A couple of people have asked for a post on the great cartoon controversy. It’s a basic principle of a free society people should be able to publish material of this kind without fear of prosecution or physical attack, and anyone who threatens or incites such physical attacks should be prosecuted.
Having said that, my reaction to the displays of bigotry and (largely confected) outrage associated with the whole business are pretty much summed up by Chris Bertram.
John Quiggin 
The happiest day in my life will occur when the last mullah, rabbi and priest shack up in a menege a trois.
As Jesus is quoted in the Good Book, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Short of demanding the invasion of Lebanon and Syria and everywhere that Nordics are being harassed by foam-mouthed fanatics, there’s nothing practical that right thinking defenders of free speech can do. (We can, and are, doing a bit of foaming at the mouth ourselves, all in a good cause.)
But here’s something that Australians can do. We can demand the repeal of the following Australian laws. As you can see, they all relate to keeping our options open about punishing people for the supposed crime of blasphemy:
1. The Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations (Cth) reg 13 prohibits the Censorship Board from registering imported films and advertising matter which are, amongst other things, blasphemous.
2. The criteria used by the Film and Literature Board of Review for assessing the suitability of books for distribution in Australia include the presence of blasphemous material.
3. The Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations(Cth) reg 4A prohibits the importation of blasphemous material without the written permission of the Attorney-General.
4. Section 118 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 (Cth) provides that the Australian Broadcasting Commission and licensees shall not broadcast or televise matter which is, amongst other things, blasphemous.
So why don’t we send a very practical message to the world by repealing these laws? That way we can show that we’re not at all like those spittle-flecked fanatics, either at home, or abroad.
I note most of the major Christian denominations have signed a letter sent to the Bracks Government calling for the civil provisions of the religious vilification law to be deleted.
I think it might be best if the law was completely repealed.
As a card-carrying atheist I cherish my right to poke fun at whatever religion raises my ire. Surely a deep-seated religious faith should be impervious to the words of heathens such as myself!
Steve
I didn’t know that being an athiest gave one the right to be offensive to religious people.
Or is this some form of evangelical athiesm?
Jyllands-Posten refused to publish similar material that was offensive to Christianity. It was obviously pushing an ideological barrow, but I defend its right to do so – under certain circumstances. I also believe in defamation law and common courtesy and respect.
The argument has been won by rational people. The fascists have shown themselves to be what they are.
Katz I’m not sure that Rabbis and Priests deserve any blame in this situation.
I believe the cartoons were published in Egypt last October so it seems more political than religious, something which is difficult to separate in some Islamic countries.
http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html
Mark U says: “Steve
I didn’t know that being an athiest gave one the right to be offensive to religious people.
Or is this some form of evangelical athiesm? ”
Most religions offend someone. Islam, Christianity and Judaism are obviously offensive to gays and lesbians for example. Religious ideologies shouldn’t expect special protection not afforded to secular ideologies.
I accept that people should exercise free speech responsibly. On the other hand, there is an onus on all of us in a free society to remain civil even when we here things we find deeply offensive.
On your final point, surely atheists have as much right as anyone else to proselytise.
The cartoons were published in September in Denmark and in October Egypt. Took them a while to get all worked up didn’t it!
It was nice to see the Danish Mullah who did a roadshow with a few additional “cartoons” has been so effective. He should look for work in the funds management industry – took a while to get results but gosh they were good when they appeared.
The cartoons weren’t news until they stirred up controversy – for precisely that reason they were commissioned in the first place. Publishing the cartoons does not prove rights to free-speech. All it does is stir up unnecessary additional trouble.
The western papers that published the cartoons claim to defend their right to free speech. These same papers don’t enforce that same right by publishing offensive content that would alienate their key readership.
The same Danish paper Jyllands-Posten that released the cartoons several years ago “turned down satirical cartoons of Christ, deeming them offensive to readers, as well as unfunny. Illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted the drawings but was told by the paper’s Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, that “I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.” ” It’s not actually a genuine issue of right to free speech at all.
