European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Blasphemy overflow thread

by Jerome a Paris
Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 09:17:18 AM EST

See the self-perceived 'minority' point of view from DoDo below the fold, and a 30 year cartoon from Gotlib, "God's club":

I'll just say that, as the reaction of my compatriots on the site confirms, in France this is really seen as a fight against religious intolerance. We won against the catholic church, and we'll have the same fight against islam.

Earlier thread: The right to blasphemy

I am a lifelong atheist. I insist on the freedom of art and argument against religions, be them misinterpreted as blasphemy (Rushdie's Satanic Verses or Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ) or true attacks on religion and religious people (Life of Brian, meteor-stricken Pope etc.). I also agree [using Sirocco's distinctions] that the publication by Jyllandposten and all re-publishers including Sirocco is permissible. But I don't think any of it is commendable.
While Jyllandposten framed its original provocation in terms of fighting for freedom of speech, I don't think it was really that. And I don't think this started half a year ago, either.
First, the cartoons weren't merely blasphemous, and not just distasteful, but as DeAnander and some others argued, [some] were borderline racist.
Jyllandposten took the freedom of speech as a superficial excuse to 'stand up to the Muslims'. I see this primarily in the framework of the six-year-ongoing anti-immigrant 'debate' by the Danish Right - which is also the reason behind the three-year-ongoing Danish majority support for the US neocon fight against the 'Islamofascists' in the Middle East, in particular Iraq. 'Stand up to the Muslims' is not at all anti-authoritarian but a big 'fuck you' to all those nasty suspicious immigrants, whether they issue death threats or not, going well beyond the intentions of the children's book publisher taken as ocassion.
In this light, I found the tone of some posters, especially in response to what Migeru digged up on the pre-internationalisation history of this affair in Denmark, truly sickening. The defense of freedom of speech has become an acceptable form of open xenophobia.
But I feel equally bad about the response of newspapers and diarists here, who think permissible becomes commendable just because there are radical forces who used this semi-racist bile for their own propaganda on the opposed side, and other, in-government forces made demands beyond their juridiction which weren't followed upon. This entirely misses the point, constitutes joining in in a cultural war, and only gives food for the racists.
A true fight against censorship would be to publish something that was actually subject to censorship-by-threats, or publish something in similar vein (which Jyllandposten's caricatures weren't), or to fight actual attempts of censorship by your own state. Neither the original publishing of these caricatures, nor any of the re-publishings were examples of this. Newspapers across Europe weren't boldly defying intimidation tactics, they were posturing and confirming perceptions of a broad Islamophobia, racism and ignorance.
At least this is my opinion.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. ET Editorial Guidelines
. Search
. Search (Google)

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Blasphemy overflow thread | 153 comments (153 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Who are we making fun of? (none / 1)

We have the right to make fun of anyone. It's better (more polite, less insulting) if you avoid being only nasty and having an obvious intent to humiliate, but that's the difference between talent and lack of it, not between what's allowed and what isn't.

We should always make fun of organised religion, it takes itself way too seriously - I mean, they basically invented "self-righteous"

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 09:22:23 AM EST

Re: Who are we making fun of? (4.00 / 2)

Someone else is offended. Should that cartoon not have been published?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 09:58:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 2)

On the sheet: Muhammad with a big nose
The cartoonist says: "I did NOT draw him"

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 09:24:52 AM EST

From lesoir.be (none / 0)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:39:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Additional interesting link (none / 0)

Islamic images of Mohammed throughout history (by another American over at dKos)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 07:28:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Media event (none / 0)

This was a media event: Designed and staged. It had a purpose. What purpose? To stampede Europe to side with the US against Iran.

Think twice before you fall for this.

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:19:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Media event (none / 0)

'ello! Have you met my friend Mr Occam? He has a marvellous razor.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Alexander G Rubio (alexander.rubio@gmail.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:25:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For what it is worth... (4.00 / 3)

This was my response to that post of DoDo, and ensuing responses could be posted here, if people feel inclined to. Of course, it is Saturday and within 30 minutes I'll be scooting off to the lovely city of Leiden and be completely disconnected from the Internet for at least 16 hours and probably enjoy every minute of it. I'll return to regular armchair-philosophising after that - and with the risk of a possible hangover.

Thorough comment, as always. I've been chewing on the racist argument since I read DeAnader's postings in this thread. I think you're totally correct in that we should take care that our freedom of speech doesn't get hijacked by xenophobes for nationwide indoctrination. History has been there before and it didn't end so well. And even although xenophobia appears to be on the march in Denmark, I don't agree that the cartoons were intended as a 'fuck you' to their Muslim minority. In fact, that would also undermine the racist argument, since there are plenty of Muslim minorities which are NOT Arab. Given, the Arab/Turk/Persian minorities are the largest ones. If I take the gist of this it is partly about the rise of fundamentalist Muslim regimes like Saudi Arabia and their dangerously narrow vision, reminiscent of Christian imperial times. It all comes back to oil again, BTW.
And the violent responses to the cartoons argues against the racism issue as well, since all the violence was especially founded on the blasphemous content of the cartoons - not the caricaturing of the people an sich. If there were protests on that, perhaps they went through official channels as well, I don't know. Fact is, the demands of the fundamentalists is not based on contempt of race - so right now, I see it as a side issue. One we should be watchful for, but not the one that's at hand.

Come to think of that, I've never quoted myself before.

by Nomad on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 09:38:11 AM EST

Re: For what it is worth... (4.00 / 6)

don't agree that the cartoons were intended as a 'fuck you' to their Muslim minority. In fact, that would also undermine the racist argument, since there are plenty of Muslim minorities which are NOT Arab.

In that case, I think we understood DeAnander's 'racist' argument differently. In my interpretation, races don't exist anyway, and there is always some idea of grouping human geographical diversity first - that is, in this case, 'Muslim' has became 'dark-skinned immigrant with strange habits', which fits Arabs and Iranians and Pakistanis and Turks equally well.

And the violent responses to the cartoons argues against the racism issue as well, since all the violence was especially founded on the blasphemous content of the cartoons

First, I note you (again) took the violent responses as representative for the wider reaction (in choosing what to react to). Second, these groups have their own agenda, and just like here in Europe, it is not necessarily what they say - for example, as Detlef pointed out in Sirocco's thread, the Gaza offices of the EU weren't attacked by militants of the religious fundamentalist Hamas, but of the nationalist Fatah, which just lost the election and was trying to gain new profile. Third, even for the common Muslim, the issues of blasphemy and racism shan't be that clearly separated - semi-racist cartoons depicting Muslims are a personal insult, blasphemy is a religious insult, a semi-racist cartoon depicting Muhammad is both plus a semi-racist insult to Muhammad, so what will you emphasize first?

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:33:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For what it is worth... (4.00 / 7)

My Mother's reaction (as a practicing Muslim) was to say;

"I'm not sure which side is most childish"

My Father as a non practicing Muslim was;

"I thought cartoons were supposed to be funny"

so a mixed reaction from Muslims all round really, of course it sells no newspapers to show that view when there are 20 - 30 people protesting outside the BBC with banners demanding the beheading of cartoonists..

by Samir on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:43:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For what it is worth... (4.00 / 4)

Heh. Sounds like both of my reactions - as an atheist.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 01:19:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For what it is worth... (4.00 / 4)

In fact, that would also undermine the racist argument, since there are plenty of Muslim minorities which are NOT Arab. Given, the Arab/Turk/Persian minorities are the largest ones.

But race has never been about a scientific study of your genes, it is about defining groups as higher and lower. And 'immigrants' are the group defined as lower in Denmark today, with connotations of muslem darkies. I would not be surprised if christian or other persons with darker-then-pink skin and an accent find themselves being perceived and treated as muslem by danish society. It is racist, the race in question being (as always) 'the others'.

I can say that in October this publication was clearly perceived in Swedish MSM as a symptom of the growing xenophobia in Denmark and indeed as a "'fuck you' to their Muslim minority". Remember that this was before any violent reaction. Being MSM now appear to have changed to a position were it was justified by the reactions it caused four months later.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:45:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For what it is worth... (4.00 / 4)

Two notes connecting to what you wrote.

