Lessons from the Mohammad Cartoon incident

[Tiger's Eye]

You know this cartoon was first published in Septermber 2005' date=' that was 5 months ago.

 

And so someone publishes a cartoon portraying you as a suicide bomber, does going round burning Western flags and destroying embassies really help your cause??? NO! It makes your situation worst. Where's the logic?[/quote']

 

Those people torching embassies and such are taking things way to far to the point of absurdity.

 

Btw, didn't know that this cartoon (the one by the Danish artist, if that's the one you're talking about) was printed before. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

Oh, I just saw this:

The propaganda factor - the "pig" picture

 

One aspect that these governments might also want to examine is how they can counter false information.

 

Twelve cartoons were originally published by Jyllands-Posten. None showed the Prophet with the face of a pig. Yet such a portrayal has circulated in the Middle East (The BBC was caught out and for a time showed film of this in Gaza without realizing it was not one of the 12).

 

This picture, a fuzzy grey photocopy, can now be traced back (suspicion having been confirmed by an admission) to a delegation of Danish Muslim leaders who went to the Middle East in November to publicise the cartoons. The visit was organised by Abu Laban, a leading Muslim figure in Denmark.

 

According to the Danish paper Ekstra Bladet, the delegation took along a pamphlet showing the 12 drawings. But the delegation also showed a number of other pictures, including the "pig" one. The delegation claimed they were the sort of insults that Muslims in Denmark had to endure. These also got into circulation.

 

(Update: A reader has e-mailed to say that the original of the "pig" picture was from a "pig-squealing" competition held in France every summer. Some character dressed up like a pig. See the link to the neandernews.com site on the right for the details.

 

Ekstra Bladet has also published a letter taken by the delegation on its mission. This gives the delegation's account of how the cartoons originated and what the reaction to them was. But it also mentions other pictures, which it said were "much more offending." These presumably included the "pig" picture, whose origin is now known.)

 

Western diplomats appear to have missed this entirely and seem to have made no attempt to counter some of the arguments in the pamphlet or to distinguish between the various portrayals.

 

It might not have made much difference but it shows how rapidly propaganda can add to fuel to the fire.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4686536.stm

 

Uh oh.

[Aardvark]

Your last sentence is interesting. Why speculate? I mean, that seems to weaken your arguement that freedom of speech is something worth a lot of sacrifices. How can you believe in the freedom if you doubt the people that built it?

 

On the contrary, i think freedom is worth making sacrifices for, i also think that civilisations can become decadent and forget the importance of and the necessity to defend such freedoms. Hopefully this incident will remind people of the values of western civilisation and why they need defending against barbarian obscurantism.

 

Do you really think that if the West apologized for the cartoons, then this will look like an act of cowardice? This had never crossed my mind. I just thought that it would've been the right thing to do because (a) reprinting the cartoon was just a silly thing to do and (b) it would not forfeit people's (namely employees of those Danish companies) right to live decent lives.

 

You seem to contradict yourself. You state that apologising would not be an act of cowardice, then you state that the West should apologise because of the threat to peoples right to live decent lives. Apologising because of threats and intimidation would be an act of cowardice and would also be counterproductive in only encouraging further such bigotry from Muslim fanatics.

 

I know that life is not always fair and that sacrifices should be made in order to protect an ideal/value (which is 'strangely' what both sides appear to be doing, though in a twisted way that's not agreeable), but how far should these protectors be willing to go? Do you just say 'tough' to these employees who might not get better jobs? I wonder what they'd think/say.

 

It's a bad situation, but appeasement only makes things worse. Giving in on this because of a little disruption to trade would potentially put a lot more jobs at risk as these fanatics repeated their successful tactics.

 

Additionally, the fundamentalists are being ridiculous, and it seems that they seem to grab all the attention of everyone. Unfortunately, we then neglect those people who are peacefully protesting instead of torching embassies. Are you just gonna tell them to stick it, too? I don't see how that is right: should they be treated with equal disrespect because of someone else's stupid actions?