It is really a bit of a joke for when it comes down to it Jews and Mulsims think Jesus isn’t the son of ‘God’, so if he said he was he’s a liar or mad, Christians think Jews have missed the boat and should get with the program, while Muhammad must be either mad or a liar to come out with that last prophet crap. To the big three all other religions are myths or just superstition.
So while religious leaders may call for restraint and respect in their heart of hearts they think the other religions are a load of crap, but to keep from killing each other like they have done in the past they have to turn a blind eye to this point.
Globalization and multiculturalism is well and good but don’t dig too deep or think critically about these matters or it raises some uncomfortable home truths.
We need more cartoons. The president of Iran has offered to attack the west with cartoons. This is what the world needs. A full blown cartoon war. Then we can dispense with nukes.
The seriously offensive Danish cartoons can be viewed here:-
* http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/media_told/
The seriously upset nutters can be viewed here:-
* http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm
I love the idea of a cartoon war. I used to wonder why not board war games instead of real war. It’s crazy to have generally accepted standards of war, eg no nerve gas. WHy not have a generally accepted standard of war substitutes. You could have teams of thousands of soldiers playing a variety of games: video war games, dungeon & dragons etc. That way the collective effort would still be good for the economy. You’d prob need an international panel of judges who judge blind (unaware which side is which).
The scary thing is at the root of some of these religions is a wish for Judgment day in their lifetime. Combine that with nuclear weapons and that wish can me made true.
You dirty Infidel pigs I’ll show you for mocking the prophet with a cartoon, here bite on this nuke.
Ha Ha that showed you.
Waratah, you wouldn’t need international judges in a proper cartoon war.
The winner would be the side who thought up cartoons so funny that the enemy laughed themselves to death.
Now the task of finding the killer cartoon isn’t as easy as it may at first seem.
The secret would be to understand the enemy so well that you could construct cartoons that were killingly funny for the enemy but not so funny for yourself our your allies.
For example, al Qaeda might attack Australia with cartoons about New Zealanders and sheep.
Why not personal combat to the death between the leaders of the nations involved in an international dispute?
If an issue is important enough to send thousands of young men to their deaths, then surely the leaders making those orders would be willing to put their own lives on the line?
It’s funny how the people getting the most worked up against the Muslim’s contempt for free speech are the same ones who so vigorously supported the sedition laws which are directed against Muslims who say bad things.
Is there not a teensy double standard here?
People should either be able to express their opinions when they feel like it, however they feel like it, or they should not.
But let’s cut out the hypocrisy, please.
The ‘principle of free speech’ thing doesn’t seem to have much to it.
The Danish paper that published the orginal cartoons, was planning to publish some involving Jewish symbols to prove it’s devotion to the ‘principle’, but then the editor decided not to at the last minute citing the potential for “being misunderstood”.
They’ll be hugging trees next.
What of freedom of speech here and now? If we were to discuss euthanasia it would be illegal. Surely cartoons should be able to mock ludicrous notions such as the virgins waiting in paradise for lunatic bombers. Defamation laws are already a serious constraint on freedom of speech. Proposals to limit blogs is another.
I am inclined to not offending people but there are those in religious circles that seem to invite mocking by their serious and dedicated attempts to have others believe notions which are fantastic. The responses may be a result of culture but the violence does seem to be out of proportion to the cartoons which would never have offended many people at all except for the overreaction in the first place, which resulted in millions accessing them to either see what all the fuss is about or to become outraged.
This isn’t about religion for me. It’s about one religion, islam. You don’t find Christians rioting and killing people when Andres Serrano shows one of his “art” works. Nor do Jews riot and kill when they are portrayed as shysters by various Arab press or when Iran sponsors a Holocaust cartoon contest.
There is an unintended result to the recent rioting by muslims. It does tend to reinforce the view that many muslims are not interested in living in peace with others. And that many muslims are willing to be clear about their intentions that THEY choose how we all will live. We have little excuse now to doubt that.