First, indeed in racism, perceptions are all that matter. As I said earlier in some other thread, I got my lesson in this in my first few months in West Germany - my non-tendy, 'shabby' communist-bloc clothes, thin composture, and ununderstandable babbling in a foreign language, and possibly the nose, was enough for being identified as a Turk (and treated with the disdain and stereotypes then reserved for them), even with a blue eye and a pale skin.

Second, I got an inside view of the earliest stages of this development in Denmark, via a Danish member of a discussion group I frequented then. She was actually so much fed up with it that she moved to Sweden.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 12:00:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For what it is worth... (4.00 / 5)

You have to look at this in the context of the different attacks by far right racist groups. In the Uk for example incitement to racial hatred is a specific crime. As you rightly point out, being muslim does not identify you as coming from a particular racial or indeed ethnic background. What these racist groups have done is to use religion as a code word for race, thus compalaints that muslims are changing the character of a town directly translates as "Pakistanis" or indeed anybody brown from the sub-continent whether muslim or not. The attacks against "Muslims" are in truth "Pakis out" messages modified to keep within the law.

Similarly, I believe there is a strong co-relation between these attacks on "Islam" in the Netherlands and Germany as substitures for directly racist attacks on those from the Dutch East Indies or on Turkish "guestworkers".

by Londonbear on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 12:56:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Few corrections (none / 1)

You seem to echo exactly my point, but then continue that the concept of 'race' is now just tagged under the religion. I honestly believe that can't be the whole story of it. It has been the Arabic culture that has been portrayed as violent, not the Pakistani one, not Indonesia (biggest Muslim country in the world), not those in Africa. Point is, the most fundamentalistic Islam originates from the Arab world, wahabism is the prime example here.

I won't deny that more xenophobic sentiments with the minorities don't play a possible part, but bringing religion down into a twisted subverted race issue doesn't strike me a convincing argument.

Lastly, when you speak for the Netherlands you are plain wrong. I don't know how I can put that strong enough.

Firstly, the Dutch East Indies and Turkish immigrants are overall well respected and have a good rep. That's one.

It is the Moroccan, dominantly Berber origin, minority that has been cause of extensive scrutiny, in a truly Dutch nothing-held-back way. And drug-dealing, unemployed youth on the streets, a majority Moroccan, does cause trouble. In Rotterdam, the Aruban minority have a similar problem. Naming that is not racist; that's a consequence of the multicultural society where a number of groups drop out for various reasons. It would be if the Dutch began to point out the troubles in Morocco all the time. The Dutch have ignored the growing problem for a while, but after Fortuyn things changed. And Dutch are pretty blunt, especially in their criticism. They call the beast what it is.

Secondly, research that investigated whether the Dutch press was writing more negative about their minorities after the Van Gogh murder found an increase of positive reportings, not a reversal. The message has practically always been: we cannot tolerate militant islamist when they preach to destroy the western, non-islamitic world. That has been the focus. And as I muse below thread, there has been developing a cycle that the majority of Muslims get the feeling they get part of the blame. Which seems a consequence of it.

by Nomad on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 10:11:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For what it is worth... (none / 1)

ASKOD, welcome to ET - nice to see you found your way over here. Hope you are well.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 04:04:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For what it is worth... (none / 1)

Thank you, Fran.

I am very well, I hope you are too. Been busy in the real world lately, mostly fun stuff though.

I have been over here a few times before, and had a snack between the drinks over at the moon. But I have not commented before. This place is just so big and fast.

And bright. Hissing sound like a vampire seeing the sunlight

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 10:56:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A little too fast... (none / 1)

To my taste right now in this debate, really. And we seem to forget manners, too. Welcome to ET, ASKOD. Good to see you stopped peeking in from the windows and walked into the club. Have some tea, and perhaps we can dim the light somewhat. ;) Liquor is served after 5 PM. That would be Parisian time, of course...

by Nomad on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 12:03:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 3)

Some of the cartoons bordered on racism. Others were more clever. Not all of them should be categorized as such.

In this debate, I take the viewpoint of the ACLU who has, in the past, defended the Ku Klux Klan. There is a fine line between a form of speech that muzzles debate and an actual debate itself. Clearly, a cartoon in newsprint is not a form of speech that muzzles the speech of others.

I don't think I read anything celebratory in the diaries of those critical of Muslims yesterday. Instead, it seemed as though diarists were choosing to emphasize the importance of free speech, in this instance, over the sensibilities of a religious group. Freedom of speech is basically a safeguard for the rights of the individual so that a powerful consensus (i.e. almost all religions) will not dictate thought to individuals. It was quite telling that many religious leaders of all the world's religions (and even governments) condemned the cartoons. Their power, after all, comes from the consensus that surrounds a belief system.

by Upstate NY on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 10:02:10 AM EST

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 3)

Some of the cartoons bordered on racism. Others were more clever.

Agreed, I would have watched my words more carefully if I had written this for a diary. On the other hand, it is of little significance to my argument - I was focusing on Jyllandsposten rather than on individual cartoonists.

I don't think I read anything celebratory

I don't understand what you read as me claiming so.

Freedom of speech is basically a safeguard for the rights of the individual so that a powerful consensus (i.e. almost all religions) will not dictate thought to individuals.

In Denmark, there was and is no powerful Islamist consensus. Also, I stated at the beginning that I think it is permissible but not commendable to post and re-post this stuff, and later that it is of no real significance that Muslim governments make demands our states to not permit such stuff as long as our states won't follow suit, so please don't argue against a position I didn't held and a threat that does not exist.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:17:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 3)

Well, there is a strong Islamist consensus in Denmark and Britain too, but they are a minority and not the majority. The death threats issued against journalists and cartoonist are a pretty powerful stuff and have been and will be in the future a tool used by extremist to stifle and control the freedom of others including their freedom of speech.

I do agree though that the decision to publish these cartoons in the first place was not commendable, but when this leads to violent behaviour you have to take a firm stance against it, both the specific death threats issued and the upsurge of violence in general.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:39:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 2)

Can I ask what you believe this 'Islamist consensus' is and what it represents?

by Samir on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 02:10:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 1)

A better and more commonly used terminology would be Islamic Jihadists. These groups are small and have a common perception of Western liberalism and some Western values being a threat to their perceptions of traditional Islamic beliefs and some are even propagating a holy war against their enemies leading to the bombings in Madrid and London. One such group was al-Muhajiroun in London, lead by Omar Bakri Muhammad until he was declared persona non-grata in Britain.

Another such militant Islamist group operating from Copenhagen, Denmark is the trans-national Hizb ut-Tahrir (Liberation Party). This is what the BBC article says about this group:

The party has expressed support of suicide bombings in Israel. It denounces Western governments and what it sees as their lackey regimes in the Middle East. And Hizb Ut Tahrir is calling on Muslims in Britain to decide whether their loyalty lies with this country or with God.

But let me emphasise that this is a small group and is by no means representing the majority of Muslims in Europe or in the World at large. As I have mentioned before this is extremist views and not the views of the majority of moderate Muslims.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 05:42:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Brief comment... (4.00 / 2)

Yet it is that minority of militant islamist groups present in Europe, coupled to the fundamentalists in the Middle East, which are successfully tainting the picture of the majority of Muslims for many westerners. And that's starting to become an increasing problem. In the Netherlands, we've been there since the Van Gogh killing - a majority of the Muslim community has felt increasingly jaded. On the plus side, it has brought many bad sides of the multicultural society in the open to discuss - but which is then taken by the militant islamists as offending, making them even more radical anti-west. There is a sort of a cycle developing.

by Nomad on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 07:53:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Brief comment... (none / 0)

My Father's been a doctor for the NHS for forty years, my Mother's been a lawyer and a JP for the last twenty years, they're tainted are they?

by Samir on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 09:55:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If I hadn't read... (4.00 / 2)

...your previous comment that your parents are (non)practicing Muslims, I wouldn't have understood. Actually, I think I still don't understand what you're trying to ask me.

