Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Slippery Slope of Self-Censorship

By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted February 14, 2006.


As the violence over the cartoons expands, we are no closer to defining the boundaries of free speech in an age of growing religious fundamentalism.
021406_story
The Slippery Slope of Self-Censorship
Advertisement

Earlier this month, even as the Danish and Norwegian embassy buildings were still ablaze, the New York Times noted a report that a "leader of Hezbollah" had declared that if Salman Rushdie had been killed, the Danes never would have dared to publish their cartoons.

Rushdie, of course, is the author of "The Satanic Verses," published in September 1988. Rushdie's novel contained no visual depictions of Mohammed; in one section of the work, however, a deranged man has a dream in which he mocks Mohammed and the Koran.

"The Satanic Verses" was met with widespread critical acclaim, winning Britain's most lucrative book award, the Whitbread Prize. The Muslim community, however, expressed deep dissatisfaction.

In February 1989, the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini issued a religious edict. He called for Rushdie's death, for blasphemy. His fatwa extended also to "those publishers who were aware of its contents … I call on all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, wherever they find them, so that no one will dare to insult Islam again …" Iran offered a $1 million reward to spur Rushdie's execution.

Rushdie went into hiding, protected by the British police. The Japanese translator of "The Satanic Verses" was stabbed to death. The Italian translator was also stabbed, although he survived. The Norwegian publisher was shot; he too survived.

By 2001, Rushdie had begun again to appear in public, although usually without advance notice. That fall, his publisher booked an extensive tour for his new, noncontroversial book. Rushdie had long since apologized for the offensive comments contained in "The Satanic Verses," although the book remained in print. Time seemed to have calmed the waters.

And then came Sept. 11.

In October, Washington University in St. Louis canceled its invitation to Rushdie to deliver a talk as part of the reopening of its International Writers Center. The center's director cited security concerns.

"It must be remembered that people who were killed when the fatwa was issued against Rushdie were translators and publishers," he argued. "In this current climate, people at Washington University were not being at all unreasonable to think that they might be targets after Rushdie left because we had invited him."

Rushdie's publisher canceled the entire book tour. Asked to write an op-ed in the New York Times about the affair, Rushdie counseled, "How to defeat terrorism? Don't be terrorized. Don't let fear rule your life. Even if you are scared."

In 2004, the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered two months after the release of his short documentary, "Submission," which was about violence against Muslim women. His film did not caricature Mohammed.

The precipitating cause for the publication of the Danish cartoons occurred in mid-September 2005. An article appeared in Politiken, a Danish newspaper, under the headline, "Profound fear of criticism of Islam."

The article described how one Danish writer was initially unable to find an illustrator willing to illustrate his children's book about Mohammed because they feared violent attacks by Muslims. According to Wikipedia's thorough (and ongoing) coverage of developments, "The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples … soon emerging."

In reaction to that debate, Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Jyllands-Posten (Jutland's Post), invited members of the Danish cartoonists union "to draw Mohammed as they see him." In an article accompanying the cartoons, Rose informed the newspaper's readers that he had commissioned the drawings out of concern that a secular society based on freedom of speech was in the process of censoring itself, not out of respect for a religion, but out of fear that if it did anything that was viewed as offensive to a particular religion, violence and even murder could result. "… (W)e are on our way to a slippery slope where no one can tell how the self-censorship will end," Rose warned.

The 12 cartoons were published on Sept. 30, 2005. In the light of the violence they may have stimulated, a non-Muslim like myself must confess they appear remarkably tame.


Digg!

David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minn., and director of its New Rules project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
great account + religion is not the issue
Posted by: philame on Feb 14, 2006 2:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in Denmark and have been following the American coverage of the cartoon scandal. This is the most complete account I have read.

One important missing piece though is that ambassadors from Muslim countries in Denmark requested a meeting with Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to discuss if the editors of JP could be punished under law for their actions but he refused the meeting. Rasmussen argued that to meet with the ambassadors would compromise Danes right to free speech. Fair enough but he could have called for another meeting where he LISTENED to why they took offense, why they wanted the editors to be censured and try to build understanding. He didn't do that which imo in part led to the escalation but does not exaplin it all.