The same Danish paper Jyllands-Posten that released the cartoons several years ago “turned down satirical cartoons of Christ, deeming them offensive to readers, as well as unfunny. Illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted the drawings but was told by the paper’s Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, that “I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.� � It’s not actually a genuine issue of right to free speech at all.
I do not understand this argument. How can it be free speech when Jyllands-Posten publishes anything anyone gives them? Then Jyllands-Posten’s editors have no capacity for free speech. It’s only an exercise in free speech when the editors make decisions about what they will and will not publish. They’ve chosen, freely, that they did not wish to offend Christians (who might make up a significant portion of their readership, I dunno); they’ve chosen, freely, that they did wish to show pictures of Mohammed (in full knowledge and precisely because it would cause offence).
Who is freer, the guy who must publish anything anyone gives him (at the cost of a daily newspaper with thousands of pages); the guy who must publish only what the government wishes; or the guy who can selectively publish what he desires, sometimes making a point, sometimes staying quiet?
As far as I can see, it was precisely an exercise in free speech when it was first committed, but its context is important. Many illustrators had opted against drawing pictures of Mohammed for fear of the outrage it would cause. The editors of Jyllands-Posten have reminded us that for speech to truly be free, we must be able to say whatever we want and those who would silence us—whether law or independent third people—must instead look to other ways of expressing their outrage then inflicting the fear of God into those who have offended them. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a godawfully stupid decision, nor was it the only way of making the point, but it definitely was an exercise in free speech.
The cartoons themselves are as funny as a case of scabies. That, and the fact that they were commissioned, makes it clear they were a deliberate windup – something that needs to be added to the mix when you are considering whether not to publish would have been a violation of freedom of speech.
The issue is not if they are funny or witty or nice, or if you should or should not publish them, but you are prevented from exercising your legal rights by violent groups of individuals.
“The same Danish paper Jyllands-Posten that released the cartoons several years ago “turned down satirical cartoons of Christ, deeming them offensive to readers, as well as unfunny. Illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted the drawings but was told by the paper’s Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, that “I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.â€? â€? It’s not actually a genuine issue of right to free speech at all.”
Presumably the editor was exercising his right and contractual obligation to decide what goes in the paper. The SMH would probably balk at a cartoon that specifically insulted it’s core demographic but the right to publish it elsewhere is undisputed. The issue here is that some Imams are demanding that no-one publish anything they find offensive, anywhere and seemingly, reserve the right to wreak vengeance against the jurisdictions within which publication occurs.
The question is, did the editors of the newspaper want or expect the violent response?
Exercising free speech simply for the sake of exercising free speech is an empty and barren venture.
Think about the answer to the question:
“Does my bum look big in this?”
The exercise of free speech as defended by the fundamentalist proponents of free speech on this thread would invite a full and frank reply.
But what does the person who answers this question want?
1. A divorce.
2. A big fight.
3. A period of frosty relations.
4. A shock to provoke some positive action on the issue of posterior dimensions.
A lying, self censoring response to this question may be motivated by:
1. A desire for harmony.
2. A desire to bolster confidence
3. A desire for warm relations.
We all lie. We all censor ourselves.
In real life the chief issue is not always to tell the truth.
The real question is what result we want from telling the truth.
What result did the editors want?
Did they get what they wanted?
Did what they got serve a greater good?
Did what they got serve anyone’s interests?
While it is accepted wisdom/sophistication that the cartoons were without humour and not even rescued from their triviality by being clever, I liked them.
3 addressed women’s poor press with Islam. Thought the virgins were a hoot. Blinkered Muhammed behind whom 2 wide eyed women stared was a message I agreed with. And the caricatures of a mob of veiled women was appealing and was hardly an attack on Muhammed the Prophet. One of the cartoonists was a woman (well done) and if I recall hers was the lineup and was an attack on an extreme right female poli. That comparison of attitude I think definitely had merit. One, the boy at the blackboard was a putdown of the cartoon idea itself, though I suspect that will not protect the cartoonist from the sword.
