open Democracy News Analysis - True freedom (it's those cartoons...), - Comments

Wielaard on "True freedom (it's those cartoons...)"

Wielaard — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:17:03 +0000

Yes, indeed, freedom means the right to insult and offend. I, for one, find rap music totally offensive. So what? The issue is to NOT take offense. I'll put the 'Danish cartoon controversy' into perspective: There have been worldwide, mass protests in which people died because of several Islam-unfriendly drawings in a Danish newspaper that is read by less than 0.001 percent of the global population! Here is a test (Danes cannot participate. And NO Googling!): Do you remember the name of that newspaper? Can you write it down? And how many cartoons did it publish? Also, how many Danish Muslims have left Denmark over those cartoons? Hopefully, not one. And if that's true perhaps Danish Muslims realize that taking no offense keeps the country they live in a much more tolerant place than any on the face of this earth that is run by an Islamic government. rwielaard

seculartalk on "True freedom (it's those cartoons...)"

seculartalk — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 18:26:46 +0000

Left wing view is same as jaundiced view.

owly on "True freedom (it's those cartoons...)"

owly — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:42:19 +0000

David, This discussion has run its course. There is little or no point in making any comments to you. You have exposed a 'left-wing' view of the matter which as per usual takes no account of other factors. Nor do you properly understand Middle Eastern history, which you fire off about. The plain fact of the matter is that the Cartoons ought to have been published here so we could understand the story properly. The silly and stupid reaction to these cartoons is all part of the growing 'you can't criticize Islam industry' of which you seem to be a paid up member. Got news for you: it damn well needs critical comment and there is much to be very very critical of.

Not logged in on "True freedom (it's those cartoons...)"

Not logged in — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:45:23 +0000

Owly Your first two paragraphs raise nothing I haven't dealt with already in this discussion, so I'll simply repeat what I said in my first post here. To assert one's freedoms irrespective of the costs to others is the mark of a sociopath, not a libertarian. Your last paragraph is revealing. Our enthusiastic backing for, and even imposition of murderous tyranny in the Middle East going back decades apparently causes you little or no concern. But the merest objection to some cartoons being published sends you into hysteric tantrums about the sanctity of human freedom. No further comment is required. And on your last sentence, try re-reading the paragraph beginning "Presumably you're unaware that for decades..." in my last post (25-Feb-2006 18:30) and taking a guess as to what my views on democracy in the Middle East might be. Message was edited by: David Wearing_1

owly on "True freedom (it's those cartoons...)"

owly — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:32:30 +0000

David, I think your logic is seriously flawed. What you are doing is indulging a 'victim culture' big time to say that by not publishing the cartoons Danish society was somehow showing how 'enlightened' it was. That is silly. The demos in London against the cartoons - which were never published here and ought to have been for the reasons I pointed out - showed a mindset that would tolerate no adverse comment on Islam from any quarter and I think that you, and the stupid Jack Straw in his comments, merely pander to that mindset and you compromise what ought to be a fundamental principle of freedom of speech. I wonder in what other circumstances you would apply your rather warped principles. Do please enlighten us all on this. As to your pompous lecture on Middle Eastern history I think you need to study it a little more and understand it all a lot more. The reality is that the Arabs have, more often than not, been the author of their own misfortunes. The west had nothing to do with the conquest of Arabia by Ibu Saud. Indeed it was in the West interest to support the Hashimite Grand Sheriff and his family, and it was a serious mistake not to have done so. Many problems stem from the Whalahbi form of Islam which holds sway in Arabia today. Also you seem to forget that many of the tyrants which rule in the Middle East and have ruled them have been home grown and there rise to power has had little or nothing to do with the West. Nasser is a case in point as are the Assad's in Syria etc etc. What the west is guilty of is the 'status quo' - we have preferred stability to turmoil and who can blame us for that ? It is also true to say that areas of the world fell victim to 'Cold War politics' but again those days are over. May be President Bush does have a point. Democracy might just be the answer, although I am sure you will be quick off the mark to dispute that !!

Not logged in on "True freedom (it's those cartoons...)"