 

We tell the peaceful protestors that they have a right to express their opinions, just as the Danish newspapers have the right to express their opinions. People are allowed to peacefully disagree but not to impose their views on others.

 

 

And besides, what happened to the idea of 'religious tolerance'? Freedom in the West has worked well for a long time because people have learned how to respect and accept each other, but what now? All in all, how are we to protect those people who are suffering while we are 'protecting' their rights? (the wording is a bit confusing )

 

You are confusing two issues. Religious tolerance does not mean protecting religions from disrespect. Religious tolerance means allowing religions the right to be freely practiced. That is in tandeem with people retaining their right to be rude and disrespectful of each others beliefs and opinions. Part of religious freedom is the freedom to be disrespectful.

 

Btw' date=' I smell trouble......

 

"Iranian Paper Plans Holocaust Cartoons "

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060207/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_cartoons_2;_ylt=AvWU5lzhaQc5o7B5LqgBKfPbEfQA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

From the frying pan into the fire, as they say. [/quote']

 

The difference being that Westerners are unlikely to burn down Iranian embassies and try to kill people because of a disrespectful cartoon printed in Iran.

 

That pretty much hihlights the difference between the two cultures and why it is worth fighting to protect and defend Western values from Islamic militancy.

[Severian]

That pretty much hihlights the difference between the two cultures and why it is worth fighting to protect and defend Western values from Islamic militancy.

 

So are you going to participate in this 'fighting' or is it just talk?

[Tiger's Eye]

You seem to contradict yourself. You state that apologising would not be an act of cowardice' date=' then you state that the West should apologise because of the threat to peoples right to live decent lives. Apologising because of threats and intimidation would be an act of cowardice and would also be counterproductive in only encouraging further such bigotry from Muslim fanatics.

[/quote']

 

I don't see how I contradict myself. Are you saying that saving lives equates to intimidation? I did not make nor did I intend to make this connection in my arguements. I think that the newspapers *should* (though some have already) apologize because I think that the reprinting of the cartoons was a stupid thing to do in the first place, just like I think that this Holocaust cartoon contest that Iranian newspapers are hosting is stupid. Both are intentionally and severely offensive to a specific people in order to provoke certain responses and IMO that is just wrong.

 

It's a bad situation' date=' but appeasement only makes things worse. Giving in on this because of a little disruption to trade would potentially put a lot more jobs at risk as these fanatics repeated their successful tactics.

[/quote']

 

"A LITTLE disruption to trade"? Tell that to the Danish companies and employees that are all suffering from critical financial blows. Additionally, it's not really the fanatics that are screwing up the world economy. It's the peaceful protestors who are boycotting these Danish goods in order to get an apology. The power of the people is an amazing thing. You can't pin everything on the fanatics.

 

You are confusing two issues. Religious tolerance does not mean protecting religions from disrespect. Religious tolerance means allowing religions the right to be freely practiced. That is in tandeem with people retaining their right to be rude and disrespectful of each others beliefs and opinions. Part of religious freedom is the freedom to be disrespectful.

 

I stand corrected.

 

The difference being that Westerners are unlikely to burn down Iranian embassies and try to kill people because of a disrespectful cartoon printed in Iran.

 

That pretty much hihlights the difference between the two cultures and why it is worth fighting to protect and defend Western values from Islamic militancy.

 

You are generalizing. While I agree with you that the West is less likely to respond violently to what Iran does, again, it's the groups of Muslims extremists that are burning down the embassies and seeking blood. Don't catergorize or label a religion as warped because of the actions of certain people. You don't see the entire population of Muslims marching down the street and torching places, do you? Also, Islam is a religion, not a culture.

[Tiger's Eye]

Going back to the title of this thread, what lessons are we learning from this incident?

[Aardvark]

So are you going to participate in this 'fighting' or is it just talk?

 

There is no such thing as 'just talk'. It is words that ultimately define civilisation. The battle of ideas is the one worth fighting.

