they expected).

It's not a matter of freedom of speech. It's a matter of comon sense. The cartoons didn't need to be published. There are other ways of voicing your aversion to a world religion than publishing cartoons guaranteed to have hordes out in the streets of the middle east shooting AK47s into the air.

Chirac said in France:

But of course it makes great news, and there was no shortage of cameras worldwide to cover every reaction.

Meh. I might change my mind.

Although I'd agree with you, I also realise its a redundant point. It doesn't matter if they needed to be published, or if it was foolish to publish them, or anything else.

All that matters is that the cartoonist wanted to publish them, and neither you nor I have a right to stop him.

Samos

The cartoons amounted to little more than petty name-calling. They did not present a cogently argued critique of Islamic fundamentalism. The reaction of some believers may not have been acceptible to secular values, but neither were these juvenile drawings a true reflection on secularism. They have set back progress. We should have been looking for common ground with those of faith in order to promote peace and stability, not ridiculing them for being different.

Zillah

Thats all well and good, but it ignores a crucial part of the issue. Do you think the cartoons should have been censored?

You present your opinion against the cartoons, and I'd encourage you to voice that opinion, but the crucial question remains.

John Doe

Zillah wrote:

All that matters is that the cartoonist wanted to publish them, and neither you nor I have a right to stop him.

I'm not sure about that. I don't think the right to free speech is an absolute right. In fact, I don't think there are any absolute rights. In a perfect world, no-one would be insulting anyone else's religion. In a slightly less perfect world, people would do it but no-one would care. In this world, there may yet (unfortunately) be a need for censorship. I'm really not sure on this issue so let's hear some good refutations!

Zillah

John Doe wrote:

I'm not sure about that. I don't think the right to free speech is an absolute right. In fact, I don't think there are any absolute rights. In a perfect world, no-one would be insulting anyone else's religion.

How then do you define religion? What if I mix religion and politics. Are my theocratic beliefs immune to criticism? What if my religion advocates the eradication of infidels? Is it still immune to criticism?

I think in an ideal world every one's religion should be questioned (and therefore possibly insulted...).

In this world, there may yet (unfortunately) be a need for censorship.

But the crucial question remains, who then decides what is allowed to be said and what isn't? A government body? What if your government is conservative and you're a liberal? What if you're government is composed of the Republican party?

My view is that the only way the truth will come out and everyone treated as fairly as possible would be to allow anything to be said.

John Doe

I am very tempted to agree with you entirely, but I can't get over the fact that the practicalities of offending people are still there. People are unreasonable, illogical and get upset easily. That may change, but for now it's true.

Dades

Zillah wrote:

I think in an ideal world every one's religion should be questioned (and therefore possibly insulted...).

Questioning a religion is one thing - but the published cartoons were hardly the way to go about it.

I don't think anybody is advocating censureship - just a degree of common sense. People's rights are not about to be infringed - they are just asked to be responsible with them.

John Doe

The Atheist wrote:

Questioning a religion is one thing - but the published cartoons were hardly the way to go about it.

I don't think anybody is advocating censureship - just a degree of common sense. People's rights are not about to be infringed - they are just asked to be responsible with them.

That's what I've been trying to say, more or less, but I haven't been doing such a good job of it. Zillah, you said that we can't take the right to free speech from the cartoonists. But then, what constitutes 'taking away a right'? The cartoonists knew that their drawings could likely provoke a violent response. They knew that there might even be threats to their person. Knowing this, it is clear that they did not have the right to free speech. At best, they ought to have have had the right to free speech. Surely there is a difference between ought to have and have?
I think there is, and that the difference lies in the practicalities of the matter. It is easy to say that the cartoonists ought to have had the right to free expression. It is demonstratable that they did not.

Yossie

From the Irish times this morning...

An opinion poll in a Danish Sunday newspaper showed that more than half the Danes questioned said they understood why Muslims around the world were outraged by cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad first published in Denmark.

But fewer than half of those asked thought it was wrong of the daily Jyllands-Posten to publish the 12 cartoons.....
- (Reuters; additional reporting PA)

You gotta hand it to the Danes. They understand, on the one hand, that it was offensive to Muslims, but on the other that there is a right to free expression. They seem to be able to handle the duality of that situation quiet well.

While I feel that, one/two of those cartoons should not have been printed, it is worth remembering that this began because fear (real or imagined) was forming a barrier to free speech. Fear is a very dangerous motive for any action/non-action. The confronting of that fear was justified, imho, but better editorial choices would have help matters a lot.

robindch

> Questioning a religion is one thing - but the published cartoons were
> hardly the way to go about it.

