Let Freedom Clang Off Key

[catscradle]

What bother's me about the cartoons that are causing riots in Europe and the Muslem world right now, is not so much the issue of freedom of the press. There's a another, more sinister, issue at hand. I call it the stupidity of the press. Make no mistake that I fully believe in and support the freedom of the press. I'd really like it if they brought it back to the United States, but that's another issue. But the stupidity of the press is pretty rampant these days. I can't speak for the European press as a whole, as I don't read it on a daily basis to really be informed on it. But from the info we have here on the cartoon that was initially printed in a Danish paper, I've got to say - uh, what were you thinking?

That said, yes the Danish paper should have the freedom to print whatever they want. However, with freedom come responsibility. If you insult an entire group of people that span many countries, you might want to think about the repercussions and how it will affect everyone involved. Depicting a sacred symbol of a religion as a terrorist in this day and age is nothing less than wreckless endangerment. It's not just a silly cartoon - it's a political cartoon with several dangerous messages. 1) Because it targets an entire religion rather than just a radical fringe group, it illustrates that ALL Muslims are to be feared because that's what the Prophet teaches. 2) It takes their holiest figure and paints him as a terrorist and trite. 3) It disrespects Islam by ignoring the religious law that forbids iconography or any pictorial depiction of the religion.

These riots are not over a cartoon. These riots are the preverbial last straw in a cumulation of events. In history there are a lot of dangerous last straws. WWI did not errupt because the Archduke Ferdidnand and his wife were assasinated. It was the last straw. In a time with so many sparks flying amuck, we don't really need to start flinging gasoline.

Okay, freedom of the press is also the freedom to be a dipshit if one must. But there is such a thing as justifiable anger in response to dipshits. Unfortunately such things tend to escalate. What the press needs to bear in mind is whether or not insulting an entire religion was a good way to illustrate terror attacks that usually come from fringe organizations. The press was not reporting on a story in which facts were in danger of being covered up. It seems a political cartoon with an agenda geered at pointing the finger of blame at millions of people who aren't invovled in such things.

I don't know the true intentions of the artist or the newspaper. Perhaps they didn't mean to come across as they did. But like it or not, that's the perception now. And what it teaches is how little the West understands the Muslim world. They obviously don't know us very well either, as we're pretty used to political cartoons attacking and making fun of every political, religious and social movement. It's not so much an issue for us. There is a clash of cultures and the inability for either side to understand where the other one is coming from. But now that we've been made aware of their feelings toward how the Prophet is depicted, or not depicted in this case, maybe, just MAYBE, we could apologize for the misunderstanding rather than reprinting the thing all over the world and crying FREEDOM OF THE PRESS! The issue isn't freedom, it's stupidity and it's lack of imagination.

Comments

[silverthoughts.livejournal.com]

Have you seen the cartoon? There was a link on the BBC to a French newspaper with them since the BBC didn't want to face the controversy.

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I saw the series in a Brussel's journal online. And most seem inoffensive enough. You can count a lot of those up to simply not understanding the religion or the culture and why, for instance, they might not understand that to a Muslim the "we're out of virgin's" isn't so funny. After all, in Western culture we satire Jesus and Moses all the time. But it's hard to justify the one where Mohammad is wearing a bomb in his turbin. I can definitely see where that would be rather inflammatory.

[vasiliki.livejournal.com]

Nah, they've been tons of cartoons till now depicting religious figures (Christ included, of course!) as terrorists or pimps or any other nasty connotation you can imagine, and there was never an issue. Or rather, only the fanatics took an issue! So, I truly can't understand what's the big deal now with this one. Or rather, I do: manipulators are pulling strings, and unfortunately the bombists dance in their tune (they always come up with a different reason to plant a bomb, anyway).

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

Were they specifically Muslim before? Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, most Buddhists (thought not all), have no strict rule forbidding the image of their holy figures, where as Islam does. Put it in the context where the religious figure is now a image of terror and that just magnifies it. In America, after 9/11, hate crimes committed against Muslims (or anyone that looked Middle Eastern) skyrocketed. In this environment, if you add the image of terrorism as a tennet of the religion, which the cartoon of Mohammad with the bomb in the turbin certainly does, a seed is planted in the reader's mind.