Not logged in — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:30:02 +0000

Owly I'm sure the Danish paper's bravery in publishing was highly impressive. Strange that this bravery was less evident three years ago when it refused to publish satirical depictions of Christ on the grounds that it might “provoke an outcry”. The violent reactions to the cartoons was clearly unjustified - you don't get a medal for spotting that. But there are several hundred million Muslims in the world and only a minuscule minority even demonstrated. Nevertheless, non-violent anger was clearly widespread, because the cartoons added insult to decades of grevious injury, which you are apparently blissfully unaware of. re.Your paragraph beginning "secondly..", nothing to add to what I've said on this. Shame the point escapes you. "why do you think you have a right to curtail.." try reading what I've written "since when was Muhammad a social group?" this doesn't even merit a response "Perhaps one should ask why some many Muslims live under the jack boots of tyrants. Perhaps one should ask why no Muslim army could be bothered to liberate Baghdad. Perhaps one should ask why so many are denied basic human rights in so many Muslim countries. Is it that there is a flaw at the heart of Islam?" The sheer, unashamed ignorance of this paragraph defies belief. The West's relationship with Middle Eastern tyranny is something that's plainly escaped you. Very well, lets have a look at the facts. Presumably you're unaware that for decades the US and the UK have backed the Saudi Arabian tyranny to the hilt, including arming and training its vicious internal security forces? This country, that beheads about two hundred people a year, that allows no free speech, no political opposition, not so much as the presence of an employee of Amnesty International (for obvious reasons) is described by Tony Blair as a "good friend" of the UK. Presumably you're unaware that the same support extends to all the torturing, tyrannical gulf states? Presumably you're unaware that in 1953 the US and Britain overthrew the first democratic regime in the region - Iran's - and installed a vicious dictator simply because the elected government wanted its oil profits to go to Iranian schools and hospitals, not into the pockets of Western oil companies? All news to you this, isn't it? And presumably your unaware that in 1991, an "Muslim army", in the form of a popular national uprising was poised to overthrow Saddam in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. Washington’s response? To allow Saddam the use of his helicopter gunships and stand back and watch whilst the popular uprising was brutally crushed. After that, the US-UK installed their sanctions regime against Iraq, which only strengthened the dictator by forcing the population to rely on his regime for their survival. UNICEF at one point estimated that up to half a million children under the age of 5 – babies and infants – died as a direct result of the US-UK sanctions. Any thoughts, in light of the above, on whether there's a flaw at the heart of the West? Still mystified why, after suffering these indignities, people might find insults to one of the things they hold most dear just a little too much to bear, and why in those circumstances, a little consideration ought not to be beyond us? Or do you still find the comparison with Christians satisfying? Message was edited by: David Wearing_1

owly on "True freedom (it's those cartoons...)"

owly — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:27:12 +0000

David, Your whole argument is to me based on nonsense. First of all the cartoons. As I understand matters a writer had tried to get someone to illustrate a life of Mohammed, but without success. No one would touch the project. The newspaper then commissioned a number of cartoons - some of which are quite funny - which were published in September of last year. One has to ask why has so much violence irrupted in February ? Why is it that some Danish Imams felt it necessary to cart these cartoons round the Arab world together with a number of others which had not appeared in the Danish Press ? So have you actually examined all the facts in a clear manner before arriving at your conclusions ? I think not. Secondly there is the right to freedom of expression. as I pointed out you are saying that the cartoons should not have been published because of the offense they might cause to Muslims. This argument you dress up with high minded but hollow claptrap - In summary, it is that we should recognize the direct contribution made by stereotypical depictions of certain social groups as inferior, to the mistreatment of those groups by the majority, both at home and abroad. I again say to you what is the difference between the anger it causes Muslims to the anger caused to Christians, who it would seem are not a majority in our society either ? Why is one deserving of more respect that the other ? As to the actually publication I would say why do you think you have a right to curtail what I might or might not see merely because you happen to think publication ' stereotypical depictions of certain social groups as inferior', and since when was Mohammed a 'social group' ? I think the British press has been craven in its attitude to this story and ought to have republished the cartoons, for they are an integral part of understanding the basic story. As to Islamic culture I think you ought to examine it more. Islam has stagnated over the last 5 centuries. Perhaps one should ask why. Perhaps one should ask why some many Muslims live under the jack boots of tyrants. Perhaps one should ask why no Muslim army could be bothered to liberate Baghdad. Perhaps one should ask why so many are denied basic human rights in so many Muslim countries. Is it that there is a flaw at the heart of Islam ? I would also say one more thing. To tolerated you must be tolerant. Perhaps this is something the Muslim world needs to learn. PS. I am not interested in what you write elsewhere, merely in what you write here. I never look at links people post.

Not logged in on "True freedom (it's those cartoons...)"