As before, nobody in Denmark was questioning the religion, though they certainly were indirectly questioning the "morals" of the people who support the religion. And people -- especially religious ones in my experience -- never seem to enjoy this every much, as the subsequent reaction showed.

> they are just asked to be responsible with them.

Which is why one should perhaps also question the motives of the people who seem to have travelled about various Islamic countries with the copies of the published cartoons, to which a few far more offensive ones had been apparently been added, looking for support in their attempts to ignite a political firestorm. More info on this story at:

http://www.benadorassociates.com/pf.php?id=19313

.

Thirdfox

Zillah wrote:

...
When it comes to the point of people telling me "You're not allowed to say that" is the point where I tell them to go shove it. There is no such right as "Your religion must be practiced by everyone else" or "People are not allowed to say things you don't like". The way it works is, that if someone says something you dont like, you can respond.

Sorry to get into the discussion so late... are you saying Zillah that the laws prohibiting Nazi hate speech and holocaust denial are wrong too?

How come the people who speak of freedom of speech suddenly turn quiet when David Irving is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for denying the holocaust happened? Mainly because they realise that no rights are absolute, to say that anyone can say anything is clearly wrong... limits must be drawn but the question is where.

SkepticOne

The Atheist wrote:

I thought it either a mistake to publish the cartoons. They were not just poking at a religion, they were poking a religion with a reputation for being volatile and uncompromising. What exactly did they expect? (Or maybe they got what they expected). It's not a matter of freedom of speech. It's a matter of comon sense. The cartoons didn't need to be published. There are other ways of voicing your aversion to a world religion than publishing cartoons guaranteed to have hordes out in the streets of the middle east shooting AK47s into the air.

In a narrow practical sense it was a mistake (assuming the editors did not anticipate or want the reaction). But fear of violent reaction shouldn't determine whether it is OK for a secular state to allow particular forms of expression. The purpose of having the right of freedom of expression should be to protect against such violent reaction. It would not make sense, imo, to have a law that allows ridicule of a meak religion but forbids ridicule against an agressive one. All that would do is encourage religions to become more violent.

Thirdfox wrote:

How come the people who speak of freedom of speech suddenly turn quiet when David Irving is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for denying the holocaust happened?

I don't think there should be laws against holocaust denial or indeed denial of any other event in history. No problem with Irving going to prison but I think the public good is better served when people are free to discuss issues even (perhaps especially) those we find disturbing. The laws against holocaust denial have probably increased rather than decreased the numbers of people with revisionist views since it gives neo-nazis the crutch of a persecution complex.

the real ramon

SkepticOne wrote:

The laws against holocaust denial have probably increased rather than decreased the numbers of people with revisionist views since it gives neo-nazis the crutch of a persecution complex.

This is entirely true, they will see themselves as victims and thus in a lot of their minds have a right to vengeance. This is a very human problem which most people would not be immune to if they felt persecuted. I've come to the opinion recently that it's probably best to tolerate intolerance for practical and pragmatic reasons. Often they're just looking for a fight, if you give it to them it's just more grist to the mill (is that the right phrase?)

pH

Irving now joins Fletcher who was also in jail for his beliefs.

"I'm only in prison because of my beliefs. I believed the night watchman was asleep."
-Norman Stanley Fletcher

In many ways it's quite apt, Irving publicly returned to Austria knowing there was an arrest warrant - he's in jail more for his stupidity and arrogance rather than his beliefs.

Still, I think the law is an ass, laws that make thoughts or ideas in themselves crimes start us all on a very slippery slope.
[edited for spelling]

robindch

> laws that make thoughts or ideas in themselves crimes start us all on a very slippery slope.

Correction -- Austria does not make it illegal to think that the holocaust didn't happen, but it does make it a crime to "belittle in public the crimes of the Nazis", as I think the phrasing goes; in other words, to run around the place telling people that it didn't happen. There's a crucial difference here which you're missing; compare and contrast this with our own Irish Incitement to Hatred Act of 1989 (which turned up in the Irish Times in this article only today, in reference to the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality and its insistence that being gay is an "objective disorder"; a stance which is commonly used to justify unenglightened peoples' prejudice against gays).

Zillah

Thirdfox wrote:

Sorry to get into the discussion so late... are you saying Zillah that the laws prohibiting Nazi hate speech and holocaust denial are wrong too?

Absolutely. If a Nazi wants to publish hate nonesense then he should be free to do it. I also think Holocaust denial being forbidden is one of the most obnoxious laws in the modern world I have ever encountered.

