the Arab/Muslim world has had to sit helplessly through decades -- over a hundred contiguous years now even if we don't drag in the Crusades -- of colonialism and conquest by Anglo/Euro/American power, most recently the propping-up of despots and monarchs by the US, the repeated savaging of Iraq, and the neverending canker of the expropriation of Palestine. is it surprising that tempers are on edge? is it wise to go on baiting and needling [figuratively] someone who has already been beaten, humiliated, deprived of land and liberty, mocked, etc? is an irrational or rage-filled response not perfectly predictable? and is it responsible or defensible for the gloating winners of the Great Game deliberately to issue such provocations?
the tone of some of the absolutist defences of these (mostly puerile, ignorant and crudely offensive) drawings reminds me of the class bully who has finally pushed the class underdog a bit too far, and then proclaims triumphantly when Teacher rushes over, "But all I said was..." are we not wrapping a noble principle (freedom of speech and press) around an ignoble sport (baiting, hazing, humiliating, insulting those who have no real-world power to retaliate)? boycotting Danish dairy goods may seem a bit silly, but did the US look any more dignified when its jingo merchants started insulting everything French and boycotting French products, when the govt of France did not kowtow with sufficient alacrity to the Emperor W in the small matter of an illegal invasion? boycotts and ambassadorial hissy fits are surely preferable to war or terrorist assault; but preferable to both imho is not provoking an incident in the first place. [is the Bush cartel deliberately trying to provoke another terrorist event (or to make an engineered one more credible) in time for the 2006 elections?]
seems to me that in our current parlous times, the art of de-escalation is more important than the art of yapping loudly over metaphorical lines in the sands of ideology. the apology from the west to the arab/muslim world is long overdue -- it should really be for the ruination of Iraq, for the 20 years of horror in Iran under the western puppet Shah that set the stage for the also-terrible reign of ayatollahs, and so forth; but if the pretext is to apologise for the rudeness of a few stupid drawings, why not? why not apply salve rather than salt?
there is a crucial concept in civility and diplomacy, called "saving face" -- to allow others the illusion, at least, of respect. the deeper the loser's condition of disempowerment or defeat, the more crucial is the wisdom or generosity of the victors in not rubbing salt in. many historians still insist that if the Allies had not been so bound and determined to humiliate Germany utterly after WWI, the political/emotional soil would not have been so fertile for invasive species of fascist and racist politics... again, is it really wise to kick a man [sic] when he's down?
what I seem to hear in the enthusiasm with which the Western press reprints these mocking 'toons is not so much the courage of paladins of free speech, as the jeering of the powerful at the futile rage of the powerless -- neener neener neener, 'because we can, and you can't stop us, so there!' seems to me if the western press really wants to test its freedoms, it might better lampoon a genuine threat to its civil liberties and democratic traditions -- King George of the USA, to whose nuclear arms and trade sanctions most of their government and industry is held hostage.
I do not much like to witness this taunting of people who are already at their rope's end. as my old Mum would say, "you mark my words, it will all end in tears." The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
I do not mean to suggest that France should have truckled to the US; my point was that a kneejerk boycott as an expression of anger (with or without calculated s**t-stirring by politicians and elites) is hardly an Arab-specific phenom.
the point about avoiding provocation is supposed to be connected to the later paras on face-saving etc. sorry about the clumsy composition... writing in haste as all too often I am. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
::
It is only taunting because we accept their definition of what "taunting" is. This is not about crying "fire" in a building. There is no "objective" danger, only a very subjective one, and I deny to them the right to define what the danger (in terms of what is offensive or not, and whether anything offensive is 'dangerous' or not) is in my country.