[vasiliki.livejournal.com]

Yes, Muslim included. In fact, they weren't uncommon by some cartoonists who worked for Greek newspapers - even right-wing ones, which means they weren't always "funny". Of course, there were very few Muslims in Greece until recently, so no true chance for them to circulate them out of the country or on the internet and manipulate an outcry among the Muslims abroad.

Point is, the cartoon wasn't printed in an American newspaper. Muslims didn't generally have it bad in Europe, even after 9/11 (except for the UK, which is notorious for its philamericanism and generally excludes itself from the notion of "Europe"). Europeans side with Palestinians, not Israelis. Etc. Etc. The newspaper might have been stupid to print this cartoon in this day and age, without considering how it could be used for manipulatory purposes, but their intentions were NOT sinister and there was definitely an overraction. If a cartoonist or journalist can't express his opinion anymore, without being threatened with court action against libel or with violence, where is this world heading to? Devotion to religion is one thing and freedom of the press is another.

[vasiliki.livejournal.com]

their intentions were NOT sinister

in the sense that they didn't seek to cause such a reaction, but to teach Muslims in Denmark that "they should be ready to accept sarcasm and ridicule". Not a noble or wise method to teach a portion of the local population how the country they wish to live in opperates, but I want to believe it wasn't sinister in principle - misjudged, rather. In any case, many other newspapers didn't like this action, and said so in their own articles concerning the cartoon.

What is currently taking place in Muslim countries, though, just doesn't make sense to any non-fanatic religious person! As a Dr of Theology said in Greece: "Offenses (real or imaginary) against religious symbols deserve the indifference of the faithful, otherwise it's the religion that is getting hurt".

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

in the sense that they didn't seek to cause such a reaction, but to teach Muslims in Denmark that "they should be ready to accept sarcasm and ridicule". Not a noble or wise method to teach a portion of the local population how the country they wish to live in opperates, but I want to believe it wasn't sinister in principle

I don't believe it was sinister - just very stupid and naive. And it does come across as an agenda even if it's not. Mohammad with a bomb in the turbin - it's not like it's Osama bin Laden or a specific Imam of a fringe group - Mohammad represents ALL Muslims.

And teaching Muslim that they should be ready to accept sarcasm and riddicule? How many ways of stupid wrong is that? Where to start? Rings of colonial paternalism to me. We know best for your culture. And why should they be ready to accept anything that is wrong to have done to them? If I was being told that ridicule is going to be the norm for me now so I would do well to get used to it - yeah, I'd probably want to riot. And maybe that's not how it was meant, but it's how it sounds.

[vasiliki.livejournal.com]

And teaching Muslim that they should be ready to accept sarcasm and riddicule?

In Denmark. Where everyone is ready to accept sarcasm and ridicule. You're Muslim, but you're also living in DENMARK, so if a cartoonist decides he wants to target your prophet today, instead of yet another politician, you have to be ready to abide by the country's rules. But as I said, this was definitely the wrong way to do it and other Danish newspapers also reacted negatively. The newspaper in question apologized for any kind of offense the Muslims felt, and that's where the issue should have ended.

In this age of internet and mass manipulation, they lacked foresight... and it'a shame that other people are paying for it, but at the same time it's a shame to have people in so many countries (Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, etc) being so easily guided like a flock of sheep. It's not as if they don't also offend plenty of Westerners in their own homogeneous countries! (heck, I keep being offended as a white woman in Japan, but I just accept it as a part of living here!)

[(Anonymous)]

My point here wasn't that the freedom of the press should be surpressed - I was pretty plain about that. Never said that they should worry about court orders or be forced to do anything. My point was that the cartoons were rather stupid to publish and when you do stupid things, like it or not, there's going to be reaction to it. That isn't to say that the Muslims aren't over reacting - and as I said in my post, this is due to lack of understanding of both cultures about the other.

