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.
How about this for censorship: the topic of this comment thread is not the way in which Lubos manages his blog. Let’s move on, shall we?
Fair enough, Sean. Sorry.
–Q
Can’t resist though: Elliot, comment #46 in reply to comment #45….
Roll-on-the-floor-LOL!!!!
-cvj
Clifford, glad I made your day.
Sean, sorry I didn’t make yours. My apologies.
Elliot
No problem, folks. Just want to keep things somewhat on track.
Why is the following relevant? The issue of the cartoons is being interpreted by some as a matter of how minorities are treated. Well, the following is about treatment of minorities; and these are not recent immigrants, these are people who have lived there for centuries.
http://indiauncut.blogspot.com/2006/02/jaziya.html
Jaziya is a requirement of Islamic religious law. More about it is here:
http://www.challenging-islam.org/library/doctrine/app2.htm
I agree, we Moslems are still living in third world countries which are 50 or more years behind the western civilizations and on average our people are not as civilized, educated or as well-expressed as west and historically this is not just our own ancestors’ fault and do not forget what sort of violence and discriminatory actions this same west was deep into not very long ago but leaving all that on the side lets not be hypocrites about western media standing up for the freedom of speech or the right to know the truth. These are the same media who rarely talked about Saddam using chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Kurds up until Bush decided to attack Iraq, and they still don’t include Iran since god forbid the people of such an evil country will be humanized and it is not in their interests that people know about it. They act so outraged if the stupid president of Iran makes insensitive comments about the Jewish Holocaust but they are fine with Turkey denying the Armenian Holocaust and Clinton resisting the recognition of that or even Shimon Peres making insensitive comments about it. You know what I think, human lives, their rights and cultures of other countries are worth nothing to western politician when it comes to their own interests and the major part of their media is unfortunately far from the idealistic advocate of freedom of speech or the truth for that matter and I guess we have no right to criticize them as long as we ourselves are living under much worst condition in our countries but at the same time it is a mistake to assume that Moslems are also blind and will buy the double standards and lies in the name of human right and freedom of speech specially since there are intolerant and fanatics among all groups of people who are just looking for excuses to start a war.
Another interesting twist to an old story …
from
http://deatanu.blogspot.com/2006/02/of-cartoons-rage-and-reason.html.
To contribute my 2 cents worth, I believe that this whole rioting thing shouldn’t be taken as an indicator to the behaviour of the whole Islamic nation just as the Abu-Ghraib abuse cases weren’t supposed to represent the whole American society.
In response to L (#57) I believe that most of the protests outside Denmark were orchestrated months after the fact by governments and non-governmental groups, that have no real standing with respect to human rights or respect for religion, because they have no respect for these in their daily operations.
#58, Amitabha, I find the following book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/185640000X/002-8216153-7489621?v=glance&n=283155
Distorted Imagination: Lessons from the Rushdie Affair
by Ziauddin Sardar
# Hardcover: 303 pages
# Publisher: Grey Seal (January 1, 1990)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 185640000X
So is the claim that Ziauddin Sardar had additional writings on the Rushdie Affair that did not find a publisher?
Further to L – certainly everyone has a right to speak; and the more speech and non-violent demonstrations rather than the other type, the better. How credible what is said really depends however, on the context of what is said. Credibility comes from speaking up based on principles rather than on special interest.
http://www.saag.org/%5Cpapers17%5Cpaper1699.html
is worth reading w.r.t. this last point.
#60, Arun, Possibly. I do not know. (The author of the referenced blog may know more.)
My guess is that the book was rejected by more than one `big’ publishers before it was published by a `small’ publisher.
http://indiauncut.blogspot.com/2006/02/where-is-denmark.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,399263,00.html
Theo Van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s film Submission can be viewed at http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2655656
There are two other articles about this subject at http://freethoughts.org/ from other perspectives
Some cartoon-related news from India:
http://hindustantimes.com/news/181_1630952,0008.htm
http://in.news.yahoo.com/060220/43/62m7f.html
and some from England:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia219.xml
DANISH CARTOONS AND “PISS CHRIST”
Catholics subject to insensitivity (The Sunday Tribune, Ireland, 12 February 2006)
“ALL people, all religions, have to be open to criticism but it must be constructive and sensitive. [A debate] . . . cannot be achieved by extremism in either culture.”
“We in the Sunday Tribune are against censorship and believe passionately in freedom of speech. But the publication of cartoons that Muslims find so offencive was not correct. For that reason we are not reproducing them today”
(Sunday Tribune Editorial 5 February).
Is the Tribune serious? Do you recall the obscene and vicious attacks on Nora Wall (Sister Dominic). “Vile Nun”, “Pervert Nun”, “I was Raped by Anti-Christ”. Did you imagine that these came from people who were concerned about child abuse? Do you remember the article by the Sunday World ‘s crime correspondent Paul Williams “Rape Nun’s Abuse Pact by Smyth”. He claimed that Nora Wall had procured children for Fr Brendan Smyth! Nora Wall sued and got damages of 175,000. I don’t recall the Sunday Tribune (or any “Liberal” newspaper) highlighting the issue. Did you even mention it and if so when?
Several years ago, The Irish Times did an article about “Piss Christ”, an artistic masterpiece that showed a crucifix in a bucket of urine. American Christians who wanted to deny public money to the artist were called “fascists” by The Irish Times. What was the constructive and sensitive response by the Tribune?
Do you really think that liberals can (literally) spew vomit over Christianity and their own culture and then demand tolerance of Muslims?
Berthold Brecht was the leading intellectual in the Weimar Republic. He was also a Stalinist bootlicker. His own mistress Carola Neher, star of The Threepenny Opera, visited the Soviet Union, was arrested and disappeared forever into the Gulag. Brecht did not protest or lift a finger to help her (it would have meant allying himself with “reactionaries”). The obscene treatment of Nora Wall, Sister Stanislaus Kennedy and Sister Xaviera by Irish “liberals” is on the same moral level and you are equally unfitted to fight against our modern fascists.
Rory Connor, 11 Lohunda Grove, Dublin 15.
http://www.tribune.ie