The pig, “pedofile the profet�, and the dog inserted by the Dutch Muslim stirrers were noticeably jarring, but then I have vague memories of cartoons generated by conga lines that weren’t all that tasty
It was Monty Python wasn’t it that had the weapon joke that caused the enemy to laugh themselves to death.
Don’t often find myself agreeing with Katz but think he is on the money here.
Well Katz’s first take anyway.
The daft and dumb keeping women under thumb poem, (5 veiled women) is apparently offensive as well. If the message is that even that is not allowed and the west wears it we have effectively surrendered the right to criticise any aspects of this ideology.
Another reprint France though delayed by court action of French Muslim Council.
“Charlie-Hebdo added a new drawing of Mohammed hiding his face and saying, “It’s hard to be loved by fools”. Sales are reported to be way beyond expectations.â€?
http://bibelen.blogspot.com/
The editors of those Danish newspapers who published the offending cartoons had a very good notion of the effects of the cartoons. After all, as least one of them rejected some cartoons offensive to Christians because he didn’t want an outraged response from them.
The message to anyone in the position of those editors is clear:
Tell the truth if you wish. But be prepared to pay the price.
Anyone who does the former but not the latter is either an idiot or a coward.
Maybe the Danish Foreign Affairs Ministry would have given their support for the publication of these cartoons, even knowing how that this decision might have endangered their personnel in some particularly fanatical climes. But I doubt that the Danish Foerign Ministry were consulted.
Was it reckless for the editors to put their co-nationals in harm’s way?
What does the Danish nation get from being involuntarily associated with the editors’ exercise in free speech?
Here is the Danish Prime Minister’s answer to this second question:
“As you are well aware the cartoons caused a widespread public debate during the autumn. Therefore, I devoted a large part of my New Year’s Speech to the very issue of ensuring a respectful dialogue and the principle of freedom of expression.
“In the speech, I made it clear that I condemn any expression, action or indication that attempts to demonise groups of people on the basis of their religion or ethnic background. It is the sort of thing that does not belong in a society that is based on respect for the individual human being.”
The Danish Prime Minister believes that Denmark is a small country with limited physical and diplomatic resources. Therefore, defence of any and all utterance on the basis of the principle of free speech is a fool’s errand.
Why should we non-Danes demand more reckless courage of the Danes than the Danes themselves are prepared to venture?
They have more to lose than we do. What point is it to pick a fight that the Danes themselves aren’t prepared to fight?
Re: Katz.
Think about the answer to the question:
“Does my bum look big in this?�
The exercise of free speech as defended by the fundamentalist proponents of free speech on this thread would invite a full and frank reply.
I imagine you aren’t reacting to me? Still, I can’t work out who else you’re aiming it to, so perhaps I’ll assume you missed my point and clarify. (People often miss my point, so I mean no offense to you.)
Free speech, as I have said, is only free speech if the speaker has as much right not to speak, or to lie, as they have a right to speak the truth as they see it. The right not to speak doesn’t mean we should never speak if someone would be offended; freedom is about the choices available to us and how we exercise them.
Also, we should always be aware of the possible reactions. When I decide to answer “yes” or “no”, I weigh up whether I think my wife/partner would be more offended to hear the straight answer now and choose to wear something different, or if she’d prefer to be complimented, or whatever. Likewise, I think Jylland’s-Posten’s editors thought about the possible reactions. I doubt they ever considered that Danes abroad would be threatened, embassies burnt, trade halted and ambassadors recalled.
There’s a world of difference between the two situations: a husband who wants to keep his wife happy (or the editors who want to keep their readership happy), versus the editors of a newspaper who want to make the point that you and me should be free to draw a picture of Mohammed if we want to without having to go into hiding for fear of our lives. Jyllands-Posten’s editors, when they chose to publish the pictures of Mohammed, they were more like the husband who wanted to get a divorce and so he said “Yes”.
