I’m guessing that you’ve heard about the Mohammed cartoon controversy (see Wikipedia article). To make a long story short, Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, just trying to do their bit for world peace and harmony, invited artists to submit cartoons with the prophet Mohammed as their subject. They published twelve of them, featuring various degrees of ridicule of Islam. (You can see the cartoons here.) Muslims worldwide reacted with outrage, featuring protests, rioting, arson, and at least one counter-cartoon contest — sponsored by an Iranian newspaper, asking for cartoons about the Holocaust. (Presumably because they think that Danes were the major targets of the Holocaust?) There is no shortage of blogging on the topic; for contrasting views, see series at Daily Kos and the Volokh Conspiracy.
I haven’t said anything about the controversy, both because I’ve been busy and since I thought the major points were perfectly obvious. The most-discussed points of contention seem to have been: “Did the Danish newspaper have the right to publish such offensive cartoons?”, and “Did the protestors have the right to resort to arson and rioting in response?” Put that way, the answers are obviously “Yes” and “No,” and there’s not much more to say.
Denmark, as far as I know, is not covered by the First Amendment, but in a democratic society newspapers should be permitted to publish just about whatever they want. The fear of offending people is no reason to suppress public speech. (Speech within private associations is a different matter.) The correct response, if something is said with which you disagree, is to say something else in return — the free market of ideas. True, the cartoons in question are low-brow and intentionally provocative, not the expression of any subtle argumentation. But quality of the speech is not relevant. If you don’t like it, let your displeasure be known, like this London (!) protester is doing:
A little self-undermining, maybe, but certainly taking advantage of an appropriate outlet for his own personal expression.
The violent reaction from some Muslims (not all, certainly) is completely inappropriate by any standard. This kind of destructive impulse is not something unique to Islam; it’s a familiar human response, one that is encouraged by fundamentalism of all kinds. At its source, it’s the same impulse that leads people to bomb abortion clinics or set fire to rural churches. Demonization of people unlike you, and violent action against them, is a frequent feature of extreme religious belief; not all religious belief, obviously, but a particularly virulent strain. It is antithetical in every way to the values of a liberal democratic society. This is a paradox of free societies: they must tolerate all sorts of belief, even those that are incompatible with freedom.
The subtleties of the cartoon issue only arise when we move from the question of whether Jyllands-Posten should have been allowed to publish the cartoons (since they obviously should have been), to whether it was a good idea to actually do so. Just because speech is allowed doesn’t mean it is mandatory. Knowing that the cartoons would offend the sensibilities of many Muslims, should the newspaper have printed them?
It’s easier to defend freedom of offensive expression when you’re not the one being offended. The same newspaper has apparently been less willing to publish potentially offensive cartoons about Jesus, for example. And many of the folks who are vociferously defending the cartoons are less willing to stand up for freedom of expression when it comes to flag burning. On the flip side, they have asked whether those who wring their hands over giving offense were all that bothered about works of art that offended Christians, such as Andre Serrano’s Piss Christ or Chris Ofili’s Holy Virgin Mary (you know, the one with the elephant dung).
Whether or not a group should offend another group (granting that they have the right to) isn’t a matter of fundamental rights, it’s a matter of politeness and civil discourse. The analogy between the Mohammed cartoons and Piss Christ is not a very close one. The former were published in a newspaper, almost begging to be distributed as widely as possible. The latter was shown in an art museum; if you didn’t want to go, nobody was forcing you. Art is (sometimes) supposed to be shocking and provocative; the idea that a gallery should refrain from displaying pieces that offend some people’s sensibilities is dangerous and counter-productive.
Still, even though it was a much more public forum, I don’t think that requirements of civility and politeness are paramount here. It’s true that, although I personally am happy to explain to Muslims why their ideas about religion are completely incorrect, I wouldn’t go out of my way to simply be offensive to their beliefs. But it’s not my newspaper. The editors of Jyllands-Posten weren’t being offensive by mistake; they were making every effort to be offensive, but it’s not like they were putting up posters in downtown Mecca. I may think it’s juvenile and stupid (and I do), but it’s their choice. I doubt that many of the rioters are regular readers of Jyllands-Posten, a right-wing Danish rag; they should have just ignored it.
Unfortunately I can’t demonstrate my good faith by my willingness to allow anyone to offend my own beliefs in the same way, since my beliefs are of a somewhat different character. But, for the record, if anyone wants to draw some offensive cartoons about Galileo, or John Stuart Mill, or Charles Darwin, or Virginia Woolf, or Einstein, or Shakespeare, or Jane Austen, or Bertrand Russell, be my guest. I promise not to riot.
Religion is impervious to – indeed strengthened by – all assaults except one: laughter. A priest can only deliver dignity.
You will know a man by his fears.