The questions raised in this article are fair but there's another important question to ask: how and why the violent demonstrators got permission by some very restrictive regimes to go out and do the sort of violence they did. What are the regimes/governments getting out of it? I'd say legitimacy in the eyes of their repressed populations. That repression and manipulation is important to talk about not religion.

The clash of civilisations take on this issue is not productive. If it is possible to reduce this issue to two sides, I'd say it is a clash between democratic and non-democratic forces - not religions.

On a final note, this caught my attention from the article:
"And when violence broke out, the Western media largely confirmed his worst fears. They reported the violence and the Muslim community's feeling of rage at being disrespected. But they refused to show the images that purportedly so offended them that it led them to condone that violence."

That was really the British and American media that did that - not the "Western media". Several continental European papers published the cartoons as a sign of solidarity with JP. I am not arguing that it was right, but simply pointing out that not all Western media refused to print the cartoons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Right ON. Posted by: dirkster42
» RE: ight ON. Posted by: Jayzer
» Third way - starters. Posted by: dirkster42
» RE: Third way - starters. Posted by: Jayzer
» Hey Sambo! Posted by: Citizendeane
Look beneath the radar
Posted by: hwashen on Feb 14, 2006 3:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is hard to imagine two cultures with more differences at the core values level than Islam and Scandinavia. At the root of the problem is a profound lack of cultural awareness, compounded by an unfortunate error in editorial judgment that is steeped in the tradition of freedom of expression as an inalienable right. The Muslim response is perceived by the west to be out of proportion, but without an understanding of Muslim values it is impossible to comprehend the magnitude of the insult. Abstractions like “honour” and “sacred” have very different meanings in the parallel worlds we inhabit. It’s about time we started learning about the differences that can inflict pain and suffering on others. The word missing in most of the dialogue I have heard on the subject to date is “respect.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "magnitude of the insult" Posted by: codingguy
» RE: "magnitude of the insult" Posted by: outsidea
» RE: "magnitude of the insult" Posted by: codingguy
» so-called genocide Posted by: codingguy
» RE: "magnitude of the insult" Posted by: YogiBear
» What's to respect ? Posted by: AdamSelene11726
Freedom of speach or sensationalist racism? Ignorance or Provocation?
Posted by: IanA on Feb 14, 2006 3:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HH the Aga Kahn at Evora University Symposium during his recent visit to Portugal:

"This brings me back to the current headlines. For I must believe that it is ignorance which explains the publishing of those caricatures which have brought such pain to Islamic peoples. I note that the Danish journal where the controversy originated acknowledged, in a recent letter of apology, that it had never realized the sensitivities involved.

In this light, perhaps, the controversy can be described less as a clash of civilizations and more as a clash of ignorance. The alternative explanation would be that the offense was intended—in which case we would be confronted with evil of a different sort. But even to attribute the problem to ignorance is in no way to minimize its importance. In a pluralistic world, the consequences of ignorance can be profoundly damaging.

Perhaps, too, it is ignorance which has allowed so many participants in this discussion to confuse liberty with license –implying that the sheer absence of restraint on human impulse can constitute a sufficient moral framework. This is not to say that governments should censor offensive speech. Nor does the answer lie in violent words or violent actions. But I am suggesting that freedom of expression is an incomplete value unless it is used honorably, and that the obligations of citizenship in any society should include a commitment to informed and responsible expression.

If we can commit ourselves, on all sides, to that objective, then the current crisis could become an educational opportunity—an occasion for enhanced awareness and broadened perspectives.

Ignorance, arrogance, insensitivity—these attitudes rank high among the great public enemies of our time. And the educational enterprise, at its best, can be an effective antidote to all of them."