I only observed that the continuing focus on the militant islam within the world reflects badly on the majority of the Muslim community. And the larger group in the Netherlands feels unconformtable with that - and rightly so. There's no reason whatsoever for them to act repenting. For them, the Muslim millitants have upped the scales to prove they're honourable, hard working citizens - while many are already in an underdog position.

Personally, I have a hard time imagining how someone could think narrow enough to assume that with one bad apple the entire basket has gone wrong. People have forgotten their own (Christian) history.

by Nomad on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 10:30:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If I hadn't read... (none / 0)

Is it the Muslim militants that have 'upped the scales' or is it the people of The Netherlands?

by Samir on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 12:22:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If I hadn't read... (none / 0)

I find that a deceptive question. Neither of them, one of them, or both of them. All answers apply. All of this discussion is based on generalisations.

But I'll try. It is the majority of Muslim communities that feels pressurised to outshine even better than before to a society that is suspicious of the faith the Muslims adhere because of increasing examples of intolerant and militant Islam interpretations. I don't think I can answer it in any other way.

by Nomad on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 01:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 2)

Dodo, in the limited responses we provide here, a lot gets lost. So please don't take offense. When I mentioned a "consensus," it's clear to me that Western, European, American elites have decried the publication of the cartoons. Religious leaders and governments have criticized the cartoons, not at the level of content, but as free speech.

I simply believe that our point of emphasis should not be on the coercive power of cultural elites to decide what should be published or not. Especially in a private commercial organ such as a media newspaper which is susceptible to all sorts of pressures.

Again, this is a point of emphasis. I simply think we should be much, much more concerned about an individual right rather than the collective offense.

by Upstate NY on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 12:42:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 3)

I'm for freedom of speech. And against the dictates of religion. What is weird is that the American right-wing has made this a cause celebré...and their tendency is to be religio-fascistic nauseates me. So they see their chance to inflame the war between Christianity and Islam, America and "terrorists". I don't know why exactly, but the whole thing makes me kind of paranoid...like who is behind this, and why now?

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia

by whataboutbob on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 10:38:05 AM EST

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 4)

Some of the more interesting things about this for me are that two trials in the UK are perhaps connected to this whole situation; the trial of Nick Griffin of the BNP and the trial of Abu Hamza the 'radical' Imam of Finsbury Park...

by Samir on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 10:46:12 AM EST

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 1)

Jerome, it's obvious that you only recognize a bigot when you see it if the bigot is anti-french or anti-semitic.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:08:07 AM EST

Ouch (4.00 / 3)

That's a pretty nasty accusation, but I don't think I am the best placed to answer it, so I won't.

You can go vote me an extremist in the dKos diary linked to below, which I concluded with your words.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:12:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ouch (none / 1)

Why would I do such a thing? Have I called you an extremist? And just because you quote me I'm not going to rush to recommend the diary. I've said before that I don't identify with the DKos community so recommending and voting there is like freeping an online poll, which people seem strangely fond of doing over there.

I refer you to my last comment on Sirocco's thread which basically sums up my position that the whole thing is at best a monumental miscalculation on the part of Jyllands-posten, and at worst a hijacking of freedom of speech for the benefit of the Danish right's anti-immigrant agenda.

if Jyllands-posten ended up issuing their apology (not a retractation, though) within the last week, they might have issued the same apology back in October. The fact is that it took an international boycott to get Danish agribusiness to put political pressure on JP and the PM, and then they apologized. Fredom of speech? I don't think so. It's all about power.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:32:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ouch (none / 0)

I know you don't care about dKos. I was just mentioning this as I thought that quoting you respectfully (at least that was my intention) was a way to show you that I had actually listened to your point of view, and absorbed it, and that your comment about selective bigotry was maybe a bit harsh.

Sorry to have tried to sent you into the orange hell.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:42:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ouch (4.00 / 2)

I have not said you're a selective bigot. I said you react to bigotry selectively.

Just being my usual undiplomatic self. Good thing I don't draw cartoons, edit newspapers or meet with ambassadors.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:55:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ouch (none / 0)

We can react to bigotry every minute of every day. There's a lot of bigotry everywhere in the world. But these cartoons were not originally printed by anyone in a position of power, nor a major media organ, nor by a dangerous entity that represents a threat to the rights of others.

In that case, we might as well rail against other insignificant slights that abound. As I said earlier, I liken this to the ACLU's defense of the KU Klux Klan, a group I clearly find reprehensible. But I don't bother protesting them, even as I think their right to have political marches should be guaranteed.

Let's face it, this tempest exploded when a heretofore unknown tiny newspaper caused a wave of protest. It's perhaps not ironic that the protest itself caused the images of Mohammed to proliferate around the world. In other words, the protest itself spurred the supposed "mass desecration of the prophet" to its exponential maximum.

by Upstate NY on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 12:50:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ouch (none / 1)

I think you confuse the first re-publisher, the Norwegian paper, with Jyllandsposten. The latter is Denmark's largest paper.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 12:54:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ouch (none / 1)

It depends on your perspective. According to Gallup's most recent numbers Jyllandsposten has 557.000 daily readers. That makes it one of the largest Danish newspapesr. If you take an international perspective, however, that makes it really really tiny :)

Biilmann Blog

by BobFunk (bobfunk@clanwhiskey.net) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 01:22:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ouch (none / 0)

BobFunk, I'd appreciate it if you could correct any factual errors, misinterpretations, misrepresentations or omissions in this thread.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 01:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ouch (none / 1)

Let's not get into whether Denmark's largest newspaper is "a tiny heretofore unknown newspaper". </snark>

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 01:25:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ouch (none / 0)

Right, maybe I did confuse it. I read however that the Danes themselves take a rather skeptical approach to the original newspaper. Regardless, it's absolutely fantastic that we're all considering what the editors of these papers might have set out to accomplish. I mean, really, this has been overblown.

by Upstate NY on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:22:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ouch (4.00 / 5)

The ACLU does not claim that the KK is not racist, do they? They just defend racists because they believe that any encroachment on freedom of speech will eventually erode their own.

In the case at hand, too many people are claiming that this is purely an issue of freedom of speech, which I think it's not. Jyllands-posten, in my opinion, decided to use its freedom of speech and its position as one of Denmark's papers of record, to provoke the muslim community of Denmark.

As I am not a muslim but I am a secular European, it is Jyllands-posten behaviour, not that of the muslim extremists issuing death threats, that reflects on me by association, and therefore that is the side that I concentrate on criticizing. Especially when I see freedom of speech used to protect bigoted attitudes, only to turn around and issue a half-hearted apology when a boycott starts hurting Denmark's economic interests. At its core, this is an issue of power.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 01:24:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ouch (none / 1)

The ACLU doesn't comment on the KKK's beliefs. It's immaterial to the ACLU's interests.

By bringing up the KKK, I'm trying to make the same point that jyllands-posten's action should be immaterial to the discussion of free speech. Frankly, I've never read the newspaper, nor do I care to. nor do I condemn them because they are so far beyond my scope, I wouldn't bother. For all I know, they are a right-wing Nazi newspaper.

Freedom of speech is sued to put forth bigoted attitudes all the time, especially from obscure corners (as I have heard the mass media Danes portray this particular newspaper). I simply don't see why this particular instance of bigoted free speech merits so much exposure.

by Upstate NY on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:20:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ouch (none / 1)

Jerome, I am really sorry I came out so harsh.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 05:11:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ouch (none / 0)

Thanks, Migeru.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 05:44:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

dKos version (none / 0)

See this riff on the topic over at dKos for your kind recommendations...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:08:11 AM EST

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 4)

See the self-perceived 'minority'

Judging from the number of posters on either side, or from the number of ratings handed out, it is not only self-perceived.

We won against the catholic church, and we'll have the same fight against islam.

Come on, since when does France have an Islamic state church? The one issue coming anywhere near is the shrouds-in-school issue, but the Danish cartoons aren't a French domestic issue. Now that some made it so, you can eat it.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:09:43 AM EST

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 3)

Well, from the same sources, I see the "activists" on either side in a 7:5 ratio, which makes a pretty big minority.

