Saturday 11 February 2006
Own goals...
The 'Danish cartoon' controversy has so far cost upwards of eleven lives in two countries and looks like continuing for a while at least. As I stated in a comment I left on Andrew Montin's blog, I am deeply suspicious of the motives behind the publication of those cartoons, but regard the over-reaction in some Islamic countries as part of an ongoing campaign against free speech.
I have followed with great interest a debate between Andrew and ultra-left blogger Mark. They are debating a technicality; the inherent racism of the cartoons themselves. (Andrew - denying inherent racism - seems to me to be winning that debate hands down.)
I want to look at another 'cartoon controversy' that hasn't quite arrived yet. A European Arab organisation briefly made headlines a few days ago with a campaign of their own.
The Arab-European League (AEL) states that they are against the publication of the 'Danish cartoons' because they demonise Arab and Muslim people. I am not unsympathetic to that view, however central to their thesis is that there is a double standard in Europe (or the West) that allows the unpleasant side of Islam to be openly discussed while other issues are off limits. I am not convinced that this is the case.
Anyway they launched a series of their own cartoons that they say redresses this imbalance. I'll look at four of them and explain why they are offensive and probably should not have been published. (I would have done the same for the Danish cartoons but am not brave enough to republish them.)
This is one of three cartoons, out of a series of six so far, that deals with the Holocaust. It invokes the memory of Anne Frank, a young Dutch victim of the Nazis, to suggest that 'the Jews' were 'in bed' with Hitler. This conspiracy theory, in wide circulation in the Islamic world (I heard it again just a few days ago, earnestly repeated by an otherwise reasonable acquaintance who would characterise himself as a mainstream Moslem), suggests that 'the Jews' collaborated with the Nazis in order to achieve their Zionist agenda. In my opinion it is the most offensive of the Holocaust cartoons. It perpetuates the pernicious 'crafty Jew' stereo type in the most hideous way. Not to mention the outright racism of depicting a Jewish child victim as a co-conspirator in such a monstrous fraud. All in all a very nasty piece of work.
This cartoon is labelled 'solving female circumcision complications'. It is an appalling reduction of the serious problem of female genital mutilation to one of - otherwise spoilt - women missing out on sexual pleasure; nothing a suitably large man couldn't fix. Clearly offensive to all victims of these practices and women in general.
A nasty, narrow-minded reaction to some recent improvements in Gay rights. The common gripe of religious conservatives of all creeds is that we're on a slippery slope towards total moral depravity. A terribly offensive piece of homophobic equivalency; homosexuality is just another kind of sexual perversion.
Actually this one's not terribly offensive. I only included it because I think that's John Howard on the left (hard to know because of the poor quality of the artwork) and I love to see Australia on the world stage. Incidentally, given the motives of the AEL campaign it's worth noting that similar cartoons appear in newspapers throughout 'the West' just about every day.
A couple of the 'Danish cartoons' left me baffled and may well be hugely offensive, but of those I understood, none comes even close to the first three in terms of offensiveness. The AEL have certainly explored the limits of free speech. They've clearly offered offence to Jews, homosexuals and women. (On second thoughts that's been going on for centuries.) I disagree with everything these cartoons suggest. Actually I find most of it disgusting. However I would not ban them, and I would certainly not kill anyone over them. All I'd do is what I've just done - point out that they're offensive and wrong and explain why they are offensive and wrong.
Given the muted reaction to these cartoons - they've been mentioned in short news items and lampooned by late night comedians - I'd say they might not have achieved all that the AEL wanted. In fact the reaction so far suggests that 'the West' does broadly accept free speech and that nothing is off limits.
I have followed with great interest a debate between Andrew and ultra-left blogger Mark. They are debating a technicality; the inherent racism of the cartoons themselves. (Andrew - denying inherent racism - seems to me to be winning that debate hands down.)
I want to look at another 'cartoon controversy' that hasn't quite arrived yet. A European Arab organisation briefly made headlines a few days ago with a campaign of their own.
The Arab-European League (AEL) states that they are against the publication of the 'Danish cartoons' because they demonise Arab and Muslim people. I am not unsympathetic to that view, however central to their thesis is that there is a double standard in Europe (or the West) that allows the unpleasant side of Islam to be openly discussed while other issues are off limits. I am not convinced that this is the case.
Anyway they launched a series of their own cartoons that they say redresses this imbalance. I'll look at four of them and explain why they are offensive and probably should not have been published. (I would have done the same for the Danish cartoons but am not brave enough to republish them.)