For those who have less knowledge of Danish daily Jyllands-Posten I suggest you read the Denmark and Jyllands-Posten: The background to a provocation

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Your suggestion is wrong Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Your suggestion is wrong Posted by: tiffanybrown76
» RE: Your suggestion is wrong Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Your suggestion is wrong Posted by: saywhat?
no need to fear ideas
Posted by: Asses of Evil on Feb 14, 2006 3:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By insulating ourselves from ideas, we elevate the cartoons to a more elevated place from which it is difficult to discuss them reasonably and therefore, when Muslims riot, we cannot really counter them because, well, we don't even know what they're rioting about. The only way to change bad ideas is by presenting better ideas. If we pretend that the bad ideas are somehow protected and so dangerous that they cannot even be seen, well, it sort of justifies the contempt that we see the rioting exemplifies. Do we really think that if Muslims had all seen the cartoons that they would have been rioting? Do you really think that every single rioter saw the cartoons over breakfast, finished their coffee, and went out, deciding to riot? No, this is a mob mentality, comparable to any other mob mentality in which people just join a herd and follow the crowd. Really, the only way to address controversial ideas without giving them the added sheen of being taboo is to talk about them, as Nat Hentoff has said with regard to this cartoon controversy. The rioters are not reflective of Muslims as a whole but why should we be scared of ideas?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fwiw
Posted by: Asses of Evil on Feb 14, 2006 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apparently the Danish publisher is quite a conservative provocateur; via Juan Cole, I found this extremely generous interview of American conservative Daniel Pipes (who's called for internment of Muslims post-9/11/01). Again, not that this warrants anything, but it's obvious that this guy is a bit of a provocateur; Juan Cole has lots more v. useful information about him, including that he wouldn't include any blasphemous Christian cartoons. http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10253

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: fwiw Posted by: codingguy
» RE: fwiw Posted by: Asses of Evil
» RE: fwiw Posted by: codingguy
» RE: fwiw Posted by: Asses of Evil
» RE: fwiw Posted by: Llama11
» RE: fwiw Posted by: brunowe
Religion is nuts
Posted by: Moonray on Feb 14, 2006 4:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why should reasonable people feel constrained from criticizing belief systems that are based only on myths and fallacies? Shouldn't the burden be on the zealots to prove their beliefs are true, or at least reasonably possible, before they become publicly offended?

Is an assertion -- no matter how wacky -- validated because large numbers of people believe it? Was the Inquisition justified in tearing out the entrails of anyone who failed to acknowledge the existence of witches?

Were the devotees of Mao Zedong justified in beating to death those who failed to follow the Little Red Book? Should Western critics have "exercised responsibility" or "showed respect" in condemning those acts of violence?

The rioting Moslems may be miffed, but they lack standing in the court of reasoned justice. Their religion has the same validity as any other -- none. It's just a hodgepodge of old stories and wishful thinking.

What is especially sad is that even the so-called Enlightened West still is bullied into kowtowing to the lunacies of religion. Even our most august institutions begin their proceedings with pitiful supplications to invisible supernatural beings. Ridiculous!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: religion is nuts Posted by: Poederbach
» RE: eligion is nuts Posted by: diamondvajra
» RE: eligion is nuts Posted by: Charaud
» RE: eligion is nuts Posted by: AlterNug
» Oh, please. Posted by: dirkster42
» RE: Oh, please. Posted by: codingguy
» RE: Oh, please. Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: Oh, please. Posted by: YogiBear
The response of the West should be ...
Posted by: Doug on Feb 14, 2006 6:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... the simple, calm assertion that our citizens, as free men and women, have the right to criticize, mock, lampoon and caricature anything they want to. Period.

We should NOT say "We respect Islam". We don't, really, any more than we respect snake-handling Southern fundamentalists. If a modern, secularized Islam emerges, as someday it must, then it can be accorded the same respect as we atheists accord Christians who leave us alone. Even then, we may note that the last real achievements of Islamic civilization were many centuries ago. Perhaps when they become liberal democracies, the achievements will start again.

Note that the Left has caricatured Jesus Christ for decades, with no problem at all, to the great distress of some Christians. Look up "Piss Christ".

What good can come of this? Perhaps now we will cease hearing the stupid bleating that "Well, we have fundamentalists too..." Our fundamentalists might as well be Voltaire himself, compared to real fundamentalists, the murdering kind.