[wiebke.livejournal.com]

I was reading background on this on Wikipedia today and it said that the reason the paper put that piece together was to demonstrate freedom of the press. Apparently the idea came out of somebody wanting to do a children's book about Islam and not being able to find anybody to illustrate Muhammed... mostly because they feared an outcry from Muslim groups over, as you say, iconagraphy. So they went and asked a dozen comic strip artists to do something with the prophet and then STUPIDLY (yeah, I'm with you there) printed it as some kind of test/demonstration/act of defiance. They were worried about the children's book, but hell, this is way worse.

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

That's pretty interesting. So they understood before it was printed that this might have a backlash and they did it anyway to see what would happen? Yikes =/

[wiebke.livejournal.com]

Indeed. And meanwhile according to NPR this morning, a French newspaper has gone and reprinted all 12 of the drawings, along with comics that mock other religions. Idiots. Their offices will now get attacked, I assume.

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've heard quite a few newspapers over the world have reprinted them. A Philadelphia paper also reprinted some if not all of the cartoons. The Muslim community was going to stage a protest, but if they did, I haven't heard anything about it as of yet.

[alighiera.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone here denies that the cartoons were an idiotic thing to print. But it still doesn't justify what the Danish imams did in reaction to it.

And, quite honestly? The actions of the last few days have completely ruined any sympathy for islam for many people. Because a religion that wants to force newspapers in a European country (where muslims are something like a 5% minority) to comply with their rules isn't exactly gathering support. It's the same as with muslim fathers here demanding that their children only be taught by male teachers, or that female teachers should wear veils. You can't expect the entire world to play by your rules.

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

And, quite honestly? The actions of the last few days have completely ruined any sympathy for islam for many people. Because a religion that wants to force newspapers in a European country (where muslims are something like a 5% minority) to comply with their rules isn't exactly gathering support.

It's not like the Muslims took over the newspapers and began to dictate their rules and freedom is now in jeopardy. You do not depict the prophet Mohammad in their religion. That's it. No rules being dictated other than having a bit of sensitivity to one of the cultures co-exsiting there. But insult to injury, he's depicted with a bomb. As I said above, the press is surely free to print that - but it was a very stupid, insensative thing to do. And when you print something like that, there's going to be a reaction - and in this case, an overreaction that's spreading like wildfire over the world.

It's the same as with muslim fathers here demanding that their children only be taught by male teachers, or that female teachers should wear veils. You can't expect the entire world to play by your rules

Are Muslims able to run their own schools or home school their kids? If they have this option and they still insist on all schools doing this, then yeah, it's totally irrational. You're right. In the US many of the Muslim communities, as well as Jewish, Catholics and so on, they set up their own schools and run them as they see fit. They have to meet the State standards for general subjects like math, sciece, social science, English... but whatever else they teach and how they teach it is totally up to them. So we don't run into those particular cultural conflicts here.

[alighiera.livejournal.com]

Jyllands-Posten was idiotic in printing the cartoons. But what the Muslims in Denmark did amounts to trying to foce them to play along their rules after they lost their court appeal. If you live in a country, you have to obey that country's laws. You can't sue a paper, lose in the first instance, and instead of appealing to the higher court and dragging it up to the European High court, go on a little trip to some Middle eastern regimes to start on blackmail to get your way. This time it's about a newspaper. But next time?

Are Muslims able to run their own schools or home school their kids? If they have this option and they still insist on all schools doing this, then yeah, it's totally irrational.

It's legal. There has to be proof that the child is getting the necessary education, and that is validated in annual tests. So it is not like anyone is forced to have a female teacher who doesn't cover her hair. It's intolerance, and from the other side this time.

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

The point of my post was not that riots were a good thing. I think they're bad. I think anytime relations between two cultures go sour, that's a bad thing. To simplify what I was saying, and perhaps I didn't say it very well - stupidity breeds stupidity. What the newspaper did was wreckless. It caused unecessary animosity and now that has to be dealt with because it's spiraled out of control.

There is a very tense climate in the world right now and it didn't need this. A little sensitivity and common decency could have avoided the situation.

In terms of the schooling, yeah, I totally agree with you there.

[alighiera.livejournal.com]

My apologies for misunderstanding. It's just a really, really touchy issue for me, so I'm jumpy about it. You're right - the climate is tense, and the cartoons were the proverbial last straw.