Firstly, I don’t think this controversy is really about images of Muhammad. One of the cartoons was of Muhammad with a turban shaped like a bomb — the idea was to depict Muslims generally as terrorists.
What I blogged about this a couple of days ago is that that having a right to publish cartoons that racially/religiously profile terrorism doesn’t make it a good idea. Feministe’s Zuzu also wrote a great post about this.
One of the (London) Times articles suggested that a Christian equivalent of the cartoons would be a cartoon of Jesus in a Nazi uniform in the context of discussion of the Catholic Church’s non-resistence to the Holocaust.
–Q.
There is a fundamental difference between the 12 cartoons and both “Piss Christ” and “Holy Virgin Mary.” The cartoons were published in Denmark, where Muslims are a minority and typically immigrants. Publishing them was the last straw in a series of Danish anti-immigrant actions. The two pieces of art were controversial in the US, where Christians are a majority. Offensive work published by a majority aimed at a majority carries a very different message from offensive works published by a majority aimed at a minority. I’ve seen the publishing of the cartoons compared to the “not guilty” verdict in the Rodney King beating trial. It was seen by the minority community as a poke with a sharp stick, telling them that they and their concerns have no value.
The Holocaust cartoon contest follows this vein. It’s not so much that Muslims blame Jews for the publishing of the cartoons, or that they think that the Danish will be particularly offended by material that ridicules the Holocaust. Muslim countries are looking for a sharp stick of their own, and someone to poke with it.
When those 12 cartoons were circulated in the Muslim world, there were a few others included. One showed the prophet praying while a dog mounts him from behind. This cartoon even offends me, a Western atheist.
Yes, but does it make you want to riot, destroy things and kill people?
It is relevant to know the background to the publication. A Danish writer of children’s book had wanted to include a picture of Muhammed in a book but had had problems finding a artist to draw the picture since they were afraid of getting killed. Accordingly Jyllands-Posten decided to solicit pictures of Muhammed to create a debate.
Killing people is never justified, in my book. But maybe I would want to riot if i saw the cartoons as part of a global anti-Muslim stance. One of the cartoons was making the statment that Muslims are terrorists, and if I was living under the threat of Dubya invading my country of origin because of this false and racist prejudice, and the whole of the Western world appeared to be backing up that prejudice on the grounds of “free speech,” then yes I might well want to protest. That doesn’t justify the deaths and the destruction, but I think the riots were inevitable.
–Q.
Q. I basically agree with you, all the way up to the rioting bit. Demonstrating – yes; rioting – I can’t agree with that.
Q. I guess what I’m saying is that it is the destruction and violence that makes it rioting. Otherwise it is a peaceful demonstration.
Belizean: First, if you don’t like the Times, don’t read the Times. It doesn’t sound like it’s a new idea for you that the Times falls short of standards, moral or otherwise. Beyond that, you are worrying about how other people get the news. We are all literate grown-ups here and we can decide for ourselves how to get the news.
Second, no, merely criticizing Islam does not put your life in danger. There are ways to criticize a religion without deeply offending its adherents. Islam is no exception to that. I will grant you that if you deeply offend millions of Muslims, you accept more mortal risk than if you deeply offend millions of Republicans. So okay, that’s different. Although on the scale of how dangerous it is to deeply offend millions, Republicans are hardly at the virtuous limit. A deeply offended Republican bombed the Murrah building and killed 168 people, for example. Another deeply offended Republican (whose indignance, admittedly, could be disingenuous) said that the New York Times building deserved the same fate.
So basically your all-or-nothing model of the risk of offending people is wrong. The New York Times building has put in substantial building security since 9/11, probably because of both Republicans and Muslims. They are not nearly as timid on either count as, for example, anonymous blog commenters.
Since an Egyptian newspaper published the Danish cartoons in October 2005 (see #14) and did not spark violent protests back then, we have to understand the current uproar to be created and orchestrated for various reasons.
I support these cartoons and am tired of Muslims attempting to control my own freedoms of religion or speech. I am especially concerned about how Muslims (mainly those that follow strict Islamic laws) treat woman. Personally, this last points makes me feel that a great majority of Muslims are bigots and ignorant to the rights of others. When most Muslim women are given the “choice” to do X or Z, then I will be more open to listing to Muslims concerns about cartoons.
Yes, I most certainly would. Freedom of expression is freedom of expression; whether those who are (or feel) offended are Muslims, Jews, blacks, gays, or professional clowns is utterly irrelevant. Nothing should be sacred or taboo. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. And yes, that very much includes religion, race issues, and the Holocaust.*
*What’s so frickin’ special about the Holocaust anyway? What makes it so much worse than, say, the Nanking Massacre, the Armenian Genocide, or Stalin’s reign of terror? Why can one freely deny or glorify the latter, while risking prosecution and imprisonment (!!) for doing the exact same thing with the former? There is no excuse for such blatant hypocrisy.
Which Muslims? And how?