(Incidentally, if a frank response to “does my bum look big in this?” does result in a divorce, then the couple probably had bigger problems anyway.)
What result did the editors want?
To provoke a reaction. I think that’s clear. The point was to reinforce non-Muslim’s right to be able to draw pictures of Mohammed (regardless of if the pictures were offensive or not—I personally think the one with the bomb-turbin was completely inappropriate, but the virgin one was funny and the cartoonist one was topical). Surely a non-Muslim cartoonist should be able to draw a cartoon of a non-Muslim cartoonist fearfully drawing a cartoon of Mohammed without fear!
Did they get what they wanted?
Obviously. I think they also got more than the wanted. Still, it was most definitely not the cartoonists’ nor Jyllands-Posten’s fault that some Muslims have reacted wholly out of proportion with the original publication. In another part of the world. Months later. This isn’t like shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre or a girl maliciously shouting “Rape!” when a stranger walks past. In that case people are going to believe that their life or someone else’s is in immediate danger, and they’re going to act accordingly.
Did what they got serve a greater good?
Well they’ve made their point. Obviously I think their point could’ve been made in a way that had less explosive consequences—but that was their choice.
Did what they got serve anyone’s interests?
Too early to tell.
Katz, the real question is: If you were considering if this was an approriate way to make a point, would you‘ve considered that your fellow countryfolk abroad would be threatened, embassies burnt, trade halted and ambassadors recalled, or would you just have thought that you’d be getting a few letters to the editors, scathing treatment in competing papers, perhaps a challenge in court on the grounds of religious villification or whatever and perhaps a few relatively inconsequential street protests?
“Katz, the real question is: If you were considering if this was an approriate way to make a point, would you‘ve considered that your fellow countryfolk abroad would be threatened, embassies burnt, trade halted and ambassadors recalled, or would you just have thought that you’d be getting a few letters to the editors, scathing treatment in competing papers, perhaps a challenge in court on the grounds of religious villification or whatever and perhaps a few relatively inconsequential street protests?”
Note the way you slide between means and ends.
I believe it’s always appropriate to support the principle of free speech. This is an end.
There are some means to support this principle that are appropriate in some circumstances that are not appropriate in others.
You ask the question whether I may have been aware of the possibility that my actions in publishing the cartoons may have ignited an explosion?
My answer to that is a sincere “Yes”.
Is this a surprise? The fact that the Islamic world is full of aggro fanatics should come as no surprise to anyone who has taken the least interest in public affairs in the last 10 years.
These protests are now worldwide. Islamists are part of the wired generation. The world is now flat and borderless. Information travels without friction.
Maybe as an an uncompromising devotee of free speech, I’d be willing to defend it to the last Danish diplomat and backpacker.
That might be a price I’d be prepared to pay.
Today’s NY Times has a piece tracing the history and explaining some of the motivations and why it took so long to come to a head.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/international/middleeast/09cartoon.html?th&emc=th
At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized
By HASSAN M. FATTAH
A meeting of leaders of the world’s 57 Muslim nations in December became the turning point for opposition to the cartoons.
Well, post did not succeed. I’ll try again.
Today’s NY Times has a piece explaining some of the motivations and why it took so long to come to a head.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/international/middleeast/09cartoon.html?th&emc=th
At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized
By HASSAN M. FATTAH
A meeting of leaders of the world’s 57 Muslim nations in December became the turning point for opposition to the cartoons.
Something not working with posting comments. One more go.
Today’s NY Times has a piece explaining some of the motivations and why the cartoons matter took so long to come to a head.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/international/middleeast/09cartoon.html?th&emc=th
At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized
By HASSAN M. FATTAH
A meeting of leaders of the world’s 57 Muslim nations in December became the turning point for opposition to the cartoons.