EDIT: To expand my point: Hypothetically, what if the holocaust didn't happen, and it was all an illusion created by the Allies? Or if the Nazis had won, and they hid their past, and passed a law saying that it didn't happen and that its illegal to claim it did? See where im going with this? The only way justice can be done is if anyone can say anything they like, the truth will come out eventually.

How come the people who speak of freedom of speech suddenly turn quiet when David Irving is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for denying the holocaust happened?

I'd rather you didn't make such assumptions. Im tired of people assuming that my ideals have reasonable limits, as opposed to near insane totality... Suffice to say, I was furious when I heard he had been sentenced.

Mainly because they realise that no rights are absolute, to say that anyone can say anything is clearly wrong... limits must be drawn but the question is where.

You can state it in as absolute a manner as you like, I still think you're wrong.

Thirdfox

I did not mean to infer that your ideals have "reasonable limits"... I stated "the people" by which (in my mind) meant the editors of le soir and those other newspapers that re-published the cartoons in support of freedom of speech (amongst other people). I apologise wholeheartedly if you took that statement as to an attack on your integrity.

Does defamation law go out the window too? Can I accuse X,Y and Z of being terrorists and paedophiles if I want? What if people are influenced by my words? So the crimes of inciting hatred etc. are all wrong and "obnoxious" as you call it?

You would prefer the free market of ideas theory? Good speech replacing bad? But I can imagine cases where the good voice is easily drowned out by the voices of the powerful...

Zillah

Thirdfox wrote:

I did not mean to infer that your ideals have "reasonable limits"...

I was refering to this, which, as phrased, seems to refer to me:

How come the people who speak of freedom of speech suddenly turn quiet when David Irving is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for denying the holocaust happened?

Does defamation law go out the window too?

Im undecided on this matter. Im on the verge of being Libertarian.

You would prefer the free market of ideas theory? Good speech replacing bad? But I can imagine cases where the good voice is easily drowned out by the voices of the powerful...

Haha...

The powerful drowning out the smaller good voices? Is that not exactly how someone who is censored might describe Government censorship laws?

the real ramon

robindch wrote:

[Iand contrast this with our own Irish Incitement to Hatred Act of 1989 (which turned up in the Irish Times in this article only today, in reference to the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality and its insistence that being gay is an "objective disorder"; a stance which is commonly used to justify unenglightened peoples' prejudice against gays).

This is interesting as the current issue of Alive! (that right-wing crawthumping Catholic rag) has an article headlined "anti-Catholicism - the last acceptable prejudice?". Sometimes the most prejudiced people portray themselves as the ones who are prejudiced against.

pH

“Respect cannot be demanded, or imposed by a free state. It can only be freely given. The demand of Muslims for uncritical — and legally binding — respect for their beliefs is simply not one that can be met in a society like ours. And the failure, by some Muslims at least, to perceive these distinctions is, without exaggeration, tragic.”
(Minette Marrin, Sunday Times)

It's quote of the week on the National Secular Society(UK) website, and probably sums up my feelings as well as any paragraph.

legspin

pH wrote:

“Respect cannot be demanded, or imposed by a free state. It can only be freely given. The demand of Muslims for uncritical — and legally binding — respect for their beliefs is simply not one that can be met in a society like ours. And the failure, by some Muslims at least, to perceive these distinctions is, without exaggeration, tragic.”
(Minette Marrin, Sunday Times)

It's quote of the week on the National Secular Society(UK) website, and probably sums up my feelings as well as any paragraph.

Yes
Thank you

pH

Also good to see the comments from Sir Trevor Phillips (chairman of the UK's Commission for Racial Equality)

"What some minorities have to accept is that there are certain central things we all agree about, which are about the way we treat each other - that we have an attachment to democracy, that we sort things out by voting not by violence and intimidation, that we tolerate things that we don't like."

"Short of people menacing and threatening each other, we have freedom of expression. We allow people to offend each other."

"One point of Britishness is that people can say what they like about the way we should live, however absurd, however unpopular it is."

Sir Trevor rejected the idea that British Muslims should be allowed to live under Shariah law within their own communities

http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1124576

the real ramon

pH wrote:

Sir Trevor rejected the idea that British Muslims should be allowed to live under Shariah law within their own communities[/b]

This is something I'd agree strongly with, there is one set of Laws, law enforcement and judiciary in a western democracy, that agreed by the stae which represents all citizens. To agree to let certain sections of society, be they religious, political, social or whatever to operate under their own laws in their own communities makes a mockery of the western liberal democratic state.