[Aardvark]

I don't see how I contradict myself. Are you saying that saving lives equates to intimidation? I did not make nor did I intend to make this connection in my arguements.

 

I think that making an apology under coercion because of threats would be to appease and therefore encourage further the extermist elements within Islam. After the threats have been made it is no longer possible to apologise without it being as if the apology is only because of the threats, regardless of whether that is actually true.

 

I think that the newspapers *should* (though some have already) apologize because I think that the reprinting of the cartoons was a stupid thing to do in the first place, just like I think that this Holocaust cartoon contest that Iranian newspapers are hosting is stupid. Both are intentionally and severely offensive to a specific people in order to provoke certain responses and IMO that is just wrong.

 

Printing cartoons that are disrespectful to religions is tasteless and crass. The best way to deal with tasteless and crass people is to ignore them or make clear that your respect for them has been lessen. If someone prints a cartoon or exhibits an 'artwork' which denigrates Christianity, as happens frequently, the response is distaste for those crass people. It is not the demand that it be banned and the 'artists' punished or killed. Part of free speech is the right to be rude, repugnant and offensive, and conversely the right to treat those people with the contempt you think they deserve, but not to threaten them with violence.

 

 

 

"A LITTLE disruption to trade"? Tell that to the Danish companies and employees that are all suffering from critical financial blows. Additionally, it's not really the fanatics that are screwing up the world economy. It's the peaceful protestors who are boycotting these Danish goods in order to get an apology. The power of the people is an amazing thing. You can't pin everything on the fanatics.

 

I'm not trying to minimise the impact on some Danish workers and companies, but in terms of the overall economy this is a relatively small disruption. If this disruption is painfull, imagine how bad it could get if this type of reaction is encouraged.

 

Incidentially, i'm not pinning everything on fanatics. I've made a clear distinction between fanatical elements within Islam and Islam as a whole. I agree that the power of the people is an amazing thing. This is a good lesson that i hope will be learned. That peaceful, democratic actions can have great effects. Hopefully this behaviour will be encouraged, rather than the resort to violence and the threats of violence.

 

 

 

You are generalizing. While I agree with you that the West is less likely to respond violently to what Iran does, again, it's the groups of Muslims extremists that are burning down the embassies and seeking blood.

 

As i've repeatedly stated.

 

It is extremist elements in Islam who are the problem. Unfortunately these extremist elements are becoming very influential. It is not possible to minimise or dismiss this as the actions of an unrepresentive minority.

 

 

Don't catergorize or label a religion as warped because of the actions of certain people. You don't see the entire population of Muslims marching down the street and torching places, do you? Also, Islam is a religion, not a culture.

 

I haven't catergorized Islam as a religion as warped. I have identified the actions of an important element within Islam as dangerous and warped. That is a very big and definite distinction.

 

Islam is a culture as much as a religion. If you read the Quran you will see that it encompasses an entire world view on how to live, from the smallest detail of personal conduct, to family affairs, to government organisation, to international affairs. Islam is more than a religion, it is an entire way of life, it is a culture. It needs to be understood and respected as such, but that should not mean that is should be off limits for satire or criticism.

 

 

As to the lessons that this incident should teach us. I heard the Syrian minister for foriegn affairs on the radio this morning, comparing the treatment of Muslims in Europe now with the holocaust. she stated that action was needed now to avert the impending murder of millions of Muslims in Europe.

 

It is clear that the Islamic world has an unhealthy attachment to the politics of grievance, making warped and bizare historical judgements. To consider some mildly unpleasant cartoons in a Danish paper to the systematic mass murder of millions of people is warped to the verge of insanity. This incident shows that there is a sickness spreading within Islam that needs to be openly confronted and treated. This hysterical over sensitivy shows that it is Islam which is facing major problems rather than the West.

[Tiger's Eye]

I think that making an apology under coercion because of threats would be to appease and therefore encourage further the extermist elements within Islam. After the threats have been made it is no longer possible to apologise without it being as if the apology is only because of the threats' date=' regardless of whether that is actually true.