H h. nc gn w cn cnt n th sft-hdd lft nd thr nblty t drwn dstnctn btwn vlnt nd nn-vlnt prtst, r btwn rprssv mdvl rlgns/cltrs nd mdrn wstrn dmcrcs.
f ntlrnc f rlgn wh’s prmry md f xprssn s vlnc nd whch trts wmn s slvs nd chttl s bgtry, thn m prd t b bgt.
t’s bt tm w gv ths fls dmnstrtn clsr t hm. Gvn thr sttd vw f th qvlnc btwn vlnt nd nn-vlnt prtst, m sr nthr JQ nr Chrs Btrm wll bjct whn w brn dwn thr hss nd stn thr lvd ns t dth.
“It’s about time we gave these fools a demonstration closer to home. Given their stated view of the equivalence between violent and non-violent protest, I am sure neither JQ nor Chris Betram will object when we burn down their houses and stone their loved ones to death.”
What’s holding you up MIG?
While you’re typing, time’s a-wasting. So many stones to pick up. So many Molotov cocktails to prepare.
Oh, what’s that? You’re not really going to kill and burn?
So you’re a physical coward as well as a moral coward.
Rspct fr lw, prprty, frdm f xprssn nd th qlty f wmn nt nly mks m bgt n JQ’s ys bt physcl nd mrl cwrd n Ktz’s vw.
M Clp.
“neither JQ nor Chris Betram will object when *we* burn down their houses and stone their loved ones to death.”
MIG, as Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, “Who’s this “we” Paleface?”
Mohammed, I think we have to give it to you on points.
MIG wrote;
“a religion who’s primary mode of expression is violence…..”.
This kind of crude exaggeration doesn’t do much to make your point reasonable or rational MIG.
Maybe you’re a bigot just looking for an excuse?
From what can be seen the past few years, islam certainly does express itself with extreme violence. This is indisputable.
“primary mode”?? Hyberbole.
I guess George W’s invocation of the Christian God as a guiding light in his invasion of Iraq means that ‘Christianity certainly does express itself with extreme violence’?
Micheal H: For your benefit I am typing this slowly. It is not a legitimately elected government of a decent and free nation going to war against it’s enemies which is proof of a religion expressing itself in violence.
It is a vast mass of the adherents of a religion exploding into mob violence, murder, mayhem, random acts of terrorism etc.
There have been no such events perpetrated by christians. You cannot possibly suggest otherwise if you are in possession of all your faculties.
Thanks for the slow typing.
I think I get it now – a dozen or so deaths at the hands of Muslims (the victims being mostly other Muslims) is explosive fanaticism, and the deaths of thousands at the hands of George’s minions is a mere trifle, or even non-existent.
Though to be fair, your suggestion of the “vast mass’ being guilty of “exploding into mob vioence’ is hysterical nonsense.
The “vast mass” of Muslim protests have been peaceful, and an even greater “vast mass” haven’t even bothered. The protests in Beirut were just so, with a minority ignoring the pleas of those who were leading the protests marches and heading off on their own rampage of violence.
But inflammatory rhetoric is a trait you seem to share with those you want to criticise.
Michael H: It seems I still typed too fast for you. Please find an example of a christian mob going dingbats.
You are seriously suggesting that the muslim world is conducting itself in a rational and sane manner? Please share what you are smoking with the rest of us.
There are embassy burnings (aplenty) flag burnings, kidnappings, people having their heads hacked off live on film, while the killer screams muslim psalms or something. Mobs go crazy in any one of a half dozen or more countries if a koran is found discarded.
And you are seriously expecting anyone to believe there is some sort of moral equivalence between that ratbaggery and casualties from secular battles?
You are talking like a uni student mate.. .. get with the real world.
SATB,
Claims of anything like vast masses are irrational beyond hope. The ‘Muslim world’ encompasses close to a billion people. If indeed, the ‘vast mass’ (or anything even remotely close to that) of them where doing what you say, we really would know about it.
As for Christians going “dingbats”, you must have a short memory. Remember ‘The Passion of the Christ’, which saw ‘Christians” burning down the odd cinema, or Chrisitian ‘right-to-lifers’ bombing clinics and shooting doctors. Can we then talk of this as being the “christian world”?