As to the catholic church, it's never been a state church in France... The issue is not the institutional framework, but the willingness and ability to barge into the political debate, and Islam is certainly barging in these days - and often it's not even coming from French citizens or residents!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:20:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 2)

Have you forgotten about the persecution of the Huguenots? Between the 16th and the 18th centuries in Europe, the monarch was the state and there was state religion even in republics (like in Geneva under Calvin).

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:24:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

Or when the King was Pope!

by Samir on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:30:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 1)

Or when the King of England invented a new religion because the Pope wouldn't grant him a divorce. Apparently people in England still think (as I read in the Evening Standard opinion pages) that the reason Catholics were persecuted in England was because they were "terrorists" instead of terrorism like Guy Fawkes' Gunpowder Plot stemming from the persecution unleashed by Kings and Lord Protectors alike.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:36:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 1)

of course Henry VIII was also King of part of modern day France ;)

by Samir on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:52:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 2)

I was only replying with respect to France.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:35:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 2)

And the Huguenots were persecuted by the King of France. Unless you want to argue that France came into existance in 1789.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:37:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 2)

I see the "activists" on either side in a 7:5 ratio, which makes a pretty big minority.

I saw it more like 13:7, Or 13:6 when I was just reading through and not commenting myself. Anyway, 7:5 is still an objective minority.

As to the catholic church, it's never been a state church in France...

I'm not sure about the precise terms, but France was the 'eldest daughter of the Church'.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:48:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 2)

Personally, I'm with Nosemonkey on this one:

In short, this is all more complex than it appears and everyone involved should grow the hell up and stop acting like those fat toddlers you seen rolling around on the floor screaming when Mummy doesn't buy them a sweetie. Most importantly, the cartoonists who sparked the whole thing off should piss off to art school, learn how to draw, and then get a sense of humour from somewhere. If those shoddy, sub-schoolboy efforts had been posted on b3ta does anyone really think they'd get frontpaged? I doubt they'd even be worthy of a "woo", let alone a "woo yay".
But whoops - I'm appealing to reason, and everyone involved is a moron. The newspaper editors who were prepared to pay for and print such cack are morons for being duped into parting with cash. The Muslim nutties who got offended are morons for having so little confidence in their faith that some artless scribbles shake its foundations. The people who have turned this into a free speech issue are morons for being conned into supporting talentless idiots who actually most likely WERE intending to be offensive. Anyone who unreservedly apologises - beyond saying "yes, some of them were offensive, but the most important thing is they were crap and had been seen by hardly anyone until you idiots started kicking up a fuss" - is a moron.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 01:44:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 2)

The people who have turned this into a free speech issue are morons for being conned into supporting talentless idiots who actually most likely WERE intending to be offensive. Anyone who unreservedly apologises - beyond saying "yes, some of them were offensive, but the most important thing is they were crap and had been seen by hardly anyone until you idiots started kicking up a fuss" - is a moron.

Seems to me the last two sentences are in flagrant contradiction of each other. It's precisely because this is a free speech issue that unreserved apologies, and especially from national governments, are uncalled for.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 02:11:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 4)

Somehow Nosemonkey seems to argue -- maybe this is "appealing to reason"? -- that, because the cartoons were offensive and the artists were not Vincent fucking van Gogh (that's his full name, by the way), the issue is not about free speech. He doesn't address the comments that people, like me, have made: Even if it's offensive, and even if they intended it to be offensive, they still have the right to print it.

Me thinks Nosemonkey gets a kick out of pretending to remain above all of this. Perhaps he could address the deeper argument about free speech before calling the rest of us "morons".

And remind me to never hire him as my lawyer in a case involving constitutional law.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:58:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

If Jyllands-posten finally apologized after Danish dairy companies complained about the ongoing boycott of their products, it can't have been about freedom of speech but about political power. You're the economist, you should understand this better than the rest of us.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:09:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

Yes, I am pissed at JP for folding for such low brow reasons.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 05:28:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 3)

Maybe their appeal to freedom of speech was a high-brow excuse.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 05:33:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rubbish (none / 1)

What exactly are you saying here? Since I get bad vibes from it.

I'm compelled to your earlier arguments, but I think using the freedom of speech as an excuse for other motivations (as you seem to imply to me by the above post) is nonsense. Then this issue would come down to, "We posted these cartoons not for a reason, but because we could". Sounds exactly like the wrong reason why the US is in the Iraq: "Because we can". There was a dispute on a threatened cartoonist for a book, the JP responded to that with their cartoons, which weren't commendable, and it backfired on them.

by Nomad on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 08:07:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rubbish (none / 1)

My last direct experience of Denmark is early in 2000, but already back then there was a lot of anti-immigrant bad vibe going around. There was some questionable anti-immigrant legislation being considered back then, and the rise of the Dansk Folkeparti has been worrisome. Recently five army officers were found guilty of torture in Iraq but the judge ruled that they should not be punished, which is a stark contrast to the way military misconduct was handled in European countries during the 1990s, including one case in Denmark if I remember correctly. Perusing other blogs because of the cartoon controversy I have come across several claims that the atmosphere in Denmark has become nigh unbreathable for progressives.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 05:05:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then it is still rubbish (4.00 / 2)

You're not answering the question I asked you, but I get the idea. I think.

Freedom of speech is a right we've won in the western world; it is not a defense that can be used when we get into troubles. By suggesting freedom of speech is a tool (a weapon?) or an excuse you're actually lowering it's genuine value. That ticks me the wrong way.

by Nomad on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 08:31:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then it is still rubbish (none / 0)

Are you honestly saying that freedom of speech cannot be, has not been, and will not be, used as a weapon? That is naive.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 05:18:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey... (none / 0)

I'm the first to admit I'm naive, so you could leave that part to me the next time. And those are your words, so I'm not saying them, right? :)

Of course freedom of speech can be abused for evil purposes such as systematic vilification, but if you argue that freedom of speech was used as a weapon in the case of the JP newspaper, I refer back to my rubbish statement.

by Nomad on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 06:55:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey... (none / 0)

I thought the bad vibe that ticked you the wrong way was a general point, not specific to this particular case. So I refer you back to my reply to your rubbish statement, which addressed the specific case.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 07:03:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Migeru... (none / 0)

Don't mix up two comments from different posts, I don't appreciate that. I got bad vibes from your possible implications, it ticks me the wrong way when the freedom of speech would be degenerated as an excuse for behaviour.

I refer back to my "Then it is still rubbish" post. I don't see how your reply answers my question. But this is getting me too silly. Perhaps it better to agree to disagree.

by Nomad on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 07:28:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Migeru... (none / 1)

We're obviously not communicating since to me it seems like you keep moving the goalposts.

It's not like I have not stated "my possible implications" openly in the case of JP, so I don't know what you're surprised about.

I prefer the sillyness of referring to our own post 4 steps up ad infinitum. I think some silliness might be in order just to lighten everyone up, including myself.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 07:35:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nomad [Re: Migeru...] (4.00 / 2)

I offer you an infinitely-regressing handshake.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 07:41:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nomad [Re: Migeru...] (none / 0)

I refer you to your previous post and shake it. :)

by Nomad on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 07:45:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nomad [Re: Migeru...] (none / 1)

There you go. Now as long as we can execute each handshake in sufficiently less time than the previous one we can emerge from the whole thing in a finite time. Otherwise we're going to look like siamese twins joined by our right hands.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 07:47:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh (none / 1)

This is why discussing with a mathematician is so hard: they can go on ad infinitum and understand the concept while others just need to bail out because they get all confused...

by Nomad on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 08:19:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh (4.00 / 3)

Here's another infinite regression for your enjoyment...

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 08:22:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh (none / 1)

Hey - Escher Blogging. Now that would be an excellent, excellent idea!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 06:36:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 3)

I think this is it.

This is what has been bugging me with this whole story. Jyllandsposten was forced to back down by a boycott against danish dairy-products. But economic weapons are something that is considered an acceptable weapon in western debate. When adds are pulled or subsriptions cancelled other papers rarely rally to the defense of free speech by re-publishing the offensive material. Sure they had to attack an indirect target (Arla) to get to their real target (Jyllandsposten). But that is also nothing new. Companies are boycotted for placing adds in (and thus supporting) different papers or events. What is new is that it was the muslem world ralling their consumer power in defense of their danish brethren of the faith and they are not supposed to do that!

