So if I wrote to the government demanding a meeting with Tony Blair because I disagreed with a Daily Mail editorial about asylum seekers, would it be strange and wrong of him not to meet me?
Apparently the BBC are now being threatened with all kinds of unpleasantness after they showed a brief shot of one of the papers. As I said upthread, I just wish these people would just grow up. But what is beginning to trouble me more is the reaction of some supposedly 'liberal' people who are unable to contemplate any school of thought that is vaguely critical of poor, oppressed muslims.
These very same people were outraged when Christian fundies swamped the BBC with complaints about Jerry Springer The Musical without even watching it first, but they're giving their backing to a bunch of violent bigots who are utterly convinced of their own righteousness yet are unable to cope with any criticism of their views or debate the issues logically.
It's like that Sikh temple play in Brum all over again.
― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Friday, 3 February 2006 08:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― jenst, Friday, 3 February 2006 09:48 (eighteen years ago) link
HOWEVER the Danish paper in question is on the right, eg. the Danish version of the Torygraph so may be guilty of a certain amount of mean-spiritedness.
The Sikh play was written by a Sikh woman and that furore boils down to a scene where there is a rape in a gurdwara. One of my closest friends is...another Sikh playwright and she was offended by it mostly because staging that scene that way was a case of cack-handed attempt at symbolism (not the expression of male power or the questioning of the religion - all that was fine).
Stewart Lee (Jerry Springer the Opera librettist) was on the radio this morning and demurred that he personally wouldn't lampoon Islam because he is not as knowledgeable about it as Xtianity.
― suzy (suzy), Friday, 3 February 2006 10:07 (eighteen years ago) link
there's offense and offense, though amirite?
― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Friday, 3 February 2006 10:09 (eighteen years ago) link
i don't agree with tombot's analogy. is listening to offensive rap lyrics the same thing as calling female coworkers 'bitch'?
― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Friday, 3 February 2006 10:34 (eighteen years ago) link
― suzy (suzy), Friday, 3 February 2006 10:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 3 February 2006 10:46 (eighteen years ago) link
― suzy (suzy), Friday, 3 February 2006 10:51 (eighteen years ago) link
― Nemo (JND), Friday, 3 February 2006 11:03 (eighteen years ago) link
fundamentalists are automatically wrong.
This is part of the same continuum as the withdrawal of the Sikh play last year and the lobbying against Jerry Springer. All need to be resisted with equal vigour. If you live in a society which has enshrined freedom of expression then you accept that that elements of that society's expressions may offend you. end of. It's a moral absolute. Following a different course, let alone legislating one, is only going to enshrine inequality.
― barbarian cities (jaybob3005), Friday, 3 February 2006 11:55 (eighteen years ago) link
"islam" and "muslim" at this point just seem to me to be the same as "internet" and "information superhighway" or whatever in 1995 - something EVERY SINGLE MEDIA OUTLET goes on and on and on about, but has little to no impact on anything (and i live in nyc, home of good ol' 9/11, don'tchaknow). i mean, maybe if you live in a nearly homogenous society like denmark you'd feel threatened by muslims, but even with attacks against the west (9/11, 7/7, 3/11), i could give a fuck. it's a tiny, tiny, tiny majority.
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 3 February 2006 15:01 (eighteen years ago) link
See - this is why I choose to live in Europe, and not the Middle East.
Fundamentalists should also note:
Article 9Freedom of thought, conscience and religion 1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2 Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Will be drinking Danish beers tonight in support - may even dig out my Ace of Bass CD
― Dr J Bowman (Dr J Bowman), Friday, 3 February 2006 15:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 3 February 2006 15:17 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 3 February 2006 15:19 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dr J Bowman (Dr J Bowman), Friday, 3 February 2006 15:21 (eighteen years ago) link
― suzy (suzy), Friday, 3 February 2006 15:35 (eighteen years ago) link
nabisco, I think this is precisely why the publication of the cartoons - AND the reproduction of them across europe in the show of solidarity, which I hope spreads even further - was a good thing. political satire is supposed to be offensive, spiteful and unpleasant - and its potential to be all of these things has to be protected otherwise it's useless as a medium. sure, I guess they knew that this would rile muslims - what of it? I don't understand why anyone should refrain from this sort of deliberate provocation.
(If fundamentalist Christians were going after gay pornographers, neither would I think the answer was to make and publicize gay pornography in which the apostles gangbang Jesus. Funnier than these cartoons, but not a very practical idea.)
I WANT TO MAKE THIS FILM!
― The Lex (The Lex), Friday, 3 February 2006 15:56 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dr J Bowman (Dr J Bowman), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:01 (eighteen years ago) link
ok that's dumber than the ace of bass thing.
i think y'all are missing something: the fact that the west is the most powerful hegemonic force in the world. yes, denmark ain't america, but do y'all ever think for a second that, ya know, since muslims have been defined as "other" by the west for a long fucking time now, maybe, just maybe, they have a right to object to it continuing? a lot on this thread to me reads like suburban homeslice whitebread people in america (takes one to know one, as i am one) complaining about how "black people can't just move on."
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:13 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dr J Bowman (Dr J Bowman), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:15 (eighteen years ago) link
But then don't complain when your provocation actually incites violence. Post the Van Gogh murder, the Danish should know more than anyone that they're playing with fire with this sort of thing. That's all I'm trying to point out. There is a thin, possibly invisible line between Brave and Stupid with this sort of thing and its position is determined by who, why and how you pull it off. The bomb turban, as CURTIS UR HYPES pointed out, doesn't really put these cartoons in the brave category, because courage has dignity as a prerequisite.