This is one of three cartoons, out of a series of six so far, that deals with the Holocaust. It invokes the memory of Anne Frank, a young Dutch victim of the Nazis, to suggest that 'the Jews' were 'in bed' with Hitler. This conspiracy theory, in wide circulation in the Islamic world (I heard it again just a few days ago, earnestly repeated by an otherwise reasonable acquaintance who would characterise himself as a mainstream Moslem), suggests that 'the Jews' collaborated with the Nazis in order to achieve their Zionist agenda. In my opinion it is the most offensive of the Holocaust cartoons. It perpetuates the pernicious 'crafty Jew' stereo type in the most hideous way. Not to mention the outright racism of depicting a Jewish child victim as a co-conspirator in such a monstrous fraud. All in all a very nasty piece of work.
This cartoon is labelled 'solving female circumcision complications'. It is an appalling reduction of the serious problem of female genital mutilation to one of - otherwise spoilt - women missing out on sexual pleasure; nothing a suitably large man couldn't fix. Clearly offensive to all victims of these practices and women in general.
A nasty, narrow-minded reaction to some recent improvements in Gay rights. The common gripe of religious conservatives of all creeds is that we're on a slippery slope towards total moral depravity. A terribly offensive piece of homophobic equivalency; homosexuality is just another kind of sexual perversion.
Actually this one's not terribly offensive. I only included it because I think that's John Howard on the left (hard to know because of the poor quality of the artwork) and I love to see Australia on the world stage. Incidentally, given the motives of the AEL campaign it's worth noting that similar cartoons appear in newspapers throughout 'the West' just about every day.
A couple of the 'Danish cartoons' left me baffled and may well be hugely offensive, but of those I understood, none comes even close to the first three in terms of offensiveness. The AEL have certainly explored the limits of free speech. They've clearly offered offence to Jews, homosexuals and women. (On second thoughts that's been going on for centuries.) I disagree with everything these cartoons suggest. Actually I find most of it disgusting. However I would not ban them, and I would certainly not kill anyone over them. All I'd do is what I've just done - point out that they're offensive and wrong and explain why they are offensive and wrong.
Given the muted reaction to these cartoons - they've been mentioned in short news items and lampooned by late night comedians - I'd say they might not have achieved all that the AEL wanted. In fact the reaction so far suggests that 'the West' does broadly accept free speech and that nothing is off limits.
Comments:
<< Home
Thanks for the comments you made on Andrew's blog.
John, how can you state that the West does broadly accept free speech and that nothing is off limits there, when there are clear double standards at work.
You simply cannot say ANYTHING that would be construed as remotely negative about the Holocaust. Can you look people in the eye who have been put to jail because of whatever claim they have made about the Holocaust, and tell them that there is such a pure thing as real freedom of expression in Europe?
I hear in Austria it's illegal to deny the Holocaust. In a supposedly free society I should like to believe that I have the right to deny that something , some ostensible historic event, really occurred. (And please don't think that I'm necessarily thinking of the Holocaust here.) I mean, I have the right to believe that a version or tale of a supposedly historic event simply did not happen. I might have whatever reason to have such beliefs that go against the established belief system.
Publications are very sensitive to discussion of Jews in general, for fear of trite accusations of anti-semitism thrown at them. There are far too many examples of this.
The Islamic world should collectively dare European newspapers to print offensive, comedic Holocaust cartoons, as Iran has just dared them to do, and thereby test Europeans' oh-so-precious love of freedom of expression.
It won't happen. The "Zionists" have the West by the balls, and to people like me, that's a fact.
Europeans are only too keen to express their thoughts on Islam and the Arab world, the scapegoats of these modern times.
Please understand that at least part of the collective fury is due to the discerning of double standards at work in this charade of a defense of freedom of expression. Note that I don't deny the JP's right to publish such cartoons as they have; I am concerned with Europe's reactions.
As for the Koran affair last year, Al Jazeera and others have been carrying reports of what ex-prisoners have been saying for a long time now. Most people know that the Koran was desecrated in many different ways, and no one is surprised, and they know that the Western media was pressured into shutting up about the whole sordid affair and getting the world to start believing rubbish reports that all those stories were rumors and fabrications.
And why should I rely on the BBC anyway to tell me the reports of desecrating the Koran are unverified or whatever? It's HMG's mouthpiece.
And I don't believe 80-90% of HMG's rubbish either. Hello, John Menezes?
Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, 2002-3, anyone? and etc.