Not logged in — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:41:55 +0000

Owly – thanks for your response. On your first paragraph, its hard to see what point has been proved exactly. That its possible to offend people by saying offensive things? I’m not sure what that adds to the sum total of human knowledge. On your second paragraph, its hard to respond to descriptions of what I’ve written as “typical mealy mouthed leftish claptrap” or “mindless twaddle” since there’s no coherent argument to respond to, just noise. Your third paragraph indicates a basic failure to grasp the point my argument. If you’d like to understand the point then I suggest you try reading the article I’ve linked to above. In summary, it is that we should recognise the direct contribution made by stereotypical depictions of certain social groups as inferior, to the mistreatment of those groups by the majority, both at home and abroad. Since publication of the cartoons makes a direct contribution towards this dynamic (which is a familiar one in Europe) to publish in the current political situation is to show either contempt for liberty and freedom (there is a freedom not to be subjugated as well as a freedom to publish cartoons) or an inability to form even a basically intelligent understanding of those concepts and how they work in real life situations. This has nothing to do with special treatment for Muslims, an idea you appear to have plucked from thin air. Nor is this a theoretical debate about concepts of freedom. It is a real-world situation in which the facts matter. Your willingness to put the words Western imperialism in quotation marks does not reveal a particularly encouraging view of your relationship with the factual record. Your final paragraph again indicates a failure to grasp the points I have made. Islamic culture is the culture of millions of people from North Africa to South East Asia over the last millennia and a half. Therefore, if you have any real interest in (or capability of) taking a critical look at it, you will emerge with a rounded picture that acknowledges both the evils and the achievements that it has produced. Taking a rounded view of both cultures is the first step to dispelling the myth of a “clash of civilisations” and examining this issue in its actual political and historic context.

owly on "True freedom (it's those cartoons...)"

owly — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:08:46 +0000

David, I think the basic premise of your argument is nonsense. First of all the reason why the cartoons were drawn and published was to test the limits of freedom of expression. I think the whole storm which has irrupted merely proves the point. As to your assertion 'whether it was a sensible or even moral choice to make in the historic and political context I say again this is typical mealy mouthed leftish claptrap. You go on to say that causing offense to Christians - the same basic principle must apply as I am sure you will agree - is of no consequence because Christians do not constitute 'a distinct section of the socio-economic underclass in Europe' is again mindless twaddle. Your views, however you care to dress them up with pseudo-academic nonsense are based on the idea that because Muslims are a minority in Europe, because you feel Islamic societies have been subject the 'western imperialism' that Islam is deserving of more 'respect' and protection than any other faith or belief system. That is exactly what the fundamentalists say, and so when they come along and say that they, as an 'oppressed minority' should not be subject to this or that law what are you going to say ? And are you happy to be defending a belief system which oppresses women in the way it does; a system which regards Christians are 'infidels' and inferior, and thinks nought of killing homosexuals ? Islam should not be protected from being examined and from criticism, which it more than richly deserves.

Not logged in on "True freedom (it's those cartoons...)"

Not logged in — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:26:59 +0000

Owly - thanks for your response. You'll note that at no point did I so much as question the right of anyone to publish the cartoons. What I did was question whether it was a sensible or even moral choice to make in the historic and political context. The comparison with offending Christians barely merits discussion. Christians neither constitute a distinct section of the socio-economic underclass in Europe, nor find their majority nations subject to decades of very real oppression and aggression at the hands of foreign powers. My point was that the publication of the cartoons can not be divorced either from the political-historic context in which they appear or from the dynamic of subjugation and alienation that they feed into. Incidentally, your mention of hypocrisy is interesting. How does the enthusiastic US-UK backing for Saudi Arabia, a theocratic tyranny every bit as vicious as Iran's, square with your view of "the values and liberties" of our society? To decline to publish the cartoons in the context I've descried (in more detail here http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2DF15ABC) would be affirm, not deny, the values we purport to believe in. That is, if we value the freedoms of others as much as we do our own. Message was edited by: oD Forum Moderator [- link shortened]

owly on "True freedom (it's those cartoons...)"