And this should help to shut the mouths of the Islamist apologists in the West who want to portray the Muslim fundamentalists as basically poor little victims of Western imperialism. Let us hope Lyn Stewart serves every day of her twenty-year sentence.

And it should radically change the terms of the debate on immigration in Europe at least. For decades, anyone who questioned the wisdom of allowing in millions of people from a very different culture, was called a "racist". This sort of dishonest slander will be much harder to get away with now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here we go, again... 1984
Posted by: Liberal on Feb 14, 2006 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the FCC becomes more powerful and stronger, able to do whatever they please, without anyone willing to stand up for what is right and stand up to them, then our world will change into a totalitarian government, thus the book: 1984.

Stand up to the FCC, NSA and anyone who is trying to change our world into a totalitarian government, before it's too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SELF CENSORSHIP IS IMPERATIVE-NOT GOV'T CENSORSHIP
Posted by: drricklippin on Feb 14, 2006 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A free press goes to the very core of democracy. However to incite violence goes beyond the boundries of that freedom. It harms. I am against any Gov't restrictions on a free press whatsoever. I am for lawsuits against an irresponsible press when they cause direct harm. While there is culpability on both sides the print and electronic media needs to self regulate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: brunowe is sober and smart Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: brunowe is sober and smart Posted by: codingguy
» RE: FREE SPEECH SCHOLARS Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: FREE SPEECH SCHOLARS Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: brunowe is sober and smart Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: YogiBear- READ MY POSTS! Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: YogiBear- READ MY POSTS! Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: brunowe is sober and smart Posted by: codingguy
» Start at the top Posted by: YogiBear
What if the caricatures were...
Posted by: Jesse on Feb 14, 2006 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've seen the cartoons involved. Some were sort of interesting, but most depicted the bearded arab in a way that reminded me of black-face caricatures of an earlier age.

The fact is, a lot of these cartoons could be seen as pretty insulting -- if I could post the ones I mean here I would, but besides the bomb-in-turban one (which could easily be seen as conflating muslims with terrorists) and the somewhat anti-immigrant tone of the kid by the blackboard, there's the one with a masked-out OBL caricature, the one with Mohammed as a devil-- (the moon crescent makes a set of horns). I mean, come on, folks, they weren't that innocent.

Do I think the violence is justified? No, but imagine if someone had done similar caricatures of black people in the US, and ask if you would blame people for getting righteously mad. It isn't just a free speech issue, though the Danish paper has the right to publish the images.

To a Muslim, this would be just plain insulting, and I think in isolation this mighn't have been so crazy. But coupled with repeated insults, (invasion of Iraq, detaining muslim citizens, allowing the Israelis to declare open season on the Palestinians) it gets blown up.

Another thing: you think for one second the Saudi people (or Pakistanis, or many others in the Muslim world) are unaware that the dictators in their country are supported by us? (Quick fact check: Mubarak and Kings Hussein and Fahd, Musharraf, are all US cronies. Other countries have made moves towards democracy in SPITE of the US, and often with its active opposition).

Put the cartoons in that light, and see if the violence seems so senseless, nor does it seem that Muslims don't understand free speech, as though they had differently structured brains or something. They understand it quite well--but these folks were already mad at policy decisions made by Westen governments. They don't hate our freedom, they hate the policies that keep them un-free. Then the cartoons come out.

I say no to the violence, but the white slum lord who walks into an East New York neighborhood and says "this is all the fault of you black folks, you don't understand values," deserves what he gets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What if the caricatures were... Posted by: tiffanybrown76
Rioting. Burning. Pillaging. Looting.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 14, 2006 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cartoon rioters are burning government buildings and destroying the business and livelihoods of "Westerners" in Pakistan.

Why? How do you do this to your fellow man over a cartoon? It's easy when you don't consider "Westerners" to be your fellow man, but "infidels" and "dogs" to be--at best--tolerated.