I don't deny protests sprung up. In Malaysia and Indonesia they always do anyway. But nothing in the whole Islamic world as we've seen recently, ostensible fury and anger. My point earlier about the Koran affair is that the Muslim world, especially the Arabs, acted relatively/strangely indifferently, as though subdued for some reason or other and as though resigned to the idea to that it is helpless in the face of the outright desecration of its central symbol, the koran.
And trust me on this, everyone is certain that these things occurred.
The difference is in the perpetrator of the acts. I want to say people are more comfy attacking Denmark than the US. Maybe it's because they are allowed to?
thanks . .
John, how can you state that the West does broadly accept free speech and that nothing is off limits there, when there are clear double standards at work.
You simply cannot say ANYTHING that would be construed as remotely negative about the Holocaust. Can you look people in the eye who have been put to jail because of whatever claim they have made about the Holocaust, and tell them that there is such a pure thing as real freedom of expression in Europe?
I hear in Austria it's illegal to deny the Holocaust. In a supposedly free society I should like to believe that I have the right to deny that something , some ostensible historic event, really occurred. (And please don't think that I'm necessarily thinking of the Holocaust here.) I mean, I have the right to believe that a version or tale of a supposedly historic event simply did not happen. I might have whatever reason to have such beliefs that go against the established belief system.
Publications are very sensitive to discussion of Jews in general, for fear of trite accusations of anti-semitism thrown at them. There are far too many examples of this.
The Islamic world should collectively dare European newspapers to print offensive, comedic Holocaust cartoons, as Iran has just dared them to do, and thereby test Europeans' oh-so-precious love of freedom of expression.
It won't happen. The "Zionists" have the West by the balls, and to people like me, that's a fact.
Europeans are only too keen to express their thoughts on Islam and the Arab world, the scapegoats of these modern times.
Please understand that at least part of the collective fury is due to the discerning of double standards at work in this charade of a defense of freedom of expression. Note that I don't deny the JP's right to publish such cartoons as they have; I am concerned with Europe's reactions.
As for the Koran affair last year, Al Jazeera and others have been carrying reports of what ex-prisoners have been saying for a long time now. Most people know that the Koran was desecrated in many different ways, and no one is surprised, and they know that the Western media was pressured into shutting up about the whole sordid affair and getting the world to start believing rubbish reports that all those stories were rumors and fabrications.
And why should I rely on the BBC anyway to tell me the reports of desecrating the Koran are unverified or whatever? It's HMG's mouthpiece.
And I don't believe 80-90% of HMG's rubbish either. Hello, John Menezes?
Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, 2002-3, anyone? and etc.
I don't deny protests sprung up. In Malaysia and Indonesia they always do anyway. But nothing in the whole Islamic world as we've seen recently, ostensible fury and anger. My point earlier about the Koran affair is that the Muslim world, especially the Arabs, acted relatively/strangely indifferently, as though subdued for some reason or other and as though resigned to the idea to that it is helpless in the face of the outright desecration of its central symbol, the koran.
And trust me on this, everyone is certain that these things occurred.
The difference is in the perpetrator of the acts. I want to say people are more comfy attacking Denmark than the US. Maybe it's because they are allowed to?
thanks . .
# posted by 
: 13/2/06
: 13/2/06
Abbass,
I now realise that Austria has the same anti Nazi restrictions on free speech as Germany - see my note on the origins of those restrictions in my original comment on Andrew's blog. I would add that as Austria had been incorporated into greater Germany throughout WWII, the motives for those restrictions would be similar. However as I stated I, and many others, disagree with those restrictions. David Irving - who is currently, or has recently been, in an Austrian prison - has many advocates who, while disagreeing with his Holocaust denial and being appalled by his apparent motives for that denial, defend his right to free speech. So again I would point out that with the exception of Germany and now Austria, Western Europe broadly supports free speech and press.
You don't find Holocaust cartoons in European newspapers because it is not an issue. Unlike depicting Mohamed, there has not been an official or unofficial ban on the study of the Holocaust - no matter how critical. That even covers the politically motivated work of David Irving (again noting the exception of Germany and Austria) which continues to be published and read throughout Europe.
David Irving is not the only Holocasut denier; there are others throughout Europe. Their works come and go, usually roundly debunked by professional historians. The exception to that would be Germany and Austria. Not that there wouldn't be Holocaust denial there, it is just hidden because of the legal restrictions. This means it simmers under the surface without exposure to the cold light of day. Its advocates probably garner themselves some credibility with certain audiences because they can claim the restrictions are 'all part of the cover-up'. It is for these reasons that I am opposed to restrictions on free speech/press.