Then you get re-publishings, high-and-mighty cries about free speach, demonstrations and bomb-threaths from the bloody Al-Quaeda juvenile squad punk division in charge of cartoons in northern europe. All in a reinforcing circle of events.

So what happened there in the space between the paragraphs? Somehow this was turned from a question of economic power where a western paper was loosing to a question of free speach, were a western paper can hardly loose if fighting muslems (there is always going to be the Al-Quaeda juvenile squad punk division in charge of cartoons in northern europe to issue some threaths if you need to prove you are right). 'Why' is easy. 'How' is little bit harder, depending on the level of details you want.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 10:13:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 2)

The Danish companies have a right to protest. If they advertise in the newspaper, they can pull their advertisements in protest. That, too, is freedom of speech. It, of course, goes both ways.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 09:16:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 5)

It seems to me that perhaps a reasonable line might be to say that one reserves the right to freedom of speech, including insulting cartoons, but that one is polite enough to not exercise it.

There is blame enough on both sides here.

by asdf on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:33:55 AM EST

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 3)

I think pretty much around here agrees; some of us have chosen to focus on the "right to" and others on the "polite to not" aspect of it.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:37:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In a quandary (4.00 / 5)

All the contributions to this debate have been useful. I quite like the idea that we have so many different views - and maybe that is one of the points, that we are 'allowed' to have such differing opinions.

In the end it is a personal thing (and I agree with J about organized religion)

Whenever I have travelled in Muslim countries, (and during my BBC documentary days that was quite a bit) , I have taken great care to observe the niceties of everyday public culture wherever I am. However in private culture I have adjusted to the people I am with - which has meant breaking the 'law' sometimes.

I do the same in Finland. In public I am circumspect, in private I break those laws with which I do not agree. I am not talking anything major here - I observe speed limits at all times versus the occasional joint.

I would certainly not provoke any religious guest at my house, of whatever faith - though I would enjoy debating with them. I am happy to make vegetarian food, as long as I can at the same time enjoy, if I want to, a steak in their presence. I do not demand to smoke in other peoples houses, but I smoke at home and inform any guests of that when I invite them.

So, for me, it is all a mixed personal bag of morals, addictions, convictions, hospitality and selfishness. I would guess that we are all a bit like that.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:39:54 AM EST

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 2)

I don't care much for strawman-type arguments and, personally, I don't feel DoDo has correctly characterized the way I feel, before going on to present an admittedly well-crafted response.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I see this as a clash between progress vs stagnation, art and sciences being, as always, the flashpoints.

The expression "being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century" comes to mind.

(As a subset I'll add that the radical Muslims' equal condemnation of Salman Rushdie -- the very opposite in style, form and thoughtfulness -- loses them any respect I might have for their position.)

by Lupin on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 12:38:12 PM EST

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

Speaking of strawmen, I most certainly didn't argue for any respect of the radical Muslims' position.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 12:41:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

I didn't say you did.

I said, I didn't recognize myself in your post. That's all.

[reinsert here my own post]

by Lupin on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 01:09:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 4)

I have an idea to promote freedom of speech. It is time to front-page a lot of male jews having fun with some naked german girls in a concentration camp with some clever and fun quote... something like "this is place is terrific..let's gonna have some fun in the showers". That should be fun....or may be I am wrong

I think we should also publish a cartoon in the front-page with Virgin Maria being sodomized by Jesus-Christ... A quote saying something like "I love being a virgin...this hole does not count". That also would be cracking...or maybe I am wrong

The day I see those kind of cartoons in any major european newspapers (or here) I will support them and support freedom of speech. Right now I only see bigots on both sides.

So, until then... well I think it is all very complex.... the line between bigotry and fun.. Since I am generally libertarian I hope one day we could write down any kind of offensive stuff...and that it would be legal. But the sitautaion now is such that I am have enough pointing out the hypocresy of both sides (should I remember what Siria would do if you try to proselitize buddism or hinduism or evangelical teachings..?)

Last post about that. I am tired of it. And , no jerome.. I am sorry is not as easy as you put it.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 12:44:56 PM EST

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 2)

Is rubbing dung all over Mary or pissing on Christ enough of an insult?

We've seen these images mass produced in the United States, and only the zealots freaked out about it. The rest of us went about our business and said, "Well, that's art," or, "that's free speech."

I'm sure the United States is NOT ahead of Europe in terms of so-called religious desecrations, so I'm not sure about the hypocrisy.

by Upstate NY on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 12:54:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

The day yo see the joke about the jews in any exhibition in New York I will agree with you. OR in the New York Times

And no, pissing on them is not as much an insult as making fun of the holocaust or mixing sex and the Virgin Maria in explicit pornographic action.

Believe me, in an ideal world I would be completey with you on this.. knowing the bigots in Europe I have to be less cheerful.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 01:08:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

Well, some might venture to say that smearing shit on the Virgin Mary with tax payer dollars is probably a bigger provocation than any of the cartoons. I mean, in the US, we've actually seen much "worse" than what you describe.

by Upstate NY on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:25:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

About three years ago, the JEWISH museum in New York City had an exibition called "TOO Jewish?" Lots of jokes, there....

by messy on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 05:53:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

Well, when you worship a god like this Jehovah dude, you'd be have a solid sense of humor ...

Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.

by Francois in Paris on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:39:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

I agree, offensive expressions, have been around for a long time in the West, it is nothing new, people may like or dislike them, but they are allowed as expressions, and that is precisely the issue in the debate following the printing of these cartoons. You meet peaceful statements or expressions, with peaceful counter-moves, violence or the threat of violence, does not in any way belong in a debate or public discourse.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Geir E Jansen on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 07:28:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 2)

Have you seen any mockery of the jews in any major newspapers lately?

Any bad taste joke about the shoa?

Sorry to disagree strongly wiht you.. but it looks like I am living in a different Europe...

Actually in Italy a merely advertisement where a guy promoting video-games was shown in Jesus-Christ prompted condemnation and calls for boycots from the catholic church. Suffice to say that the next week all the billboards were withdrawn.

SO, yes, I think it is much more easy in Europe to defend freedom of speech when it is about muslims than when it is about jews or catholics.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 04:24:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 1)

Kcurie, you are indeed living in a different Europe. You simply can't compare Spain, Italy or Poland to Scandinavia.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 05:53:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 1)

"Il Male", a satirical Italian magazine, went further than just publishing critical articles, comments and cartoons against the Catholic church, political parties and the government in their paper:

They occasionally copied the entire edition of, say, La Repubblica, Il Corriere della Sera, Il Messaggero, La Stampa, or the German BILD and the biggest Polish newspaper ( I forgot the name of it) and managed to distribute them at the newspaper sales stands in Italy.

One time they even managed to smuggle thousands of copies into communist Poland.

"Il Male" would report in the hijacked newspaper, following their stile 1:1, a main news headline article, which would slightly exagerate the 'normal' political/ideological core beliefs of the paper. I remember that they did a stunt on the Red Brigades and the Moro assasination in La Repubblic, the Pope's first visit to Poland in the Polish Gazeta, they also announced the sudden, unexpected fall of the Berlin Wall which would lead to German re-unification in BILD as early as in 1982, etc.pp.

Here is a hijacked Italian newspaper, owned by Berlusconi, which opens with the headline:

They want Silvio in Loreto Square

(Mussolini was hung in Loreto Square)

It goes on:

The left already makes preparations for a night of long knives and foments hate exactly like they did in 1945. It suffices to read Giorgio Bocca.

"The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819

by Ritter on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 07:18:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

Actually a cartoon book of the very kind you describe already exists.

It is called "HITLER = SS" (a joke on the 1968 "CRS = SS" rallying cry) and it was a collection of Holocaust-themed cartoons by French cartoonist Vuillemin.

I have the book; it is indeed in appalling taste, but in very twisted way, funny through shock and excess.