[/quote']

 

Ok, though I stiil don't really agree on this aspect, I see what you mean.

 

Printing cartoons that are disrespectful to religions is tasteless and crass. The best way to deal with tasteless and crass people is to ignore them or make clear that your respect for them has been lessen. If someone prints a cartoon or exhibits an 'artwork' which denigrates Christianity' date=' as happens frequently, the response is distaste for those crass people. It is not the demand that it be banned and the 'artists' punished or killed. Part of free speech is the right to be rude, repugnant and offensive, and conversely the right to treat those people with the contempt you think they deserve, but not to threaten them with violence.

[/quote']

 

Do you think that this will be the response of most people who are and (unfortunately) will be offended by the Holocaust cartoon contest? To ignore someone or something that insults your religious beliefs is a difficult thing to do, and though I agree that it would alleviate the situation, I'm not sure how many people will actually use this peaceful method if confronted with a similar event. Realistically, I think that few people would be strong enough to do it. Additionally, those people who print those cartoons are, as you say, tasteless and crass, and though they should not be banned from doing what is within their lawful rights, I think that they should be criticized for being tasteless and stooping so low as to be disrespectful.

 

 

I'm not trying to minimise the impact on some Danish workers and companies' date=' but in terms of the overall economy this is a relatively small disruption. If this disruption is painfull, imagine how bad it could get if this type of reaction is encouraged.

 

Incidentially, i'm not pinning everything on fanatics. I've made a clear distinction between fanatical elements within Islam and Islam as a whole. I agree that the power of the people is an amazing thing. This is a good lesson that i hope will be learned. That peaceful, democratic actions can have great effects. Hopefully this behaviour will be encouraged, rather than the resort to violence and the threats of violence.

 

 

 

 

 

As i've repeatedly stated.

 

It is extremist elements in Islam who are the problem. Unfortunately these extremist elements are becoming very influential. It is not possible to minimise or dismiss this as the actions of an unrepresentive minority.

 

 

 

 

I haven't catergorized Islam as a religion as warped. I have identified the actions of an important element within Islam as dangerous and warped. That is a very big and definite distinction.

 

Islam is a culture as much as a religion. If you read the Quran you will see that it encompasses an entire world view on how to live, from the smallest detail of personal conduct, to family affairs, to government organisation, to international affairs. Islam is more than a religion, it is an entire way of life, it is a culture. It needs to be understood and respected as such, but that should not mean that is should be off limits for satire or criticism.

[/quote']

 

Okay. The only thing I have to say is that while religions, including Islams, are all areas of which people are allowed to criticize, I think that this situation took it too far. Just because the newspapers are not Muslim does not mean that they should disrespect the fact that Muslims do not depict their religious figures and go ahead to print an offensive picture of the Prophet publically. This is simply irresponsible use of the press' freedom.

 

As to the lessons that this incident should teach us. I heard the Syrian minister for foriegn affairs on the radio this morning' date=' comparing the treatment of Muslims in Europe now with the holocaust. she stated that action was needed now to avert the impending murder of millions of Muslims in Europe.

 

It is clear that the Islamic world has an unhealthy attachment to the politics of grievance, making warped and bizare historical judgements. To consider some mildly unpleasant cartoons in a Danish paper to the systematic mass murder of millions of people is warped to the verge of insanity. This incident shows that there is a sickness spreading within Islam that needs to be openly confronted and treated. This hysterical over sensitivy shows that it is Islam which is facing major problems rather than the West.[/quote']

 

You must realize that this behavior does not speak for the entire Muslim population. I have not read the Qu'raan, and I do not completely understand Islam and what it preaches. However, from what I gather, Muslims interpret the Qu'raan differently. Several Muslims have called these fanatics as "misguided", twisting the words of the prophet and such in order to suit their own needs and kill in 'the name of Allah'. I see Islam through the world of the press and witness, as you say, a sickness spreading within Islam that needs to be openly confronted and treated. But then I see Islam through the people and friends with whom I interact with everyday and see no trace of such corruption. It's an unfortunate and unpredictable situation that we face now and as it carries on, it's sad to see how these generalizations will take effect on those who have no part, whether such bystanders be Muslim, Danish, etc.

