We have re-enabled logins for the forums, please be aware that you may need to reset your password or register for an account again while we continue to restore full functionality.
Like a number of others on this board I've followed developments on those Danish cartoons with some interest. The latest move comes from the Iranian majors, one of whom has decided to launch a competition about 'the best holocaust cartoon' Link .
The concept behind this one is rather simple. If the Danish cartoons were indeed commissioned in order to prove that newspapers have the right to lambast sacred cows regardless of their origin, then naturally the Danish newspaper at the start of it all would be happy to publish the Iranian paper's results. After all, is there a greater sacred cow than the holocaust? By publishing something offensive to holocaust survivors the newspapers would be proving they value all forms of free speech equally, even those on matters which are sensitive to a majority of readers.
It's an interesting gambit, and certainly a bold one. Of course it's likely the Iranian paper would have published the cartoons anyway - 3rd world news tends to display not so much press freedom as official prejudice. And I highly doubt that anyone in the western publishing world will bother to respond, save perhaps those who delight in contrarian views (such as Australia's Crikey, a political news email/newsletter with a certain reputation for pigheadedness).
But let's indulge in a pointless theoretical exercise. Say you were the editor of a major daily, and decided to respond in some way to the Iranian case. Would you take the Iranian challenge and prove that the freedom of the press to publish anything is sacred? Or would you choose not to, deciding that there's no point choosing to fight for the freedom of the press on such a divisive and unsavoury issue, particularly when it serves no great purpose even in victory?
Of course the two positions I've put above are simplified. But I think they roughly sum up the two sides in the argument, and I think you can guess which one I side with. But what do you guys reckon?
| "I don't think anyone needs to bow before a Muslim in order to see that provocation of a faith, especially when the reprisal is likely to be violent, doesn't make a whole lot of sense." |
If that is true, then the reality is Islam is violent, and we should expect violence when we offend them. In return, when Muslims call us infidels and say we should die like the satans we are, we are to take the high road and congratulate them on their use of free speech.
If that is reality, then we aren't equal, and saying so is a lie. Islam would be a lesser religion that can't be trusted to take part in a modern, free society. I don't believe that. I believe that Islam can fit in well, as it has in the US and many other places. But only once we start ridding the world of violent radicals and holding Islam to the same standard we hold other religions.
We're looking up the edits for this post...
| If that is true, then the reality is Islam is violent, and we should expect violence when we offend them. In return, when Muslims call us infidels and say we should die like the satans we are, we are to take the high road and congratulate them on their use of free speech. |
That's not entirely true. There's a difference between expecting violence from fringe elements that have proven track records of responding violently to provocation (the terrorists) and expecting violence because Islam is a violent religion.
It's safe to publish against Christianity because the vicious Christian fringe doesn't use violence quite so often. It happens, but only very rarely. I think the last time was at least a decade ago, if not longer.
But everyone knows that there are elements in Islam which are belligerent towards western interests, and can be expected to react with great anger and violence in the event of such a poorly handled issue as the cartoons (the Danish government's response was particularly stupid; refusing to meet with foreign diplomats seeking an apology was moronic).
The fact that it can be expected that a heavily armed and dangerous fringe element, supported by a number of regional dictatorships, will attack doesn't mean you can tar the whole religion with the brush. It's only the fringe elements that act up. As you yourself have noted Muslim groups have started to get fed up with their growing marginalisation on this matter.
| But only once we start ridding the world of violent radicals and holding Islam to the same standard we hold other religions. |
Of course. But I don't believe that this is best achieved by goading the radicals. I suppose we can agree to disagree about that though.
We're looking up the edits for this post...
| "But everyone knows that there are elements in Islam which are belligerent towards western interests, and can be expected to react with great anger and violence in the event of such a poorly handled issue as the cartoons (the Danish government's response was particularly stupid; refusing to meet with foreign diplomats seeking an apology was moronic)." |
Same thing. You can mess with Christianity and the rest, but you'd better not say anything insulting about Islam. It doesn't matter if it is the whole thing, or a few nasties, it still makes us treat Islam different under threat of violence, and we shouldn't.
and frankly it was moronic for diplomats for demanding and apology from people who had nothing to do with the offense. The Dutch government has no business offering an apology, and I dunno why they'd want one from people who didn't cause the offense in the first place.
| "Of course. But I don't believe that this is best achieved by goading the radicals. I suppose we can agree to disagree about that though." |
You call it goading, I call it refusing to walk on eggshells due to the threat of criminal violence. Of course we can disagree.
We're looking up the edits for this post...
| and frankly it was moronic for diplomats for demanding and apology from people who had nothing to do with the offense. The Dutch government has no business offering an apology, and I dunno why they'd want one from people who didn't cause the offense in the first place. |
Yes that's true. But I seriously doubt that the minister would have undermined himself had he spoken to them and then refused to apologise. That's what the Australian government does every time a local paper pisses off the Indonesians, or the Samoans, or anyone else. I assume it's what the US gov does as well. It's as much good manners as anything else.
| You call it goading, I call it refusing to walk on eggshells due to the threat of criminal violence. Of course we can disagree. |
Yeah. To my mind it's not walking on eggshells to not publish 12 cartoons featuring Muhammad. It would be walking on eggshells if the publishing served some observable purpose other than becoming a particularly unsavoury test case for press freedom.
We're looking up the edits for this post...
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Sign in or Create Account