It came out about ten years ago or so; I believe it may have been the subjects of some (understandable) attacks from concentration camps victims & relatives, but ultimately prevailed.

Vuillemin went on to win awards, etc.

It is still on sale today. I can't possibly imagine anyone publishing it in the US, though it would be legally safe undoubtedly.

by Lupin on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 01:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

I would like to know if its main aim was to attack and denigrate jews using clear antisemitic tones or not.

In this case, I will gladly say that in France you can really support racism using sarcasm and that there is no problem...But I must point that there would still be a difference: you would not see any major newspaper printing it.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 02:04:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 1)

You echo the arguments on Londonbear in the Sirocco thread. The problem here is that we are perfectly allowed to do these suggestions and would raise outcries from the Jewish communities or the Christian communities and agree that they're tasteless. But that would be it. The outcries from the fundamentalistic Muslims echo those from the Christans and Jewish of the past. They've accepted the libertarian view to which I also aspire.

Bigotry and fun of the Jewish and the Christians is still going on, though perhaps not as extreme - I think partly because it's simply no longer necessary to provoke and taunt them. Look at the cartoons that appeared in the US press when TV minister Patterson(?) proposed to assassinate Hugo Chavez. Look at a recent Daily Show snippet where John Steward makes fun of Greenspan being a Jew. The difference is that the communities no longer get into a violent tizzy about it.

And I'm pretty tired about this issue as well, I'll follow your example. But the beauty is here: everyone, everyone has spoken out on this issue and is compelled to listen to someone else's arguments. That's really an example of the freedom of speech to me.

by Nomad on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 09:23:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy ...realy ? (4.00 / 5)

Where is the perspective in this discussion ?

Bush can lie to everybody (all religions, political party's...) in his SOTU and all he gets in the internatial press is a polite comment burried on page 27 ....

I'm working with truck-drivers and and the people loading and unloading in a major store facility...
The mood this people get from all the fuss in de major press is...

"NOW you realy see how stupid moslims are... "

My conclusion : peole who promote this cartoons don't realise how racist they are....the don't care about moslims.... AND they don't care about their own people

The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.(Kundera)

by Elco B (elcob at scarlet dot be) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 01:19:02 PM EST

Re: Blasphemy ...realy ? (none / 1)

By the way, welcome to EuroTrib! It has been a while since our previous readers from Belgium were active.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 01:56:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy ...realy ? (none / 1)

Thanks for the 'welcome' DoDo , doing my best....still learning to write in English....need some time to become mare active...... very good vibrations here on ET ...

The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.(Kundera)

by Elco B (elcob at scarlet dot be) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 02:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy ...realy ? (none / 0)

Is your native tongue Flemish or French? (Or German?)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 02:17:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy ...realy ? (none / 1)

Flemish...also speaking/reading some French (live only 6 km from the French border) and German.

I was born on the same day and year as Bob Dylan ....so my first (American) English .....well perhaps stuff for a diary later on..

The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.(Kundera)

by Elco B (elcob at scarlet dot be) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 02:37:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hitler = SS (none / 0)

French Wiki entry.

(A number of the details I gave above are incorrect.)

by Lupin on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 01:42:52 PM EST

Re: Hitler = SS (none / 0)

Looking around, I have found a site where you can download the comic:
Don't click if you are easily offended (that's the page from which you download, not the actual pdf doc)

Here's a link to commentary in English on the decision by the Spanish Constitutional Court forbidding its publication: (read from p.41)
http://www.intjewishlawyers.org/docenter/viewDocument.asp?id=9253 (pdf)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 02:29:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Religious tolerance is a sensitive issue (none / 1)

I do not demand to smoke in other peoples houses, but I smoke at home and inform any guests of that when I invite them...

First of all, I would like to thank Sven for the very appropriate remark (at least the way I understood it).
This allegory means that one of the most important values
and norms in Western civilization- the free press, is to be respected at least in our countries. I am more than
religiously tolerant, but there are some other boundaries that can not be crossed. In our own "homes" the common courtesy and decorum require that we can cherish and enjoy our values, without any "guests" to impose any restrictions on us. I have many Muslim friends, as I have studied in some major European cities, and I understand them, but after all as I would not interfere in their affairs, if being on a visit in an Arab country, and would respect their hospitality and mores, so I expect reciprocity in their attitude.
I am not talking about the cartoons, which is actually
too disrespectful act, and even the Vatican reproaches it.Tolerance is even a "must" for me, but there is a saying in my country: "the glass is almost full..."

Protests

I'm not ugly,but my beauty is a total creation.Hegel

by Chris on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 02:24:57 PM EST

Goa nd read this (4.00 / 3)

I love the guardian

My take basically

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 02:33:09 PM EST

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 3)

The Norwegian and Danish embassies in Damascus have now been reduced to smoking ruins. The Syrian riot police, which usually keeps the population in an iron grip, was "unable" to prevent it.

Flagburning is one thing, but this is unacceptable and frankly, infuriating. Both Norway and Denmark now rightly consider breaking off diplomatic relations with Syria.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 02:40:54 PM EST

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

Lovely, the right-wing fascist in Europe and the radical islamic nut fanatics have all what they wanted, great... and of course, this is all about freedom of the press.. isn't it?

A pleasuree

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 02:45:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 3)

I am frankly appalled at the tolerance for intolerance I've seen here over the last couple of days. That the European left can no longer be counted upon to stand guard over the right to free speech saddens me to the edge of tears.

Popular speech requires no defenders. It's when the free speech of those we may view as misguided is trampled, that out principles and our actions are weighed.

I had expected so much more from this community. I am stunned.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Alexander G Rubio (alexander.rubio@gmail.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 02:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

I am probably more libertarian than you and I would strongly defend the right of anybody to say that all the jews are inventing the shoa or that all people that are called Rubio or have kcurie as a nickname are..well you can put your negative adjective.

I know you may not have time to read all my posts...this maybe the reason why you make such an off-mark remark.

I will always defend the right of anybody to be racist.. but I will never defend or respect rascism....I am glad that you are stunned because the sentence "free speech defenders are needed in tough time" was also used by an all time racist I know in Spain....funny he did not use the same sentence when a book making fun of jews and the shoa was forbidden by the Spanish Supreme Court.

It is not tolerance of the intolerance it is just don't giving a damn about racists and nuts...If you want my opinion you just have to read the editorial of the Guardian. They sum up it nicely

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:16:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 3)

The problem, kcurie, is that by elevating this into a discussion of racism, we are reinforcing and reiterating the views of the original editors, whereas they are better off ignored, or else confronted within the community which they tend to circulate (a very small one, apparently).

Instead, this has become an international event because of the free speech issue, not the racism issue.

by Upstate NY on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:28:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

I do not know if I understand your point. You say that by using racism as the frame we are not doing anything good?

Or you mean that by using the freedom of speech debate we have made this a global issue when it need not to be, since this was supposed to be a purely racist remark in a small corner of Europe?

You mean it is better to use the racism frame , the freedom of speech or just ignore it all together?

I, myself, would liek to recall that it was started by racists and then other radicals took the issue which at the same time helped other radicals.

I just thought that using freedom of seppech as a theme will ake everybody involved and the moderates, as always, will be drowned out...but in this self-created discussion (as you seem to say the KKK would have loved this kind of publicity) is always difficult to know exactly what to do.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:45:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 3)

I'm not saying I have all the answers, but when the KKK visits each state annually, people have become accustomed to their marches. They are ignored. The only story on their march is that, inevitably, the ACLU goes to court and prevents local authorities from banning the march.

All I'm saying is that once the story made it out of Denmark, it became a free speech issue. Within Denmark, readers of the newspaper had every right to condemn it, cancel subscriptions, etc. Outside of Denmark, the calls to muzzle the newspaper editors were more inappropriate than the cartoons themselves, IMO.

by Upstate NY on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:37:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

But you are implying that the original editors were racist, and in that case freedom of speech is the frame that the original editors want us to use in order to cloak their bigotry and take a high moral ground.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:50:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

I think this is exactly what happened

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 05:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 1)

On the other hand, the racism frame has been hijacked by unsavoury fundamentalist muslims. So what frame do you adopt?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 05:17:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 1)

Cloak their bigotry? On the contrary, freedom of speech is what allows for the EXPOSURE of bigotry.

by Upstate NY on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:38:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 1)

By saying this you could probably frame all discussions about free speech and Islam as racist and thus shut people up. Isn't this exactly what people who criticises Israel's policies in the occupied territories complain about when people frame their criticism as anti-Semite?