[Aardvark]

Ok, though I stiil don't really agree on this aspect, I see what you mean.

 

Good to know that we have some mutual understanding;)

 

 

 

Do you think that this will be the response of most people who are and (unfortunately) will be offended by the Holocaust cartoon contest? To ignore someone or something that insults your religious beliefs is a difficult thing to do, and though I agree that it would alleviate the situation, I'm not sure how many people will actually use this peaceful method if confronted with a similar event. Realistically, I think that few people would be strong enough to do it.

 

I think that is precisely what will happen. People will express distaste and abhorrence. But they will not issue threats to kill the Iranian cartoonists or editors. In hte West religion is often the butt of insults. Christianity is subjected to deliberate vulgar abuse, have you heard of the latest Gilbert and George exhbit? It deliberately trys to shock by grossly insulting Christianity. It is sick, but they are not being subject to death threats. In the West all religions are subject to this treatment, why is Islam being considered a special case in need of special correction?

 

Additionally, those people who print those cartoons are, as you say, tasteless and crass, and though they should not be banned from doing what is within their lawful rights, I think that they should be criticized for being tasteless and stooping so low as to be disrespectful.

 

A point of agreement:-)

 

 

 

 

Okay. The only thing I have to say is that while religions, including Islams, are all areas of which people are allowed to criticize, I think that this situation took it too far. Just because the newspapers are not Muslim does not mean that they should disrespect the fact that Muslims do not depict their religious figures and go ahead to print an offensive picture of the Prophet publically. This is simply irresponsible use of the press' freedom.

 

I don't think that the cartoons were offensive enough to warrant this reaction. Yes, the representation of Mohammed is against Islams teachings, and yes, the cartoons were disrespectful, but there were not utterly outrageous. If the cartoons had depicted Mohammed as a pig with some sort of writing implying that all Muslims were inferior or some such thing then i could understand the outrage. But this reaction to what were actualy fairly mild cartoons indicates that special treatment is being demanded and it shows that large elements of Islam are being deliberately over sensitive. I do not think that the presses freedom should be constrained from printing images of Mohammed or being satirical of him or Islam. Other religions are not accorded this special respect, why should Islam be a special case?

 

 

 

You must realize that this behavior does not speak for the entire Muslim population.

 

Yes, as i've tried to make explicit. It is elements within Islam that are the problem. Obviously, not all Muslims.

 

I have not read the Qu'raan, and I do not completely understand Islam and what it preaches. However, from what I gather, Muslims interpret the Qu'raan differently. Several Muslims have called these fanatics as "misguided", twisting the words of the prophet and such in order to suit their own needs and kill in 'the name of Allah'. I see Islam through the world of the press and witness, as you say, a sickness spreading within Islam that needs to be openly confronted and treated. But then I see Islam through the people and friends with whom I interact with everyday and see no trace of such corruption. It's an unfortunate and unpredictable situation that we face now and as it carries on, it's sad to see how these generalizations will take effect on those who have no part, whether such bystanders be Muslim, Danish, etc.

 

Yes, lots of Muslims have disassociated themselves from the threats and violence. Lots of Muslims would never dream of killing or burning down an embassy.

 

Unfortunately, large numbers are of the mindset that threats and violence is acceptable. When the Foreign minister of a major Arab nation starts talking about the Muslims in Europe being at threat of being murdered in their millions in a new genocide it is time to realise that this delusional, biggotted, violent world view is becoming very strong and influential in Islam. That has to be openly confronted, not ignored with pleasant platitudes about most Muslims being tolerant. Most Muslims may be tolerant, but a big enough minority are very much not to make the world increasingly unsafe.