― TOMBOT, Friday, 3 February 2006 16:17 (eighteen years ago) link
who has stabbed anyone related to this fucking dumb cartoon?!? as for death threats, meh.
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― The Lex (The Lex), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:20 (eighteen years ago) link
WEST WARWICK -- The Secret Service is investigating a seventh-grade Deering Middle School student who allegedly threatened President Bush in an essay describing his perfect day.
In the one-page, hand-written essay, the student says his ideal day involves doing violence to President Bush as well as executives at Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart, Detective Sgt. Fernando Araujo, the head of the Police Department's juvenile division, said yesterday.
perhaps the danish don't have massively overrun federal government budget deficits! this could be a great way to stimulate the economy - free ("free" meaning paid by the public) protection for "threatened" newspaper publishers!
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:20 (eighteen years ago) link
there wasn't a crusade against buddha, he ain't called lawrence of the fucking yangtze, etc., etc.
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:21 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dr J Bowman (Dr J Bowman), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:22 (eighteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:23 (eighteen years ago) link
...why more than anyone?
'fear of violence' is no reason to withhold this kind of criticism at all, and EVEN IF the lunatic response could have been predicted it still doesn't shift any blame whatsoever on to the people who published the cartoons.
― The Lex (The Lex), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:25 (eighteen years ago) link
― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:28 (eighteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:29 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:30 (eighteen years ago) link
Basically I think that the cartoons were meant to be provocative if one thinks of the average reader of JP and Denmark at times. I think there has been an overreaction and that apologies were unneccessary but I'd be unsure what I would have done differently to be honest.
― Kv_nol (Kv_nol), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:31 (eighteen years ago) link
"In what the Beirut Daily Star calls a bold move, the Arabic-language Jordanian tabloid Al-Shihan defiantly published three of the cartoons. But the weekly's publishing company decided to pull the tabloid from newsstands and 'open an investigation to identify those responsible for this abominable and reprehensible behavior,' it said."
― Nemo (JND), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:45 (eighteen years ago) link
I mean, this is the part that everyone, in their eagerness to criticize European Muslims for not playing by western rules, forgets: part of what it means to live in the progressive "enlightened" pluralistic societies we're so proud of is that other people's values become a part of your culture -- what offends them because offensive to the public sphere. I think this is the source of a lot of my vehemence here. A pluralistic society may give people the right to go on doing whatever they want, but there are things they can do that actually run against the grain of a pluralistic society; I think this is kind of one of them. The real spirit of an enlightened pluralistic society is that if people show up with taboos you don't share, you're going to wind up having to respect those taboos -- and you're certainly not standing up for enlightened pluralism by defiantly tweaking them.
In this sense, the extremists are a red herring. The tweak here isn't to extremism, it's to a basic Muslim taboo. This is what's underhanded about it -- the knowledge that flipping the bird to a Muslim taboo will bring froth to the mouth of the worst extremists, and thereby color perception of the whole. And the biggest insult is to European Muslims who'll feel marginalized and assaulted and rejected by this, but would never lift a finger against anyone about it. Flipping the bird at Muslims -- and rejecting the idea that their sensibilities could ever be reflected in a pluralistic society -- is not the same thing as defying extremists, and it's not the same thing as defending pluralism.
― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:55 (eighteen years ago) link
OTM
― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 3 February 2006 16:57 (eighteen years ago) link
That doesn't exactly contradict his point, it simply means that the West's defining of "otherness" relative to cultures that are not Muslims has manifested itself in different ways. I mean, Exhibit A, FFS.
He's also right that these cultures define themselves as other to a large extent too. Why distinguish between Muslims and kaffir, if not? Or between Jews and goyim? If one doesn't want to be "other," one assimilates.
― phil d. (Phil D.), Friday, 3 February 2006 17:01 (eighteen years ago) link
I don't agree. You may be impelled to respect their right to their own taboos but not their right to impose their taboos on society.
― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 3 February 2006 17:02 (eighteen years ago) link
Exaclty. Bear in mind, Van Gogh was Dutch, not Danish (unless TOMBOT said this because they're both European countries, which is true but would make a strange reason to say they, more than anything, should know better).
― Gerard (Gerard), Friday, 3 February 2006 17:03 (eighteen years ago) link
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/
― Pete W (peterw), Friday, 3 February 2006 17:05 (eighteen years ago) link
― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 3 February 2006 17:05 (eighteen years ago) link
Well, M. White gets to it before me, but this has to be a matter of degree and sensibility. We don't print "G-d" in the newspaper in case Orthodox Jews are reading, you know? And we don't require all restaurants to provide kosher, and we certainly don't allow the fundamentalist Christian taboos to control the popular culture.
― phil d. (Phil D.), Friday, 3 February 2006 17:07 (eighteen years ago) link
No way. Not automatically. You are right that it's possible for a change to occur in the mores of a pluralistic society, but there are some things it may not choose to give up. I think that in general we respect religion, all religion, too much, and have given up to much of the Enlightenment tradition of free criticism and even ridicule.
― Rockist_Scientist (RSLaRue), Friday, 3 February 2006 17:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dr J Bowman (Dr J Bowman), Friday, 3 February 2006 17:08 (eighteen years ago) link
it should be pretty clear i'm not talking about either/or here, but longevity and intensity. there is NO WAY there could possibly be any comparison of 4 years of american anti-japanese propaganda posters to thousands of years of western christian-based oppression. and no, virginia, that does not excuse the anti-japanese stuff.
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 3 February 2006 17:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 3 February 2006 17:12 (eighteen years ago) link
Dadaismus is right. If you are a believer, any representation of the prophet is prohibited. It's not so much a taboo as something very specific in the Koran.
― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 3 February 2006 17:25 (eighteen years ago) link