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 05:56:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

And may I add rightly so.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 06:30:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 4)

I agree 100 percent, to the point of wondering whether Eurotrib is the site for me.

However, our editor's upstanding and personally courageous - I posted the drawings on his explicit request - defense of free speech has made me conclude that it is.

Thank you, Jérôme Guillet. I haven't said this in so many words before, not being the butt-kissing type; but you are one of the persons in this world that I admire most.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:17:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 1)

I do not know if I should take it personally.
Defending that you Rubio And Jerome are utterly and completely wrong about this, does not mean we are going to leave.

Saying that only thanks to Jerome you are here and that "rubbish" (you seem to imply) like me drive you out this site is highly insulting by anyone defending a contrary position. Actually I do not think wy defending the osition of the guardian will drive you out of this site...

In any case, I will never fell so self-righteous to want to be out of here just because you or Jerome does not agree with the Guardian.

I am sad...Nothing more to say.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:29:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

It's not "only" thanks to Jérôme that I am here, but he is the editor of this place, which makes his stance count for more than others when it comes to defining what this site is all about.

I wasn't thinking specifically of you at all. Indeed, I actually took you to share my own view: that the drawings are bunk that shouldn't have published in the first place as a matter of editorial restraint, but that freedom of speech implies the right to publish them - a non-negotiable right for which we now must take a stand. I obviously misunderstood you.

I am perfectly entitled to decide where to spend my online time based on congeniality of a community to my own fundamental convictions. Whether you think this "self-righteous" is of no concern to me.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:41:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

I don't understand what "breach of congeniality" you think has happened over the last couple of days, to be honest.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:46:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 2)

We agree on the issue.. but your post did not seem to me a general discussion about a topic at teh moment. thanks for calrifying it. If it was a general discussion you are completely entitled to guess where and with whom you like to spend the time. You are absolutely right.. and my views should not care you at all.
I just understood that it was not a general thoguht you were exresing but an indirect shot at anyone who disagreed with you. If you really meant it as a general idea with no indirect shot (mala baba as we say in spanish, meaning writing it in bad faith) I should , must and ideed do inmediately apologize, you were not self-righteouss. If it was a cheap shot.. then I am entitle to my opinion.

I also had not seen any, as Migeru, a reduction of the congeniality. I normally say it up front if a sense any of these breaks. As in your case I felt it could be.. and I know that it is difficult to express feeling online and difficult to know.. this is why I I try to post and expression of feelings...That was my previous post.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:57:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 1)

Thank you. No hard feelings. You're a great guy.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:01:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 2)

You too.

You know, if it would have been any of the people I know in barcelona I would have guessed it was a cheap shot :).. but it was weird coming from you. That is why I asked for clarification...it is reallly dificult to ask for one because you really do not know what's going on before you receive the answer. Sorry if I did not ask for it properly...I just do not know more.

I am sad that you felt that the level of friendship diminished....I did not answer you before so whoever might have gave you that impression (maybe real) think that maybe he/she did not actually meant anything wrong or actually write anything with mala baba.

Take care

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:11:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 3)

There's been vigorous debate on the issue. One side is arguing that because attacks on Islam are being used as a cover for racism, even ambiguous images should be avoided, though not banned. The other side is arguing that since this has been framed by the protesters as primarily a religious issue, all ambiguity has been removed and thus the publishing of the images deserves an unconditional defense.

I agree with the latter argument, but I do think the first group has a legitimate argument. In any case debate is interesting and helps us question our views, even if it rarely changes them. It's a useful and enjoyable exercize, though sometimes emotions run high. Certainly no reason to feel like slamming the door on Eurotrib.

by MarekNYC on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:46:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

You put it perfectly.

Although my take is that the images should be avoided in the same measure than other images that attack jews and catholics are avoided...The bar should be raised or the diminshed at the same time. Just to point out more clearly :)

I love your post.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:00:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed (4.00 / 2)

I'd say that the debate has been excellent all around, because we are discussing fundamental issues, there is genuine disagreement between us, but serious - and polite - arguments on each side.

That I care more about one side of the arguments today does not mean that I do not care about the arguments from the other side.

Personally, I am glad that such an intense debate could take place with almost no irrevocably nasty words written. But this is probably not over yet...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 05:35:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's exactly it. (none / 1)

I'm in awe of how you managed to condense this entire debate into a few sentences. That's a true skill.

To me, this entire debate flows from freedom of speech. It's a positive thing that there is such a vigorous debate going on here. If it were not, we all would be reduced to pundits professing the same "wisdom" and preach to the choir. There are enough of those out on the net; in fact ET partly stands up to them. If any, this debate proves why everyone should stick to ET.

by Nomad on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 09:31:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the kind words (none / 0)

I am obviously touched by your words, but would urge you not to leave ET because some amongst eurotribbers disagree with us - I mean, among the "minority" are some of the people I respect most around here - in fact, I respect most people and most arguments on both sides...

This may sound like weaseling out, but it isn't, I think. I have made my own position clear, forcefully, but I am glad that others have made the opposite one just as forcefully and intensely - and I will certainly admit that many of their arguments make a lot of sense.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 05:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

well, it initially was until it was hijacked by extremists and ended like this. This is why we have to fight extremist views because of their violent ways.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 06:10:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

Now it's the Syrian government that's in trouble.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 02:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

... and I think it's no coincidence that Syria has one of the most secular governments in the Middle East, with its own set of Islamists to distract....

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 02:54:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

Incidentally, this will make it rather hard to oppose regime change in Syria.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:00:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

Well, I guess they could just blame it all on foreigners.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:25:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

The case of Saudi Arabia will indeed more interesting...I do not see them blaming it on foreigners.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

Yeah, that remark came out sharper than I'd intended, sorry about that. Why do you think the Saudi case will be more interesting?

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:37:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

No No.. I was actually agreeing with you in the overall tone.. I should have add :)..

I mean, if the same thing happens in Saudi Arabia being freinds of the US and not foes it will be very interesting to see the reaction of the authorities and people on the ground...

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:39:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

I probably should put ;-) or :-b on most of my comments, as I have a habit of mixing serious and snarky together, and people can't always tell the difference....

Hmmmm. Yes, well, it's the Saudi regime that's friends with the US, not necessarily the people, although I gather that there is a very wide variance in attitudes.

But does anyone here know what Denmark and Norway's relations with Saudi are like?

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:55:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 1)

Oh, yeah, "foreign fighters crossing the Syria/Iraq border".

A government has a responsibility to protect foreign embassies. Embassies are extraterritorial and under international law the Danish embassy is basically treated as part of Denmark. Syria is now in violation of the

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

22. 2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

This is the case even when diplomatic relations have been severed, and "even in case of armed conflict".

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:43:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 1)

Well, um, if the foreigners thing doesn't work, maybe they could blame the CIA for making a bad map? They thought they were protecting the embassies, but it turns out they sent the guards to the wrong place.

Don't mind me, I'm just tired and grumpy. I am aware of the Vienna Convention protocols, and I would never in a million years defend the torching of an embassy. I hope you don't think I was doing so.

It really does create a problem for Syria. I am also quite sure that they could have protected those embassies if they really wanted to. People do not protest in Syria if they do not believe it is sanctioned by the state.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:50:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 2)

I don't think how anything said on this thread could be construed as an endorsement of the torching of an embassy. But leaving that aside, I wonder what the consequences of this will be. The Danish government was under no legal obligation, domestic or international, to do anything about the cartoons; but Syria was under an international legal obligation to control rioting around an embassy (Indonesia is similarly in breach of its obligations since the Danish embassy in Jakarta was stormed by protesters the other day) and prevent its being damaged.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:56:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

That is a very good question about the consequences. The treaty does not appear to spell them out.