The monotheist religions are totalitarian ideologies. They have more blood on their collective hands, more savagery and more hypocrisy than anybody else in the history of man. They feel insulted? Boo fucking hoo. I feel insulted by their very existence. Do they really think man is so stupid? That I cannot have values outside of religion? That I need the crutch of an imaginary being to live? That I am bad or evil or worthless for not following them? They are a permanent insult to the rest of the world. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I really and truly believe that governhments of the West need to take a stand here. This is critical -- to our economic success, to our scholarship, and to our very existence as liberal democracies. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
in actuality as a lifelong nonbeliever, I share your mistrust of, and alienation from, the whole monotheism trip. the world would be better off, perhaps, without it -- though the Soviet flavour of thug managed to do some pretty awful deeds in the name of an allegedly rationalist and atheist ideology, which imho just goes to show that you can have a murderous cult without a god. true confession: I spent much of my high school lunch breaks baiting evangelicals (in order to do this effectively I had to read quite a lot of their Bible!)... that said (i.e. we are on the same side of the net ideologically here)...
I note that Christian demagogues adduce the Soviet government's crimes against the people as evidence that atheism itself is brutish, cruel, stupid, wicked and whatnot -- much as we who dislike/distrust religion adduce the crimes done in the name of various gods as evidence that religion itself is brutish, cruel, stupid and wicked. I am not sure either argument stands up better than the other, though one is of course more congenial to my own belief system :-) maybe what we should say is that sociopaths are an enduring reality, that power corrupts, and that even the most idealistic ideology can be used as a stalking horse by sadists and bullies. name me one, just one, major ideology -- religious or not -- that hasn't been used as a flag to wrap cruelty in...? is "religion" really the problem, or is it human beings? the latest neuroscience disturbingly suggests that even when we think we're being rational, we're not... so how much high cranial ground can we nonbelievers really lay claim to?
I think when we picture ourselves (or the taunting cartoonists) as Davids of rationality contending with lumbering, brutish Goliaths of monotheism, we leave out the other side of the picture that I was trying to paint in -- ourselves (the West) as gloating conquerors dragging the toppled idols of their colonised victims through the mud. every imperial power has done this -- the literal or figurative pissing on the losers' gods, the profanation of the temple, whatever. and as a gesture of colonial contempt I do dislike it and feel that, as with repeated Israeli provocations, vandalism, crop destruction in the OT, it only deepens the wound and postpones any possibility of making peace.
and let us face it, the feelings that are being stirred up in the proletariat by this type of cartoon are not about a lofty Voltairian disdain for doctrinal religion per se, they are about making fun of Arab-looking people with a "weird foreign religion". they are playing to xenophobia, ignorance, BNP-like tendencies all over Euroland. in that sense a present danger does exist, since Muslims are a small minority embedded in a large population during a time of economic instability (which is about like being committed to a land war in Asia, in the catalogue of unenviable strategic situations).
on momentary reflection I think it's indefensible to suggest that the person doing the taunting is the one who gets to define what taunting is! that would be like... well, like a white person getting to decide there's nothing wrong with the word "n*gger", or a chain smoker getting to decide whether cig smoke is legimately annoying to a nonsmoker. if someone is offended or insulted by a behaviour and we deliberately flaunt it in their face -- puffing smoke at them after they have asked us not to smoke, for example? -- I don't think it gets us off the hook to say "well, no reasonable person [as defined by me] would object to that behaviour, therefore my behaviour is not annoying and I am not taunting." what is indisputable is that the intent is to provoke and offend.
is there really no "objective" danger in the public expression of contempt and scorn for an entire race and religion, when Anglo/Euro/US troops are in Iraq right now shooting "sand n*ggers" on sight, and when half the US public believes that the Koran is a bomb-making manual? when persons whose only offence is having an Arab-sounding name are put on watch lists, when Muslim men are "disappeared" and held without trial for years, flown secretly to black gulags in Eastern Europe, tortured -- and when the majority of the AngloChristian world appears to accept these abuses tamely or even with approval -- Muslims are unreasonable in feeling endangered?
all cultural products must be seen in context, and the current context is a resurgence of the Anglo/Euro drive to control and expropriate the Arab/Muslim world, and a focussing of the xenophobic/racist tendencies in the US and Euroland on the new "enemy du jour," the Arab/Muslim stereotype (as it was on the "Japs" in WWII, and so forth). I think we have to view this incident within that context, as part of a pattern of historical events and not an ahistorical textbook case of absolute free speech principles.