Me too. I’m also worried about how some strict Catholics and some Southern Baptists treat women. And I’m concerned about George Bush and scAlito treat women. And, come to that, a huge number of male mathematicians and scientists. Misogyny isn’t specific to Islam, or more prominent among Muslims. A lot of the biggest sexist shits in my life are atheist. (but what does that have to do with branding Muslims generally as terrorists?)
Actually, funatmentalist Muslims are a *minority* of Muslims. And i think generalising from “some Muslims” to “Muslims generally” or “a great majority of Muslims” is bigotted.
By the same logic: when all women have quick and easy access to contraceptives of their choice, and abortion funded by the state, and all women receive equal treatment to men both in law and in society, and when all LGBT people have equal treatment to straight people both in law and in society, and people of all races receive equal treatment in law and in society, then I’ll start listening to Christians and atheists.
Sorry, I think your view is bigotted and illogical. By all means criticise misogyny and attempts to prohibit freedom of speech. But what you’re doing is generalising from some Muslims, and furthermore denying that having the right of speech comes with the responsibility of exercising judgement when using that freedom. Does having the right to call all Catholics Nazis make it a good idea? NO. So why do you see it as ok to call all Muslims bigotted sexist terrorists?
–Q.
Forgot to respond to Mark: your point is taken. I was using “rioting” in the same sense as “protesting.” Please read my comment 31 with “protesting” instead of “rioting” throughout.
–Q.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1623552,00300001.htm
.
Here, the rabble-rousers existing on both sides: the minority of the minority Danish imams who whipped up the outrage among the Muslims, the western and muslim governments who found support in one way or another for their particular viewpoints, and the western media, who were offended at limits on their free speech and therefore poured salt in the existing wounds of the minority Muslims in their countries. Ugly story.
I would like to think that were I a Muslim in one of the countries where violent demonstartions are taking place that I would be able to rise above the rabble rousing and expouse peaceful demonstrations. Don’t honestly know if I would live up to that or not. There, but for the grace of dog, go I.
“Unfortunately I can’t demonstrate my good faith by my willingness to allow anyone to offend my own beliefs in the same way, since my beliefs are of a somewhat different character.”
Indeed, you can’t. Whenever you demonstrate your willingness to allow anyone to offend your own politically correct, feminist beliefs, the Islamic fundamentalists start to look like innocent, mainstream, rational friends. 😉
Right Lubos,
And anyone who offends you gets censored from you blog.
Dear Elliot,
if you look carefully, you will see that all these people, Peterwoits, Quantokens, Nigels Cooks, Connolleys, and our friends CI Pigs, Wolfgangs, and so forth keep on posting there. No other blog in the world can compete with mine in the diversity of opinions that appear there.
Best
Lubos
Is this the diversity you are talking about?
——————————————–
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:37:06 -0500 (EST)
From: “Lubos Motl” Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: “Al Fansome”
Subject: Re: Banned from your site
Dear Al,
you have freedom to express yourself at millions of other places. Sorry but I found your presence at my blog counterproductive. It’s my private place and my responsibility to clean it from things that I consider
trash.
All the best
Lubos
—————————————————–
Your own words my friend.
Lubos has a more effective method than censorship — he expresses sentiments like “sexual harassment is invented by feminists to terrorise men” which effectively deters all real liberals from commenting there. Lubos’s blog is a beautiful example of irrationality that goes unoffended. And so he can happily deny that rape and assault and blatant sexism ever happen, even while make statements like “X wouldn’t happen if men were in charge.” People tend not to comment on those things in Lubos’s blog.
But hey, that’s free speech in action, and Lubos has every right to publish them in his blog even if they’re morally disgusting and downright wrong.
–Q.
My personal beef is that Lubos accused some of the posters here of acting like the communists in Czechoslovakia, when he is the one muzzling dissenting opinions on his blog.
Blatant hypocrisy in my opinion. But after all he’s much smarter than I am so who am I to question his viewpoint.
Elliot — the “problem” with free speech is that sometimes people say things that you don’t like. Does that mean the right to free speech should be scrapped? of coruse not. Dose it mean that free speech comes with a responsibility to exercise judgement? Absolutely. A lot of things Lubos (and others) says offend me. I personally think they should exercise better judgment. That’s not the same as saying they shouldn’t be allowed to say the things they are saying. It does mean that there are appropriate and inappropriate places for them to say it. Lubos can of course publish on his blog. That’s his right. If he were to post the same thing on my blog i would probably delete it, because it offends me and in my view inhibits constructive discussion. my bog, my rules; his blog, his rules.
–Q
Q. Agreed, you and he have a perfect right to manage content on you blog as you see fit. But when he posts comments like:
“No other blog in the world can compete with mine in the diversity of opinions that appear there.”
It seems to be somewhat of a contradiction with his behavior that needs to be illuminated.
Cheers.