I imagine that the severing of diplomatic relations would be a unilateral action that Denmark and Norway could take, but since the treaty is to apply even in the event of severed relations, it must be enforcable by the UN, regardless of the state of relations between the states involved.

Which means, I guess, that sanctions could theoretically be on the table... which would make the Bush administration soooooo happy. Sigh.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 1)

The extent to which the treaty goes in protecting embassies is actually quite eye-popping:

45. If diplomatic relations are broken off between two States, or if a mission is permanently or temporarily recalled:
(a) the receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, respect and protect the premises of the mission, together with its property and archives;

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:16:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A few years back (none / 1)

a cambodia mob burned the Thai embassy. It didnt take long to get things back on track. Guess it depends on the countries respective interests.

by observer393 on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 01:08:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 4)

Absolutely! How come that the Americans and Europeans
respected the Arab missions' souveregnty after 11/09, London, and Madrid after so many innocent casualties and now because of cartoons they set the embassies on fire...

I'm not ugly,but my beauty is a total creation.Hegel

by Chris on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 03:57:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 1)

In Spain people almost did not respect the integrity of the offices of the ruling People's Party, and one Basque store owner was murdered because of the government's interested spin that ETA was to blame. I can't imagine that the Spanish people could be bothered to protest in front of the Moroccan embassy.

In the case of London... Well, three of the bombers were British born and the fourth was Jamaican.

As for 9/11, at least one turbaned Sikh was murdered by a self-styled "patriot", and the US secret service does a good job of protecting foreign embassies, as Michael Moore found out when he was making his latest film.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:06:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 5)

The Yanquis didn't have to torch embassies. They torched Afghanistan and then (for the 2nd time in as many decades) Iraq. In response to a crime committed on US soil by (we think) a bunch of Saudis. Go figure. But hey, all them Ayrabs and Islams are all alike, just ask the cartoonists :-(

I and the public know
what all school-children learn:
those to whom evil is done
do evil in return.

(Auden)

Has anyone but me had the passing thought that free-speech fundamentalism is also, well, umm, a fundamentalism? This gets us into an interesting realm of questioning: what do we think is fundamental? What I think is fundamental is, perhaps, Buddhist in tone even though I am not a practising or believing Buddhist. This old atheist thinks that the fundamental ethic, the touchstone, is to reduce the amount of cruelty and violence going on. That for me is the core value.

So... when absolutist freespeechism is used as cover for committing cruelty or provoking violence, then in my view it becomes ethically invalid. We could have all the free speech in the world and still live in Hell, without the values of kindness, respect, and diplomacy... Similarly I have a great regard for science and the scientific method, but scientific results obtained by torture (as in the Andaman Islands penal colony where British doctors tortured prisoners, or the Nazi death camps or the Japanese POW camps) to me can never justify the methods used to obtain them -- the cruelty taints the science. The rule of law is a good thing, but when it is used as a shield for the privileged to taunt the powerless I lose some of my respect for the rule of law. Javert was not a sympathetic character.

I am not sure that absolutism about free speech doesn't alarm me in something of the same way (though less acutely) as absolutism about prohibiting the Prophet's image or absolutism about Marx's theories -- if it is used to justify bad behaviour to living human beings. Absolutism about things I agree with is much less scary than absolutism about things I disagree with -- because it's less immediately threatening to my own person. But I think I have to say I am at odds with absolutism in general. And I think that one of the debates that has been going on embedded in this interesting wrangle, and perhaps unacknowledged, is a debate between moral absolutists and situational ethicists. The situational ethicists (myself among 'em) say that what is right and wrong may depend on the specifics of the situation (there are more than two sides to any argument and both can be wrong and both right); the moral absolutists say that there is an abstract principle which transcends any specific situation and no compromise is possible (you're either with us or against us?)

At each point along the way in this sorry brouhaha [not this ET thread, the real-world affair], decisions were made to hurt people. The cartoonists decided to direct racial stereotypes and uninformed religious slurs at a minority in their own country; the editorial board chose to publish, knowing that feelings would be hurt (and knowing the degree of racial tension in the country, that some kind of fracas might well ensue); the newspaper and other media chose to ignore the complaints of resident Muslims; the government chose to insult the pan-Arab ambassadors by ignoring them; and so on. At any point a modicum of empathy or kindness or generosity could have defused the situation, at low cost -- but now it has escalated and gets harder and harder to control; A's bad behaviour is the perfect excuse for B, which then excuses more and worse from A... As the Buddhists would say, anger and ego-desire breed suffering and more suffering. So to me the moral failing in this situation is present on both sides and started with the original offence, it did not start only when some opportunist Muslim rabble-rouser decided to get a bunch of guys worked up with the exciting prospect of death threats and blowing things up. Someone handed him that opportunity on a plate.

And still the question haunts me -- did the Danish muckymuck refuse to see the pan-Arab ambassadors -- a gesture which might have saved face and cooled tempers all around -- because he believes so fervently in freespeech, or because A White Man Does Not Apologise to a Wog? Does he even know, for sure, in his own heart, all the reasons for that refusal? Can we ever be that certain of the purity of our motives, certain enough to justify absolutism?

Lastly, Lupin, though I agree on a gut level with your impatience with organised religion and all the rest -- I can't really see this as a conflict between modernity and antiquity ("us enlightened folks" vs "those historical losers" in other words): the publication of scurrilous drawings and doggerel insulting enemies of the state (or just people the artist or his patron hates), is at least as old as graffiti on Etruscan latrine walls. Nothing modern about nasty toons. "Nyah Nyah Nyah" might be the oldest words in any language... and the insulting of the vanquished foe's gods is at least as old as Empire itself. Hardly modernist, nor are artists guaranteed to be in the forefront of anything other than the cause that their patron is paying them to promote. [PS I hope your voluntary exile is still proving delightful!]

I think a debate on situational (how about Situationist?) ethics vs absolutist (rights and law) ethics might be an interesting way to discover more about where our differences of opinion come from... and perhaps explain some things about schisms and factionalism on the Left and other interesting phenomena. I appreciate everyone's effort to keep a grip on their tempers, too; a remarkable civil discussion considering the emotional and ethical conflicts involved.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 09:10:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (4.00 / 3)

Is defending free speech fundamentalism to be compared to people who burn down embassies for perceived slights to their faith now? Is this what the proud principles of the left have come to, total inversion?

I just hope that, if ever the time comes, when your free speech is shouted down with death threats and the arsonists are at your door, that people of good judgement will see the case for what it is, and be able to muster up something better in your defense than an apologia for the people with the pitchforks and torches, and half baked "dorm room at five in the morning" philosophical mutterings about horrid free speech fundamentalists.

For shame!

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Alexander G Rubio (alexander.rubio@gmail.com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 09:42:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

US and UK (4.00 / 2)

The US has freedom of speech but the media is muzzled. The UK does not have complete freedom of speech but we seem to find out more about what is going on from the UK media.

by observer393 on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 01:04:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blasphemy overflow thread (none / 0)

What can I discuss? I am situation kind of guy....always...

Love your post.

I would put a little more emphasis on the fact that free speech was an excellent frame that helped the west a lot...to reduce violence within our borders. SO I will also defend it always if there was a level playing field. There is not such a level field.. so one has to respond to both radicals...and as MIgeru said.. maybe a little bit more strongly to those we can identify more.....I will protest more a decision of a western government than one from a muslim country just because I am in a western country...this does not mean I will not give my opinion about the dictators over there but I will not get to the streets for that.

By the way , you can always write a diary...:)

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 04:35:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Freedomm ofSpeech or hypocrisy? (4.00 / 2)

I just wonder if the same media, the same US right and the same bloggers would unite to defend the right of a newspaper to print holocaust denial in Germany? If the answer is no then this whole issue is not about freedom of speech, but about something else. Freedom of speech is where I defend your right to say whatever you like even if I abhor your opinion.
It is quite strange how most of those muslims have a browner tan to their skin than most of us. However, I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.

by observer393 on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 09:36:48 PM EST

Blasphemy overflow thread | 153 comments (153 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]