one of the basic principles of a civil society, it seems to me, is to extend courtesy even to the habits of mind which one cannot understand or genuinely respect, i.e. for me to refrain from shouting "what utter nonsense!" when my Jewish friends keep kosher and attend Temple, and to keep a straight face and not mock or hoot when a Christian friend tells me she has asked God for advice on a difficult matter. do we want to be Right, Right, Right, or do we want to stay friends? must everyone think exactly as you and I do, before we will extend them respect or courtesy?
it is a thorny problem -- absolute principles vs good manners and practical peacemaking. I have not solved it. but I continue to assert that the motives behind this propagation of a set of banal racist cartoons are not as disinterested or principled as they are made out to be. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
Satire has a very long history (from the court jester onwards). It is not a democratic tool that I would be prepared to give up. Despots are IMHO consistently humourless, and I am always suspicious of anyone who betrays a lack of humour. But maybe that is beside the point in this case. You can't be me, I'm taken
;)
The question about who has the right to define what a "taunt" is is an interesting one - indeed the central one here. The article I quoted in the Breakfast thread from Arab News
The Power of the Muslim and Arab Worlds Ray Hanania, Arab News This week, we witnessed the power of the Islamic and Arab worlds to bring a Western nation virtually to its knees. I was amazed at that power. This is over an issue that the nation's government had nothing to do with. All I can wonder is why the Islamic and Arab world doesn't harness that power more effectively and change policies that directly impact our causes and our beliefs?
This week, we witnessed the power of the Islamic and Arab worlds to bring a Western nation virtually to its knees. I was amazed at that power. This is over an issue that the nation's government had nothing to do with. All I can wonder is why the Islamic and Arab world doesn't harness that power more effectively and change policies that directly impact our causes and our beliefs?
suggests that the "victims" don't really see themselves as victims nor as helpless, and that it is purely an ideological struggle, where precisely what is a taunt is at stake. Thus the need to take a stand there and to say, "I have a right to say this even if it makes you unhappy".
That it is not courteous is true but, in this instance, irrelevant, because that's not what's at stake. You should not say it, but you have to have the right to do so, however distateful it may be. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Calculated Reaction
However, the harsh reactions to the cartoon overstep the boundaries of acceptable protests. Even though the Mohammed caricature provokes, it by no means justifies an incitement to murder or a call for boycotts. It is also not reason enough for the Arab world to instrumentalize the protests for political purposes.
... Islamist groups are attempting to channel the hatred against the West to bolster their own political influence. Through their apparent solidarity with the wave of protest Arab governments can detract from domestic failure and discredit western calls for reform. Most likely they will also take advantage of the situation to cut back on freedom of the press in their countries.
The escalation of events in the Palestinian territories on Thursday is a good example of how political groups have instrumentalized the raging sentiments. It wasn't Hamas or jihad that fueled the violent protests, but rather the militant arm of the secular Fatah party, which lost last week's parliamentary election. For them, the protests offered the perfect opportunity to express frustration over the lost ballot.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1890725,00.html
Let us keep the argument simple. Is it lawful or not?
Other countries may have other laws, even religious laws - but they do not apply here in Europe. Neither do our laws apply in those other countries. You can't be me, I'm taken
Nobody is asking you to accept anyone's definition of what "taunting" is, but to accept their own definition of what offends them. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
It's the EXACT same debate.
They are using their unlimited capacity to take offense as a political weapon. This has to stop at some point, and we are way beyond that point today. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Private citizens are free to scream "treason" all they want. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
I am saying that some Muslims are using their "ofenseability" (and the fact that it is something they have the sole right to define) to extract from us behavior which deviates significantly from what our values would suggest.
Bush is stifling free speech in the name of patriotism by branding people that criticise him as traitors and objective allies to enemies. These Muslims are doing the same - stifling free speech in the name of their religious practise by branding people that criticise them as intolerant and insulting.