The reason the 'Danish cartoons' became an issue was a long-standing 'unofficial' or self imposed restriction on critical depictions of Islamic figures. The reason stated is usually cultural sensitivity but probably has more to do with fear. Everyone's been frightened of lampooning Mohammed since Salman Rushdie. I base this assertion on the fact that the media does not show similar concern for other religious figures.
My link to the BBC web-site was to a story about deadly riots in retaliation for the desecration of the Koran. It was not an attempt to prove that US authorities did not desecrate the Koran. I was refuting your assertion that there had not been a reaction, when in reality there was one that killed around 12 people. And that is a significant reaction by any reckoning. I can't say why no US embassies where destroyed, perhaps it was because the US has pretty strong security for their embassies. I would not rule out that it might have something to do with the fact that 'they are allowed to' target the Danish. That would tie in with my argument regarding the true motivations of the rioters.
Regards,
John.
I now realise that Austria has the same anti Nazi restrictions on free speech as Germany - see my note on the origins of those restrictions in my original comment on Andrew's blog. I would add that as Austria had been incorporated into greater Germany throughout WWII, the motives for those restrictions would be similar. However as I stated I, and many others, disagree with those restrictions. David Irving - who is currently, or has recently been, in an Austrian prison - has many advocates who, while disagreeing with his Holocaust denial and being appalled by his apparent motives for that denial, defend his right to free speech. So again I would point out that with the exception of Germany and now Austria, Western Europe broadly supports free speech and press.
You don't find Holocaust cartoons in European newspapers because it is not an issue. Unlike depicting Mohamed, there has not been an official or unofficial ban on the study of the Holocaust - no matter how critical. That even covers the politically motivated work of David Irving (again noting the exception of Germany and Austria) which continues to be published and read throughout Europe.
David Irving is not the only Holocasut denier; there are others throughout Europe. Their works come and go, usually roundly debunked by professional historians. The exception to that would be Germany and Austria. Not that there wouldn't be Holocaust denial there, it is just hidden because of the legal restrictions. This means it simmers under the surface without exposure to the cold light of day. Its advocates probably garner themselves some credibility with certain audiences because they can claim the restrictions are 'all part of the cover-up'. It is for these reasons that I am opposed to restrictions on free speech/press.
The reason the 'Danish cartoons' became an issue was a long-standing 'unofficial' or self imposed restriction on critical depictions of Islamic figures. The reason stated is usually cultural sensitivity but probably has more to do with fear. Everyone's been frightened of lampooning Mohammed since Salman Rushdie. I base this assertion on the fact that the media does not show similar concern for other religious figures.
My link to the BBC web-site was to a story about deadly riots in retaliation for the desecration of the Koran. It was not an attempt to prove that US authorities did not desecrate the Koran. I was refuting your assertion that there had not been a reaction, when in reality there was one that killed around 12 people. And that is a significant reaction by any reckoning. I can't say why no US embassies where destroyed, perhaps it was because the US has pretty strong security for their embassies. I would not rule out that it might have something to do with the fact that 'they are allowed to' target the Danish. That would tie in with my argument regarding the true motivations of the rioters.
Regards,
John.
cheers John.
Just one of the many examples
that pop up regarding freedom of expression in Europe.
It's funny how this article has disappeared just a month after publication and now we have to find it in the search engine cache. .
The original link
Just one of the many examples
that pop up regarding freedom of expression in Europe.
It's funny how this article has disappeared just a month after publication and now we have to find it in the search engine cache. .
The original link
# posted by : 14/2/06
: 14/2/06
Both of Abbas's links are dead. This is a link to the same story. It concerns a Czech neo Nazi named Antonin Cermak. He was arrested by the Prague police for shouting, "Only! Only!" at a protest. He was answering a counter protester who shouted, "You have killed 1.7 million Jewish children!"
He was later given a 15 month suspended sentence.
I would note that the Czech Republic like the rest of Eastern Europe was under communist rule until quite recently and freedom of speech/press are new to them. Also that Cermak's chant was explicitly racist and could not be construed as any kind of sincere analysis of the Holocaust.
Regards,
John.
Post a Comment
He was later given a 15 month suspended sentence.
I would note that the Czech Republic like the rest of Eastern Europe was under communist rule until quite recently and freedom of speech/press are new to them. Also that Cermak's chant was explicitly racist and could not be construed as any kind of sincere analysis of the Holocaust.
Regards,
John.
<< Home
