For the most part this is not an exercise in free speech but a deliberate and calculated insult to the deepest sensitivities of our fellow citixens. Can I shout "fire" in a crowded theate as a joke? Could I drag apig's head through a synagog? Can I draw yellow stars of David on Jewish owned shops? Can I demand the right to daub swastikas on the gates of Auswitz?
Can I interpret the Trinity by stating that Jesus fucked his own mother? Can I publish a comic strip of Jesus descending from the cross to rape a baby and shout in lust "Suffer little children" and deliver copies to the Vatican and every convent and monastary in the EU?
Why should you be so arrogant as to demand free expression of our opinions when you denegrate the objections of those these insult? If a newspaper in the north of Europe demads the right to print something that is then used by a French newspaper to incite violence against Muslims (and indeed, because of the degree of insult, commit violence against Muslims in France) WHY do you object when there are demonstrations by those who feel insult? Do you deny them the right to express their opinions? How dare you deny them the right to boycot Danish goods in protecst at a government policy decision (now reversed) not to speak to Ambassadors? Why do I object to that? Because by denying them that right you would have denied me the right not to buy South African fruit during the Apartheid regime.
Yes there have been isolated incidents of actual violence against Europeans. Thankfully that was a few, rather less one must add than the equally few attacks on dark=skinned residents of Britain and I suspect Spain after the bomb attacks.
WHY do you object when there are demonstrations by those who feel insult? Do you deny them the right to express their opinions? How dare you deny them the right to boycot Danish goods in protecst at a government policy decision (now reversed) not to speak to Ambassadors?
If you read a little more carefully, you may discover that I haven't denied anyone the right to protest. Anyone is entitled to demonstrate, boycott, and even burn flags to her heart's content.
What I do deny is the reasonableness of the demands made in these campaigns, including some or all of the following:
Clearer now? The world's northernmost desert wind.
In the UK Sky have done a survey of the nationals and none are printing the cartoons but some have confirmed they are to print editorials. The BBC covered it but panned over the page quickly and out of focus. I note CBS (the reason I had Sky on) decided not to show them at all.
Why on earth would you be banned? You make reasonable, argued, cogent points in a polite manner. That I disagree (and that I express that disagreement forcefully) doesn't mean that I don't respect you and your point of view and that I don't listen to it - and I expect it is the same for others on this side of the debate. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
That I disagree (and that I express that disagreement forcefully) doesn't mean that I don't respect you and your point of view and that I don't listen to it - and I expect it is the same for others on this side of the debate.
Thank you. Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?
There comes a time when the requiresments of politeness demand that you not shit on your neighbour's face and demand they not object because of your right to free expression.
You are right about that. The problem is that we are not talking about objective facts about "shitting in someone's face". We are talking aobut someone's subjective definition of what is 'shit' and of where their 'face' is. They have no right to impose their artificial definition of 'shit' and 'face' in our countries. Full stop. They are being absolutely intolerant in trying to give a universal value to their very narrow rules that they are free to apply in their countries or their homes but not in ours.
My tolerance for their values will not extend to their attempts to impose on us (supposedly in the name of freedom) those values that do not respect such freedom for me. They are trying to stifle our freedom, and using our tolerance as a weapon to do so.
Yes. Happens all the time.
Hell, the most famous TV comedy show in France has made fun for years of the Catholic church and its apparent appetite for young boys, with daily doses of fairly outrageous jokes, and I think I have heard the same on US comedy shows. Is TV a wide enough "delivery" channel? I am sure it doesn't go down too well with catholics, but that's how it is. I do note that the only institution that supports the muslims in Western Europe in this conflict is the church, which should tell you something. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Why should you be so arrogant as to demand free expression of our opinions when you denegrate the objections of those these insult?
Did you watch "Life of Brian"? Did you laugh about it? There sure were a whole lot of Catholics/Christian who didn't. There was never anything arrogant about that. And although part of the Christian community was mightily displeased, possibly frothing, I don't recall that they began assaulting embassies of the UK, trying to force apologies from the UK government. Although I'm not sure about it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they boycotted the movie. But I think Monty Python already had expected that. And I don't think anyone cried foul about Christians boycotting then.
Calm down. It's not about the boycott or that they want to express their displeasure.
Can I shout "fire" in a crowded theate as a joke? Could I drag apig's head through a synagog? Can I draw yellow stars of David on Jewish owned shops? Can I demand the right to daub swastikas on the gates of Auswitz?
No, you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, because you would be putting other people's lives in danger, thus violating their rights.
You can, however, drag a pig's head through a synagog, if you own the synagog. That would make it your property and not that of the followers. You cannot draw yellow stars on Jewish-owned businesses, because you don't own them and, if you did so, those Jewish people would have the right to sue you and possibly seek prosecution.
Again, you, of course, cannot daub swastikas on the gates of Auschwitz, because you don't own it. It does raise an interesting question, though:
Can I paint offensive material on the outside of my own house? My answer is a resounding "No!" Here's why:
Even if you were doing so on the walls of the outside of your own home, you would still be violating the basic rights of others, because you would then have assaulted others by dragging down their property values, to say nothing of the possible prosecution for inciting violence (in the case of swastikas).
You're more than welcome to argue that Jesus fucked his own mother, and I'm sure it would be used by many Southerners to justify sleeping with their cousins. (I know, I know. Low blow.) And I encourage you to publish a comic showing Jesus raping small children. That is most certainly free speech, and the rise you would get out of the Vatican would keep me entertained for weeks, I can assure you.
No one, as far as I can tell, is denying Muslims' right to protest. As I said in a comment on my diary, I'm happy -- "thrilled" was the word I used before, I think -- to see them involved in politics that way. I am, however, furious about the threats that have been made against Danes in Saudi Arabia, EU officials in Palestine, and the newspaper staff. If someone pulls a gun on me, and offers a credible threat to kill me (and/or my family), I'm going to do everything in my power to kill that person first. Everyone has the right to defend himself or herself, and the Palestinian gunmen were lucky that the EU showed restraint.
Being offended by a cartoon is no excuse for threatening to kill innocent people -- most of whom were not even involved. All that those who have threatened violence have accomplished is to alienate even more people and provide more ammunition to those who hate them.
I don't hate them -- I'm all about the Love-Thy-Neighbor-ism of Jesus, even though I'm not a Christian -- and I completely understand why they are so offended by these cartoons, but this is bullshit, and it is exactly why I wrote the column on the insanity that the faithful are led to when they get too deep into their religions. And, frankly, any god who would have his followers kill those who insult him is no better than Stalin or Mao, as far as I'm concerned. And anyone who takes their god that seriously needs medication and a psychologist. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Have you read John Stuart Mill's discussion of property rights? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
I read Mill a long time ago, so I'm sure I would remember what he said if I read it, again. What'd he say? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
I was thinking of the part where he says, after considering how Communism might work, the principle of Private property has never yet had a fair trial in any country; and less so, perhaps, in this country than in some others. The social arrangements of modern Europe commenced not of just partition or acquisition by industry, but of conquest and violence: and notwithstanding what industry has been doing for many centuries to modify the work of force, the system still retains many and large traces of its origin. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