It all depends on what the fanatics find offensive.
And finally, no, I find no ‘moral equivelence” (what ever that is) as you suggest. I don’t think the reactions to the cartoons have been all rational and sane, but you conveniently petend that’s the only form of Muslim protest, when the ‘vast’ majority have in fact been sane and rational, but of course that doesn’t make the 6 o’clock news headlines (if it bleeds it leads). And tellingly you find the dozen or so deaths in these protests far worse than the thousands at the hands of western “infinite mercy”.
I think that’s just one of our little blindspots ; beheadings and cutting throats make us nauseated, while we look on at wonder at the “sane and rational” efficiency of cluster bombs, F-16, Hellfires and Apaches.
A bit too much time at the pub perhaps.
Michael H, rioting and killing isn”t the onlyform of muslim protest byt muslims do seem to use them both far more frequently than anyone else.
Beheadings and cutting throats are not comparable in any way to military activites of the US or any coalition partner. The same way the Nazis incinerating jews in Germany and Poland were not comparable to the military activites of the allies.
We should take a long cool look at this whole question:
I make these points as a non-proselytising atheist who has unsuccessfully tried Christianity, converted to Islam for a while and was born the son of a WWII holocaust survivor. I am what is known as a ‘citizen of the world’ and a ‘low identifier’ Australian. I am sure that some will hate me for this – but that is the point I am making.
1. There is very much a ‘‘them’ and us’ attitude expressed by some in this discussion. It is also the tone of much of the comment in the media – “how dare they do this?â€?
2. Identity is a particularly sensitive matter. Just mention how Aborigines were shot for sport on the way home from church in South East Queensland, you’ll know what I mean. Australians are some of the most sensitive people when it comes to taking offence.
3. Everything happens in the context of other events. The illegal invasion and military occupation of Muslim countries like Afghanistan and Iraq and the threats against Iran, Syria, Libya, and Sudan are real not imagined insults against Muslims.
4. The complete impunity with which Israel kills unarmed Palestinian civilians and keeps whole populations in the most humiliating internment is a major insult to other Muslims.
5. Israel’s illegal and undeclared possession of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons makes that country a major WMD threat to the entire region of the Middle East. The US continues to bankroll with military and other aid a Zionist Jewish state (not secular or democratic as we are misled to believe).
6. The global power differential is very much to the detriment of Arab and Muslim peoples and there are many who feel a genuine grievance against the USA, Britain and others for foisting West-compliant dictators and so-called ‘royal’ families on them so the West could get the cheap oil that they need to run their economies.
7. When Britain’s air force was busy doing sorties over Iraq Winston Churchill commented that he saw no reason for “any squeamishness� in using chemical weapons on Arabs.
8. Context is long history plus what is currently happening. Guantanamo Bay cannot, surely, be far from our minds, together with ‘rendition’ and hundreds of secret torture camps. The Koran was definitely defiled and insulted by US military personnel – and this caused outrage.
9. The torture of prisoners has included dog attacks and sexual humiliation. Mamdouh Habib had menstrual blood smeared on his face and the Howard government approved of such treatment. No charges were ever laid against him after four years of this sort of thing. Nor have the people who carried out these outrages been punished.
10. There used to be a nice civilised and moderate enclave of countries in Scandinavia that were a beacon for us all, as aspirants for human rights. Unfortunately today Norway, Sweden and Denmark to varying degrees, have been sucked into the politics that we have in Australia. It seems that politicians can make a name for themselves by resorting to what we charmingly call “dog-whistle politics� – oh how familiar we are with that.
11. The Danish newspaper that published the cartoons apparently has a strongly ‘right-wing Christian’ slant. The latest news is that the junior editor who launched the offensive cartoons now wants to publish equally offensive holocaust denying cartoons from Iran – and has been sent on holiday. It is not OK to insult the identities of some people, is it?