owly — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:53:50 +0000

Totally disagree. And I think there are buckets of hypocrisy in this whole debate. Where was your moral outrage when the BBC broadcast something which was highly offensive to Christians ? I'm sure you were all rushing to the 'freedom of expression' band wagon, so why are you all so craven in what you have to say about a few cartoons showing old Mohammed ? What so many seem to do is mix politics with religion, tolerance with a bogus respect. To me much of what I have read on this topic is mealy mouthed and does not defend the right of the Danish newspaper to publish the cartoons. I also think that so many are trying to censor my understanding of this story by saying how wise our press is not to republish the cartoons, when in reality it is nothing of the sort. I would add one more comment which will go down badly. There seems to be a sense that if we in the west are nice to Muslims they will be nice to us. If we show overarching 'respect' for Muslims in this country they will be appreciative. Nothing could be further from the truth. By compromising your own values and your own society the Muslims I know have nothing but contempt for you, for they see that you believe in nothing and will defend nothing. The only way to defend your own society is to believe in it, and in the values and the liberties it gives to you.

jdcastro on "True freedom (it's those cartoons...)"

jdcastro — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:26:43 +0000

Some good points there, I agree. I happen to be one of those who disagreed with the US/UK invasion of Iraq and oppose the continuing occupation of the West Bank/Gaza by Israel. The West (particularly the USA) would have more moral substance if it cleaned up its hypocritical foreign policy. This would not give them any more 'right' to publish cartoons of Muhammad (that right already exists), but it would provide less ammunition for the Muslim world to use against us.

Not logged in on "True freedom (it's those cartoons...)"

Not logged in — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:54:03 +0000

True belief in freedom means valuing the freedoms of everyone; not just your own. The worst despots accept no limits to their own freedoms, but that hardly makes them freedom-lovers. No freedom exists in a vacuum; every action has consequences. So if we all have the equal right to act freely then the only limit of that freedom is the extent to which it impinges on the freedom of others. For example, a motorist may assert his right to the freedom to drive as fast as he likes, making his own judgement about what speed is appropriate at any given time without interference from the nanny state. A pedestrian may well counter this by asserting their own right not to be run over by reckless motorists. To assert one's freedoms irrespective of the costs to others is the mark of a sociopath, not a libertarian. Turning to the current debate, no true democracy could or should legislate against certain kinds of speech purely on the basis that they might offend. In life, being offended occasionally is something one simply has to live with. We should even approach with a degee of scepticism attempts to curtail free speech on the basis that it may lead directly to hate crimes, although such prohibitions may well be justified in limited circumstances. But beyond the limits of the law there are moral choices for us all to make, if we care about freedom on principle. In this case, the context is important. Muslims in Europe largely find themselves part of a socio-economic underclass, in no small part because they suffer from forms of discrimination. Internationally, Muslim countries find themselves subject to attempts by Western governments to interfere in their affairs and dominate regions like the Middle East and Central Asia through invasion (Iraq), backing tyranny (Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Israel) and so on. The cartoons are published in this context, adding insult to many decades of injury. Furthermore, subjugation almost invariably goes hand in hand with the deliberate dehumanisation of those who are being subjugated by those responsible for or whose acquiescence is essential to the act of subjugation. In terms of domestic social relations, the direct contribution made by stereotypical depictions of certain social groups as in some way inferior to the mistreatment of those groups by the majority is again a dynamic that's hardly unfamiliar, not least in Europe. And it is no coincidence that those who most enthusiastically peddle the fiction of a “clash of civilisations” also portray the opposing “other” as a force that seriously threatens to destroy “our way of life”, and therefore advocate an aggressive US-led military strategy across the Islamic world. Manichean rhetoric eulogizing the liberal idealism of “our values” and the necessity of defending them against those who “hate our freedoms” has been the very essence of Western pro-war advocacy in recent years. The cartoons feed into this narrative, and thus contribute to a dynamic whose consequences include the subjugation and disempowerment of many Muslims at home and abroad. For us as Westerners, the question is whether we will continue to be complicit or to acquiesce in the denial of freedom to others. Declining to publish the caricatures, in light of the political context in which this issue has arisen, would not be a compromise but an affirmation of the values we in Europe purport to uphold. More here http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2CF12ABC and here: http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk Message was edited by: oD Forum Moderator [- link shortened]

True freedom (it's those cartoons...),

jdcastro — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:54:56 +0000

True freedom means having the freedom to insult. For example, a muslim may find the website www.sillymuhammad.com insulting, but to the writer it is just his own opinion. The beliefs of any faith cannot be allowed to infringe on freedom and democratic rights. Muslims claim to be peace-loving, but the rioting and burning of churches, the trade boycotts and death threats prove the hollowness of their faith when adhered to fully. Jon.