The Iranian Gambit

from JoeUser Forums
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?
politics
13,844 views 29 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Have I been told that I am not allowed to publish cartoons of he holocaust when I have the right to?

To me, there is no comparison, really. Mohammed isn't a victim, and the people of the holocaust were. Muslims constantly publish their diatribes about the relative value of "Infidels", and yet any act of demeaning their religion is met with outrage.

A better comparison would be Moses. Or God. The reason the Iranians chose otherwise is they know we aren't as anal as they are, and we parody Moses and God all the time. So they have to choose the victims of a horror they often applaud or deny in their media.

So, I guess if I had been bullied and threatened by holocaust victims, then sure. Not much chance of that, though. There isn't much point in asserting my publishing rights in terms of Jews, because they really aren't threatening my rights. Muslims, on the other hand, had pressed the issue because of the original cartoon, which brought about these most recent ones.

That said do I think there should be some law against making holocaust cartoons? Never. I don't appreciate people like Larry Flynt, but no doubt he's done a few. I feel he has every right to, and I feel that anyone who differs with him has the right to boycott and protest. Never should anyone try to take away his right to, though.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
As an aside, I don't think they could have done anything so self-defeating as this. As I said, God we would have laughed off. Maybe a lot of newspapers would have done that, too.

They just took an issue they are known to be insensitive about, and proven how utterly hypocritical their original outrage about the Mohammed cartoons was. They don't care about respect, because they don't offer it in their media. This just proves that those who are demanding to take rights away aren't interested in keeping to the standards they impose.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the Holocaust's special status means it's not equivalent to the special status of the prophet Muhammad and therefore you wouldn't publish?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
cacto, what they do is making provocations. I would not lower myself to their level and indulge with their fantasy.

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?


Freedom of press is just one side of the issue. The other side is responsibility to create a better world. While I believe in freedom of press. I believe that seeing the big picture is more important -- what are the costs and benefits of publishing such material. I prefer the middle way. Muslims need to take themselves more lightly but the newspaper also needs to restrain themselves for a while. This whole issue escalates because some newspapers try to "prove their points" by unnecessarily republishing the material immediately after it was being pulled out. I dare not to say the editors are silly because it is well within their right and culture to do so. But I think it is ill-advised as it does not serve any purpose.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Also I'd like to add this:

I am a chinese catholic indonesian and I can see the outrage in JU. I completely emphatize with you. I have been in canada for a while which allows me to know some amazing westerners here. And I am hoping that my dear westerner friends could restrain themselves from making the same mistake as this newspaper.

Give the benefit of doubt to the muslims because you have to understand not all news makes it into the media. At least indonesian muslims is not as bad as you think -- I have known some great muslim friends. I can debunk so many things that some of you said but it would take many articles. So I am just hoping that you could please step back from the controversy for a while and let the issue cool down before adding fuels to the impending world war.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
The differences here will be that many will be offended by holocaust cartoons, but they will not call for the beheading of the cartoonists or paper editors.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Give the benefit of doubt to the muslims


What do you think we've been doing as a nation for years?

But the Muslim nation can't count on our good will forever. If it wants the benefit of the doubt it NEEDS to use its 1.6 BILLION members and get its house in order.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah J? Dari mana? tahun yg lalu aq belajar di Jogja dan malang, di UGM dan UMM. Small world ya!

I wrote this article because I had a suspicion - probably unfounded - that there was more than just a freedom of the press angle to the publishing of those Danish cartoons. I was wondering what it was, because presumably if it was purely freedom of the press and the airing of linen then the papers would see nothing wrong in theory with publishing anti-holocaust cartoons. After all, nearly everyone self-censors when it comes to the holocaust.

The differences here will be that many will be offended by holocaust cartoons, but they will not call for the beheading of the cartoonists or paper editors


So freedom of speech should only be practised when there are people to defy? I think there might be a large fuss about the Holocaust as well, although presumably Jewish groups have rather more political clout than Muslim ones, and can therefore bring a halt to it without the traditional anti-dictatorship power of riot and threat.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the Holocaust's special status means it's not equivalent to the special status of the prophet Muhammad and therefore you wouldn't publish?

I think that is part of what he is saying.  The 2 do not equate.  They can publish anything they want, but like the Washington Post Cartoon reveling in the misfortune of a soldier, parodying a man of religion and parodying 6 million people brutally tortured and slain are not the same.  Unless Iran is equating Mohammed with Hitler?