12. As a dissenting artist I would be the first to stand up for a free press (if you have the upfront capital to afford one). Some comments on this posting mention ‘blasphemy’, which is embedded in our Australian legal language. This is quaint but the Rev Fred Nile regularly uses this to abuse, insult and harm homosexuals in most unchristian ways. I have a lot of trouble with censorship (even today the issue of Australian soldiers’ personal equipment included a bit about the use of Claymore mines in the original story, which was hastily airbrushed out in later ABC RN reports. I have had a poem rejected by Social Alternatives because it depicted a woman who deceived communities because she worked for a major engineering company. The poem was called Head to Head Consultants if you want to check it out.
13. I join all those who deplore the disproportionate response by a large number of Muslims in various countries (though with concerns that the penny hasn’t dropped on the issue of genuine grievance). But what also concerns me is that Islam phobia and the ‘Kristallnacht in slow motion’ that the Howard government are deliberately engaged in will take heart from this violence overseas.
14. Muslims have handed an ace card to the sort of racially intolerant people we saw wrapped in the Australian flag at Cronulla. Fortunately most in Australia saw violence as an inappropriate response.
So, in conclusion, I think I do not concur fully with anyone and would rather not own an ‘identity’ if it means I have to descend to the ‘them-and-us’ position.
Regards
Willy Bach
Thanks Willy, some very pertinent issues.
I find the different reactions to various forms of violence most telling. The identity of the culprits seems to be a primary determinant of the reaction.
Violent protests by Muslims, and other acts of undeniable horror elicit an appropriate reaction, often doubly so. The reaction by some to the Lancet report on deaths in Iraq demonstrated the flip-side. Death delivered from a 1000m or a 1000km is cold, clinical and precise. Dead civillians are just accidents and collateral damage. Those safely tucked away in their cockpits and C&C centres don’t commit “murder and mayhem”, rather they are performing “military activities”.
While ‘we’ tend to subscribe to such thinking, those on the recieving end view it a little differently. And not surprisingly, some are decreasingly appreciative of our sermons on democracy and peaceful protest.
Michael H: You ain’t exactly Mr. News & Current Affairs are you? The “Lancet Study” has been totally discredited.
Targeted death delivered in battle is no connection to death delivered by entire mobs rampaging & killing at random. You seem to be backing the crazed hordes, perhaps go to live in a muslim ruled land (be useful for drying out, certianly you could not talk there like you do in here. Certianly one would learn to keep one’s mouth shut – or else get one’s head hacked off)
I think I recognise you. You sit at the end of the bar doing a “10 to 10” every day of the week. You spend enough on liquor by afternoon smoko each day to pay for my monthly ADSL connection. Keep on boozing boyo, u keep us publicans in clover!
SATB,
The Lancet study has only been “totally discredited” by the people who found it’s conclusions politically inconvenient. The same reserach team had earlier used the same methodology to estimate deaths in the conflict in the Congo. Everyone seemed quite happy to use the figures produced. There was no attack on the methods. What accounts for the difference “Mr News & Current Affairs”?
Again you put your faith in “targetted death”. We’ve seen how targetted it is- it drops bombs on wedding parties, obliterates enitre families eating at restuarants, shoots up car loads of civillians at check pionts, destroys water treatment plants leading to the deaths of thousands. And all in the context of an act of armed aggression which makes all such acts a war crime. Yet there are no shortage of civilised, sane and rational individuals (in contrast to the crazed, wild-eyed Muslim mobs) who accept or excuse such ‘military activities’.
But the handful of deaths by “mobs….. killing at random” (with Muslims the victims) are the cause for outrage and lamentations. I think it’s that we prefer our death delivered with cool and rational efficiency.
Michael H, if the US and its coalition partners are targetting civilians as you say they are, then why are there any civilians left alive in either Iraq or Afghanistan? Are you seriously suggesting that there wouldn’t be many more dead civilians if the US actually did target them? What evidence do you have that a wedding party was targetted because it was a wedding party?