It's not a clash between religions, or civilizations, or societies. It's a clash between humananity and those who would dehumanize others for ANY reason. That this reason is a cartoon, though, does speak volumes about those who pillage and burn to enforce the will of their God upon others.

I won't make the comparison to the people of Nazi Germany who stormed the businesses and destroyed the livelihood of Jewish people, prior to the genocidal acts. The ideology may be the same; the scale isn't right.

Yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I wouldn't bother. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» It helps to put it in context Posted by: YogiBear
» Check the timestamp Posted by: YogiBear
representation of Mohammed
Posted by: cyberfactotum on Feb 14, 2006 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why exactly does Islam forbid any representation of Mohammed? Are there passages in the Koran that refer to this? Do all Muslims subscribe to this prohibition?

And what precisely is and is not a “representation”? A drawing? Sculpture? I guess photographs are not an issue, unless they are pictures of the Mohammed portraits in Istanbul's museum? Did Salman Rushdie receive his death threat because he “represented” Mohammed in his fictional descriptions and dialog? I am “referring” to Mohammed here, I am assuming, but would I be “representing” him if I were to give a physical description, say what he might be wearing or doing?

Does dreaming of Mohammed count as a representation? Imagining him? Does asking these very questions impinge upon representing Mohammed?

All this would be good to know, from the point of view of a fundamentalist clerics (or whoever this prohibition is really important to), just to be aware what the playing field rules are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: representation of Mohammed Posted by: outsidea
» RE: representation of Mohammed Posted by: codingguy
» RE: representation of Mohammed Posted by: codingguy
» RE: representation of Mohammed Posted by: cyberfactotum
Bogus Cartoons?
Posted by: amalgamatedspats on Feb 14, 2006 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can you link us to where you got the information regarding the bogus cartoons?

A quick scroogle search shows that the imams never claimed that the extra cartoons were published, and that this was made clear in the dossier. According to them these were cartoons that had been sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. Apparently the recipients of the cartoons have refused interview requests. This is all according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

According to CNS news (whoever they are), the delegation may have given the impression, intentionally or otherwise, that Jyllands-Posten was owned or controlled by the government.

Like any big story, there has been a lot of misinformation on both sides. Have any reputable sources translated the dossier and made it available to the public?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All this over cartoons?
Posted by: Againstthewindwalking on Feb 14, 2006 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So basicly what we have here, is that if you draw cartoons showing Muslims to be violent and intolerant, they will prove themselves to be violent and intolerant!

I'm not downing anyone's religion here. You can buy any line of shit you want! But if you come to the town I live in acting a fool, killing people and burning shit, over a bunch of cartoons, you're going to find out we still believe in the Second Amendment as well as the first, and the third!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All this over cartoons? Posted by: brunowe
Useless comment
Posted by: Holland on Feb 14, 2006 1:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush 1, The Teminator; Bush 2, Judgement Day; Bush 3, Rise of the Machines… I’m shivering with the thought… but I’m alive… which is more than I can say for this Administration. The vampire strikes back, so we’d better think of ways to outsmart him. Long live Van Helsing.

Useless comment, I won’t cry when it’s ignored, but I needed to make it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember Sinead?
Posted by: crazyoglala on Feb 14, 2006 1:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wouldnt it be nice to reference Sinead O'Connors performance on Saturday Night Live a while back when she tore a photo of the Pope in front of a live studio audience?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Remember Sinead? Posted by: Ghoulman
CARTOON CENSORSHIP? WHAT'S FUNDANENTALLY NEXT?
Posted by: chanceny on Feb 14, 2006 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I receive e-mails from the Anti Defamation league weekly. They publish editorial cartoons from a wide variety of middle Eastern publications. Almost every one of them are anti-semitic, filled with hatred and encouraging violence. I react with saddness and I'm sure Jews & other caring humans are hurt and angered by such evil depictions. However no one has called for violence or censorship. I think all this rioting, openly encouraged by fanatical 'religious' leaders, is the result of the policies of this Bushite regime. The leaders in our country seem to be fanning the flames with this unjust war killing so many muslims. The clash of civilizations is promoted by the arrogant behavior toward middle eastern countries, ruled by propped up puppets that do our bidding and keep their populace ignorant of anything modern. They see the Shahs bending elbows with our state dept flunkies and their imams rant on about our hypocrisies. I think, once this corrupt cabal is ousted here, we can start dismantling our bases and reduce our presence in the muslim world. We've got a whole lot of work to do just to get back our free society right here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

