I frankly think you are being willfully obtuse here. You only want to see this controversy on one plane. And that is a legitimate plane. And your general point about free speech is correct. But not everybody sees the world as you do. And I think one should try to understand these other viewpoints. I think to see simply as an example of European anti-clericalism is a bit weak.
In My case, there is a strong component of anti-clericalism, but the fact that I found these cartoons to be pretty benign, seriously. People get offended way too easily today.
And to answer Migeru's point yesterday (that I was selective in the bigotry I recognised, i.e. only anti-French and anti-Israel), the core of the problem is not that Muslims want to make us acknowledge the supposed tastelessness of the cartoons, it is that they want us not to publish these things, not as a courtesy to them, but as an obligation.
When I criticize the anti-French bias (as I see it) in the English language press, (i) I absolutely am not trying to prevent them from publishing their stuff, (ii) I am not contesting their right to have such opinions, (iii) I try to make more visible some hidden assumptions or prejudices, and (iv) I am trying to get across different perceptions or different facts, i.e. I am trying to bring new information on the table to try to convince whoever is reading me to weigh the original article differently. Here we are told that we must not represent Muhammad, full stop.
And I'll say it again. These cartoons are pretty tame, frankly (the original 12, not the additional 3, which are indeed highly offensive).
So the appropriate thing would have been for JP to publish a reply by a representative of the muslim community, explaining why they found such images distasteful or inappropriate, and informing readers that this would not be done in the Muslim word, and that they hoped that the Danes would extend them that courtesy even here in Denmark. And hey, it might even have worked. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
...and we didn't accept that obligation. (Making public apologies is no such obligation.) Rasmussen could have told this to the 11 ambassadors instead of snubbing them, alongside with acknowledging the insulting nature. The above is not the core of the problem. The re-publications were pure posturing.
When I criticize the anti-French bias...
I think Migeru saw you not noticing Danish bias.
These cartoons are pretty tame, frankly
You are not the one to decide that. And to repeat our point, it's not the cartoons alone, it's the context and motivation too.
So the appropriate thing would have been for JP to publish a reply by a representative of the muslim community, explaining why they found such images distasteful or inappropriate, and informing readers that this would not be done in the Muslim word, and that they hoped that the Danes would extend them that courtesy even here in Denmark. And hey, it might even have worked.
On that, fully agreed. And this should have been done back in September already. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Well, first of all, yes it is up to me and any other individual to decide that, as free and independent individuals. And this is exactly the point Jerome and many of us are emphasising, that no one should be allowed to decide what we are allowed to say or do as long as it is within the legal framework of a society. By saying this you are depriving individuals their right to have an opinion and stating it. I could illustrate this by saying who are you or any other individual (in this case Muslims included), to decide whether I am competent or even allowed to have an opinion on this matter?
The ban on depicting Muhammed is an Islamic ban and not a Universal one. It is a religious ban and thus can not be expected to be upheld by non-Muslims or non-religious people. You could, and often should, out of respect, refrain from doing such a deed, but you can not be forced to silence through violence or threats of violence.
As for the motivations behind this whole issue it is pure speculations and, although rightwing extremists have some splendid times these days, not very fruitful to ponder over given the fact that we have no conclusive evidence pointing towards certain motivations. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
Decide what? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
You are not the one to decide that.
Yes I am and others too. That is my prerogative as a free and independent citizen. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
No, he was saying I did not notice anti-Muslim bias with as much alacrity as anti-French or anti-Jewish one. Fair enough, but the site is open for others to do so, and indeed it is being done.
You are not the one to decide that
Then in which case you are not the one to tell me if I should be offended by the behavior of those that choose to represent the Muslims to the world. I am telling you that I am seriously offended by your presumption. Will you apologize to me now?
(I am asking you in jest, but the question is the logical outcome of your contention that the muslims have the sole right to decide what offends them). In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
That's essentially the same. And what relation does that have with what you then wrote?
Then in which case you are not the one to tell me if I should be offended by the behavior of those that choose to represent the Muslims to the world.
I never told you not to.
muslims have the sole right to decide what offends them
Offense is not a matter of decision. It is emotional. The form one expresses offense can de debated, but I have never challenged your objections to forms of showing offense by Muslims. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Some issues are simply not complex. Fundamental rights are (usually) among those issues. The Muslim world has no right to force its values on us. Mid-East governments are free to ask that we punish these cartoonists. And we're free to say, "It's their right to publish these, and we have no right to punish them. Deal with it."
I'm still stunned by the burning of those embassies. Countries go to war over that sort of thing. Attacking (say) the British embassy in Syria would be no different from attacking the London Underground. And this, more than anything, shows an ignorance of the West. The Danish government was not involved in publishing the cartoons. The embassy doesn't represent the cartoonists and the newspaper. It is, as I said in my diary, akin to burning your neighbor's house because your other neighbor drove over your mailbox with his car.
I say, again, this is what religion leads people to do. This is what strict adherence to some book -- some. fucking. book. -- that was written two thousand years ago leads people to do. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
And they can boycot all they want, since they are free to do, they have that option. But not burning embassies or leveling death threats to the innocent. We need firmness in this case; the Arabic world turns to that wheel. Anyone read The Seven Pillars of Wisdom?
But freedom of speech comes down to one issue: Do we, or do we not, have the right to say and do what we want, provided we don't violate the rights of others?
Section 18 (1) The right to honour, to personal and family privacy and to the own image is guaranteed.