Maybe you think that the criticism is unwarranted, in poor taste, or maybe you even disagree with it, but do you deny the right for it to be made? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Defining what is patriotic... well, that's probably up to the fatherland or the nation, and then we get into the discussion of who, if anyone, speaks for the fatherland or the nation.
Once I say something has offended me, it's up to other people to decide if they want to accomodate me or not. Maybe we don't want to accommodate muslims. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/meinung/archiv/03.02.2006/2328985.asp (in German I´m afraid)
While we Muslims are constantly demanding equality of rights and accusing the West of applying double standards, we ourselves are turning into fascists who want special rights here, there and everywhere. If caricatures of the Christian prophet Jesus are possible in Europe, then they should also be allowed for the prophet Mohammed. Why should we we granted special treatment: is our blood redder than the others'?
The author (a 29 year old German citizen of Iranian origin) asked his full name not to be published in the internet. I wonder why?
Meanwhile, the Islamists not only "label" these cartoonists as blasphemers, but follow it up with rifle attacks and physical injury.
Nobody is asking you to accept anyone's definition of what "taunting" is, but to accept their own definition of what offends them.
In that case we have to offer the same to everyone who might feel offended by something. Leaving us, as the lef-leaning "TAZ" in Germany wrote in an opinion piece with:
It is a demand that cannot be fulfilled, unless we all agree that priests, rabbis or imams should decide what we are allowed to read, hear or see. In the end, these religious authorities have for a long time proven to be formidable repressors when it comes to freedom of expression.
As many have pointed out, the cartoons were a provocation and were rude. OK. Write letters to the editor, organize boycotts of the paper and its advertizers. I'd be fine with that - the normal rough and tumble of an open society. But what is going on right now is far worse than the cartoons themselves and constitutes a threat to free speech.
For a good take on it read about the debate within the left wing French paper Liberation: La position de Liberation Now if you want to see an example which really does constitute 'crying fire in a crowded theater' see the reaction by the head of Hezbollah. "S'il s'était trouvé un musulman pour exécuter la fatwa de l'imam Khomeyni contre le renégat Salman Rushdie, cette racaille qui insulte notre prophète Mahomet au Danemark, en Norvège et France n'aurait pas osé le faire», a dit depuis Beyrouth le secrétaire général du Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah. «Nous ne comprenons pas la logique des autorités danoises qui refusent de s'excuser invoquant la liberté d'expression (...). qu'elles sachent qu'il y a des millions de musulmans prêts à défendre l'honneur de leur religion et de leur prophète», a-t-il ajouté." If their had been one Moslem to execute the fatwa of the Iman Khomeini against the renegade Salman Rushdie, these scum who insult our Prophet Mohammed in Dennmark, Norway, and France would not have dared to do so." "We don't understand the logic of the Danish authorities who refuse to apologize invoking freedom of speech when they understand that there are millions of Muslims ready to defend the honour of their religion and their prophet."
Or to put it differently - person walks up to someone in a bar and calls them an asshole, that's being rude, person called an asshole pulls out a gun and threatens to shoot the person who insulted him, along with everyone sitting near him - that's a crime. If I saw something like that I'd think the insulter is an rude idiot, while the person being insulted needs to go to jail or to a hospital for the criminally insane.
I heard something even more depressing from an Egyptian friend today as we were talking about this. She said, "I love Europe, I love the West, I adore Europe, but with all of this, I keep wondering why do they hate us? I don't want to think that people would hate me just because I am a Muslim, but that's what it feels like."
I didn't know what to tell her. Of course "they" don't hate you? Do they?
Oh, how I hope the answer is no. But I also cannot answer the "why" question -- why taunt? Why needle? Why intentionally inflame tensions that are clearly close to the breaking point to begin with?
Politiken, by the way, reports today that Flemming Rose of JP and a certain Imam Abu Laban debated the issue on BBC's Hard talk for the first time. There has been a monumental failure of dialogue within Denmark if it takes four months and anti-EU turmoil in the middle east for the protagonists to meet in the BBC.