more heat than light
Posted by: hwashen on Feb 14, 2006 1:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am blown away by the inflammatory comments posted about this article. It does not bode well for the future, given that there's enough firepower to destroy the planet many times over. If we value our future, and that of our children, the precondition is tolerance. Tolerance is based on respect for cultural values. Freedom of speech is not in conflict with freedom of religion as long as that respect exists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: more heat than light Posted by: brunowe
» Listen closely. Posted by: ABetterFuture
Flemming Rose is a neocon tool
Posted by: cold2touch on Feb 14, 2006 2:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You said:
Flemming Rose ... proved his point. He published a series of very sober cartoons in an attempt to define the boundaries of free speech in a world of religious fundamentalism. He did so out of concern over the West's increasing tendency toward self-censorship around matters of religion.
You neglected to mention a couple of small points, namely his rabidly pro-Likud views and links to neocon movement.
linked text
Here is his pean to Daniel Pipes, a neocon in Douglas Feith's mold and founder of Campus Watch, an organization dedicated to blackballing faculty members that don't toe the Israel-First ideology
linked text
An exemplar of ideological sobriety he ain't. He is in the league with the likes of Orianna Fallacci, whose anti-islamic vituperations (where she frequently refers to Muslims as "rats") are freely sold all over Europe.
Let's summarize:
1. Sliming Mohammed, in full knowledge that it will provoke worldwide outrage, rioting and even human deaths, is fully condoned and encouraged in order to promote our cherished freedom of speech, First Amendment, blah blah, everybody stand up and salute.
2. We must carefully monitor what those psychotic professors are saying in order not to pollute the young and impressionable minds, see below (from Campus Watch header):
Campus Watch has been instrumental in bringing attention to problems with Columbia University's Middle East Studies faculty.
In other words, a resounding yes to freedom of speech (Jyllands-Posten) and a resounding no to freedom of speech (Columbia ME Studies faculty).
Nice work, Holland.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Errata Posted by: cold2touch
It's not Free Speach, it's just ignorance.
Posted by: Ghoulman on Feb 14, 2006 4:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm soooo tired of hearing about how this issue is about Free Speach, and it's limits (shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre).

The issue is ignorance, bigotry, intolerance.

The cartoons of The Prophet Mohammad, regardless of context, are racist attacks on Islam. Period.

Now, understand, The Prophet is NEVER depicted in any way, in any context whatever. That's Islamic belief. As a Christian, I can understand this belief as "idolatry", it's just that Islam takes this belief to it's fullest. Mohammad is never depiced.

This isn't a secret, it's commonly known. SO news all over the US doesn't know this? Are they ignorant? Don't they respect religious belief? Are they intolerant? Like what your aunt hangs in her home, the blessed heart and Jesus walking on clouds stuff, Muslims have a script (which says; There is only one God and Mohammad is his Prophet) for the same purpose. No pics of Mohammad.

To make a cartoon, drawing, whatever, of The Prophet is a kin to defacing The Holy Cross. Especially one with Jesus nailed to it.

No paper would dare depict a defaced Holy Cross. It would be seen as ignorance, bigotry, intolerance. An attack on Christian belief.

I'm not surprised the traditionally racist French reprinted those old pics from a Sept. issue of a Danish free paper (a small, right wing, street rag), but all this going on about the issues of free speach... please. Propelling the propoganda? Sheesh. What suckers journalists are.

The only issue here is the willing bigotry of those who have no problem reprinting over and over what is obviously blastfamous to millions all over the world and then implying it's free speach.

A certain millions currently demonized as being crazy zealots over a few cartoons. Plays well in the pub eh?

[« Reply to this comment] [