Section 20 (1) The following rights are recognized and protected: a) the right to freely express and spread thoughts, ideas and opinions through words, in writing or by any other means of reproduction; ... (2) The exercise of these rights may not be restricted by any form of prior censorship. ... (4) These freedoms are limited by respect for the rights recognized in this Part, by the legal provisions implementing it, and especially by the right to honour, to privacy, to the own image and to the protection of youth and childhood.
If I say that communism and anarcho-capitalism are the foolish ideas of vicious ideologues with the brain capacity of a AAA battery (e.g., Lenin, Rothbard, etc.), have I violated the honor of communists and anarcho-capitalists sufficiently to warrant arrest and trial?
Your freedom from offensive language results from your having the ability to walk away. Just. walk. away. If we punish everyone who says something that some other person finds offensive, we're all going to spend time in jail. It's too subjective and, as laws go, quite ridiculous. When something offends me, I walk away, or change the channel, or pick up a different newspaper or magazine. It's not very difficult. I don't demand that the government come to rescue me.
The right to "honor"? If people allow their honor to be damaged by some stupid cartoon in a newspaper, they're overly-emotional and need to seriously evaluate their beliefs, because, frankly, if your faith is so correct, in your mind, the words of a cartoonist shouldn't matter.
Offensive language, or cartoons, is not a violation of anyone's privacy, unless that person forces his way into your home to do so, at which point the crime goes well-beyond offensive language. This is the kind of law that leads to morons like Hillary Clinton and Lynn Cheney being allowed to wage a war on silly crap like video games, instead of doing the right thing by telling parents to stop buying them. "Oh, no! My kids are playing Super Mario Brothers, and Mario just jumped on a Bad Guy to kill it! Save me, Dubya! We must smite the evil Nintendo!"
Considering the potential secondary effects -- always the killer in public policy -- I would argue that, yes, this is an illiberal law. How has the law been applied? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Your freedom from offensive language results from your having the ability to walk away. Just. walk. away.
The first freedom is the freedom to say No.
I don't know whence comes this idyllic vision of a vast level playing field peopled exclusively by rational actors with infinite freedom of choice, but it doesn't much resemble the planet that I grew up on... The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
A lot of people in the pan-Arab world would like to walk away, just walk away, from Anglo/US occupation, from repressive regimes, from poverty, etc. Or they would very much like the occupiers to walk away, just walk away, from the occupied countries.
Last I looked, only one country in the region was under what can by any stretch of the term be called Anglo/US occupation. The world's northernmost desert wind.
As is increasingly becoming the case with you, DeAnander, you didn't address my point (just as you routinely failed to address my point in the Wal-Mart thread, instead relying on emotion and attack, in that case), which was addressed specifically to the controversy over the cartoons. I suspect you would find that you and I are in at least near-full agreement about US involvement in the Middle East (and South America, and Central America, and so on). I'll leave the issue of Anglo involvement to the Britons here.
I also appreciate the generalization about "the nation" -- not the Republicans, or the neocons, or the Bushies -- having no intention of walking away or "even bothering to count their victims". Nevermind the 48% of Americans who voted for John Kerry. Nevermind those of us who opposed this war from the beginning, and who spent endless hours doing everything we could to stop Bush from winning a second term. It's the whole damned nation. We're all a bunch of blood-spilling sociopaths, aren't we?
Unbelievable.
Nothing would make me happier than to see America rid itself of involvement with the current governments in the Middle East, whether Saudi Arabia, or Syria, or Israel, or whatever. Not one of those governments is worth a dime to me. Don't drag me down because of the actions of people I've worked to stop. You're more than welcome to call things as you see them, but don't throw out broad statements about Americans' views and attitudes and expect me to not respond by saying that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
more seriously...
afaik Kerry has not once repudiated the invasion of Iraq, but has only claimed that he would have done it better. ditto that beacon of Democratic hopes, H R Clinton. when the Dems identify themselves as the anti-war party, then the world at large will perceive America as a divided country; but the narrative of American media and the political spin of the major players is that the anti-war contingent is a tiny fringe of marginalised malcontent lefties who show up at ANSWER events. (this is of course not accurate, as I've been to those events and seen the broad spectrum of ages and political plumage there -- and it ignores critics from the Right like PC Roberts and J Raimondo -- but it's how things are spun by the media machinery.)
I live and work in the US and have for many years. I did everything within my small power to stop the invasion of Iraq -- I also decried and protested the US' earlier buddy-buddy-ness with Saddam 20 years ago, as it happens. nevertheless I do personally benefit from the policies of Empire, as well as personally paying for them and experiencing some disbenefits. I pay taxes to this government, instead of taking the path of conscience and becoming a tax resister. in my view, I share the responsibility -- even though I am not a US citizen -- much as a moderate Muslim who donates money to a group whose radical cadres carry out violent or extremist actions shares some responsibility for their actions. at least that is mho.
and though metacomment is seldom productive... gingerly I venture to wonder when or where I ever said that I expected anyone not to respond? when I assert a strong opinion I expect a certain number of people to disagree with me. that's just life.
you do seem to be getting a bit riled here, which concerns me as the tone of debate at ET is generally civil even when strained. if you're allergic to my style as an essayist, or you're angry because I don't conform to some "rules of debate" that you would like to enforce, well... to quote an earlier meme, why not just walk away :-) in any public bar or cafe, there are going to be people you like and people you don't, people you enjoy and people you find boring or irritating. that's also just life. why waste it getting personally angry with ascii characters on a screen? just my $.02 ... The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