Wikipedia quotes the test that accompanied the 12 drawings on JP:
The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always equally attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is less important in this context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him.
28 October - The police are notified by a number of muslim organisations, claiming that the intention of the publication of the cartoons has been to "mock and deride" the muslim faith, something the Danish penal code prohibits (§ 140).
Despite informing Danish media that he would try to stop the boycotts, the leader of the organisation [Islamisk Trossamsfund], Imam Ahmad Abu Laban, went on to state during an interview with Al Jazeera that "If the Muslim countries decide to boycott and if the Muslim citizens feel it's their duty to defend the prophet, then it is something we can be happy about".[51]. In a press release dated February 2, 2006, Abu Laban said that during the interview he was referring to Muslim respect for Muhammed, not the boycotts. [52]. Ahmad Abu Laban has previously been declared officially unwelcome in several Arab states.
Well now that's interesting. Wikipedia says he's PNG in UAE and Egypt "because of his Islamist views."
That is truly shocking.
Also, thanks for pointing out the timeline. It's certainly important to note that the Danish penal code forbids "mocking and deriding" a religious faith, and that some Muslim groups tried to pursue the matter through legal avenues before turning to protests. I have not seen either of those facts reported in any of the news coverage on this.
does this seem merely coincidental? just sloppy journalism? or selective reporting? The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
There are places in the world, Ethiopia I believe, where mosques are routinely desecrated. Do we hear any complaints? No. In fact, isn't the Arab League supposed to hold a summit there?
Then there was the statues if the Buddha being blown up by the Taliban extremists. Protests, anyone? Nary.
(And I'm only talking official protests, I don't expect the man-in-the-street to get it, considering their lack of information.)
Let's not even dredge up the Salman Rushdie fatwah.
The most intolerant religion in the world gets kicked in the groin. Good.
All religions should enjoy the same fate.
Ethiopia is neither an Arab country nor a member of the Arab League. You are probably thinking of Sudan, where the desecration of mosques has been reported in Darfur.
Since this isn't a Darfur thread, I'll keep my comments on that to a minimum and just say that of all the abuses in Darfur, desecration of mosques is not top of my list of things to worry about, nor is it the top of anyone else's list, including the people whose mosques have been desecrated, who are more concerned about, oh, stuff like death and rape.
The Arab League is a political organization like any other, and we don't know what its members say to each other behind closed doors. The African Union (AU) also had a summit in Khartoum recently and, although it has a (rather anemic) peacekeeping force in Darfur, it could also be accused of not doing enough. So could the United Nations. I suspect the AU used the summit to increase pressure on Khartoum, because the location of the summit focused attention on that issue in a way that a summit in Bangui would not have. It is possible that the AL summit will do the same, we don't know yet.
As for the Buddha statues in Afghanistan, you are wrong, there was a lot of criticism from the Muslim world, including appeals from the governments of all 22 members of the Arab League.
My new proverb: If you try to kick someone in the groin, make sure you aim well, because if you miss, you're in trouble.
Yes I was thinking of Sudan. There, I believe that nothing in what you said (and thank you for correcting and expanding my point) has changed my views: the desecration of mosques is, or should be, a more pressing issue than infidel cartoons.
I think the kick in the groin was well aimed, and frankly from the very start I supported cultural, not military, war against radical islam.
Of all the issues that plague the Muslim world today, are our priorities cartoons published in a newspaper in a country inhabited by less than 6 million people? If we really want to pick a fight with the West, have we forgotten that 500 Muslim men continue to be detained without charge at the makeshift prison run by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which last week marked its fourth anniversary?
The problem with this particular situation is that it is being seen in the Muslim world not as a battle against radical Islam, but as a battle against Islam, full stop. Our Western self-righteousness on this issue is alienating moderate and liberal Muslims who, as others have pointed out here, should be forming the bridge between our cultures.
Personally, I wish everyone would just get over it already. It's giving me headaches.