Now that is an interesting take.  Maybe my entry will be Mohammed welcoming Hitler to hell.  That would equate with what iran is trying to do.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
" I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the Holocaust's special status means it's not equivalent to the special status of the prophet Muhammad and therefore you wouldn't publish?"


Eh, i didn't say the holocaust has special status. I thought I was pretty plain. The reason these Muslim caricatures were posted was because of Muslim response to another cartoon even earlier, stating it was wrong to post images of the Prophet.

So far, I know of no holocaust victims that are trying to limit my freedom of speech. So the answer is no, I wouldn't publish the cartoons, but not because I think it is "wrong", but because there is no good reason to other than being bigoted. You can associate Islam with terrorism without being a bigot. I know of no reason other than racism or bloodthirstiness to lampoon the holocaust.

If Jews had been imposing their religious edicts not to lampoon Moses, aybe I'd be more apt to answer it with a caricature. If a bigot looks at you and says "Hey, lets draw funny pictures of Jews", you aren't responding to something Jews have done. If you can't see the difference between lampooning the victims of horror and lampooning religious figures, well, I'm not sure you're really equipped for the conversation.

In the end you are either discussing free speech or taste. I wouldn't lampoon the victims of genocide unless there was a good reason to, and there isn't here. Even then, it would be in bad taste. People should be free to do so,regardless, without fear of violence.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
If it wants the benefit of the doubt it NEEDS to use its 1.6 BILLION members and get its house in order.


They are. But guiding 1.6 billion members is not an easy thing to do. Not all the news reach to the mainstream media. But at least in Indonesia, there has been big improvements in that area.

Our government has worked very hard in arresting and executing terrorists. More than 200 has been arrested and it won't stop now. Our country as a whole is much more respectful to ethnicity if you compare that with 10 years ago when Soeharto was still in power. More and more muslim leaders in Indonesia denounce terrorism. Of course some are just too thick. But please also consider the diversity of the people. We have a population of 220 million which are not as well as educated as in the U.S. So it is way more easier to provoke them to do irattional actions.

I was born there and I lived there. And the perceptions that Islam is violence is just wrong.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah J? Dari mana? tahun yg lalu aq belajar di Jogja dan malang, di UGM dan UMM. Small world ya!


Aku dari Jakarta tapi setelah highschool pindah ke Canada. Wah di Jogja enak tuh -- orangnya ramah-ramah. Apa kamu menikmati kunjungan ke Indonesia?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I was born there and I lived there. And the perceptions that Islam is violence is just wrong."


But don't you find it odd then that people who oppose these caricatures say "They shouldn't have printed them, they should have expected violence." Doesn't that mean that when dealing with Muslims, we should expect violence unless they get their way?

It can't be one way or another. Should we assume Islam is peaceful and treat them as we would treat any other religion (i.e. lampoon God and whoever else without fear), or should we walk on eggshells and assume that anything we do to insult Islam will result in innocent casualties?

That seems to be what we are being told. If you offend them, look out. Yet that seems to be the opposite of "Islam isn't violent"
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you can't see the difference between lampooning the victims of horror and lampooning religious figures, well, I'm not sure you're really equipped for the conversation.


Um thanks for the condescension, but I do know the difference. I wonder though why lampooning Muhammad was so important for the continuance of free speech as to require a special cartoon competition. Can you shed any light on that? Do you agree it was important for those cartoons to be published, or do you consider them bad taste as well?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
[quoteBut don't you find it odd then that people who oppose these caricatures say "They shouldn't have printed them, they should have expected violence." Doesn't that mean that when dealing with Muslims, we should expect violence unless they get their way?

Excellent point, I wish to expand on that but I have to leave for work now. I will get back at you later.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
And the perceptions that Islam is violence is just wrong


Have you read ANY of the Koran? Because you don't have to read far before the prophet starts preaching "Convert or kill" how is that not violent?

Look, beside every crazy terrorist Muslim is at least ONE non violent Muslim. It takes one phone call, one word dropped in the appropriate ear....but that is not happening globally.

As for the newspapers. COME ON GUYS! Newspapers are BUSINESS. I am a journalist. I can tell you money drives the ads and often the cartoons! Do you look in the NY Times for cartoons poking fun at liberals? Nope.

