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 ...