Why? Because they are catering to their READERS...its all about money.

The reason they could print anti-muslim cartoons is because more and more of their readers, are becoming anti-muslim!! Along with the rest of the world.

To think money is not THE deciding factor is unrealistic.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Excellent point, I wish to expand on that but I have to leave for work now. I will get back at you later.

I hope you contribute more.  While I see your view is not universally accepted, it is very evident you have a lot to contribute and you are a very eloquent writer.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I consider them to be important AND bad taste. When newspapers are told that they have to keep to the religious edicts of a particular religion, what do they do? I think the Danish newspaper felt that if they didn't post some sort of response, it would be assumed that they caved to that kind of religious imposition. What would you suggest, saying "Well we won't, but it won't be because you threatened us".

It's like the "Islam isn't violent" argument that I tend to laugh at. On the one hand, we're told we ask for it when we lampoon Mohammed, and on the other we are bigots if we assume Islam to be violent. On one hand we can't impose our cultural values on Islam, and yet we're told we can't have images of Mohammed in the newspaper. Eventually, you have to stop walking on eggshells and do one or the other or tell the world threats can stifle freedom.

We don't feel it in America, because we don't have huge influx of Islamic immigrants that Europe has. We can't fathom being told what we can and can't print. I think it may have been important the the people in question to say "Hey, you can't impose your religous beliefs on us". What I, and you, and Muslims think is immaterial, it is their right to publish what they want.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Aku dari Jakarta tapi setelah highschool pindah ke Canada. Wah di Jogja enak tuh -- orangnya ramah-ramah. Apa kamu menikmati kunjungan ke Indonesia?


Iya, Jogja enak banget. Aq udah ke Jakarta tapi hanya utk dugem dan konser rock kayak Cupumanik dan juga satu konser pop oleh peterpan. Tapi enak sekali di sana juga. Trims banget utk kunjunganmu ke blogku anyway.

Excellent point, I wish to expand on that but I have to leave for work now. I will get back at you later.


Please do. I had trouble figuring out a friend of mine's response when I emailed him in indon yesterday. Your english is much better than his Inggris or my Indo.

In the end, it doesn't matter if they were necessary, or if they were in good or bad taste. A newspaper wanted to print them, and they were being told they couldn't. What would you suggest, saying "Well we won't, but it won't be because you threatened us.


Well personally I would be against printing them in the first place. They're deliberately antagonistic and do nothing to further the cause of free speech because they show that the consequences can be worse than the benefits. Do you think there were many governments who've come out of the last few weeks with the impression that free speech is worth promoting even when it pisses someone off? From a security perspective it's drastically lowered Danish security both abroad and at home, particularly where terrorism is concerned. Where once they were ignored, now groups are taking notice.

I think it's a poor choice of battleground for a free speech argument, and does the papers in question no credit that they pursued it. Sure, they had the right, but I think they made a stupid choice when they decided to publish. And I'd consider anyone who published the Holocaust cartoons to be much the same.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

If Jews had been imposing their religious edicts not to lampoon Moses


Considering the very large number of Jewish comedians and Jewish comedy on American television and movie theatres all over the world, including Mel Brooks' appearance as a Jiddish-speaking Moses in "History of the World - Part 1", I think a case could be made for the Jews imposing too much lampooning Moses on the world.

I like Jewish humour and I won't complain.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
The most telling aspect of this Iranian twist is yet another stereotype. We look at this and say "Huh? What does the holocaust have to do with Danish cartoons?" Easy. Islamic radicals believe the Jews are behind everything, and there is always some Zionist plot at work.

So, I figure this is just lashing out at the standard villain. Add anti-Semitism right below "Islam is violent" on the list of sterotypes this whole mess has helped to confirm. They didn't even have to make an anti-Semitic statement; they just opted to to put icing on the cake, I guess.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'd add, again, that it wasn't like this Danish newspaper decided to make a statement on freedom of the press, and drew "irritate Muslims" out of a hat of things to do. An innocent cartoon depicting the gods of all major faiths brought so much venom from Muslims for the depiction of Allah, that the newspaper reacted with the recent contest.

Bad or good idea is subjective, it's their newspaper and it was for them to decide how to respond. If the press is about shedding light on the world and bringing issues into the public mind for discussion, they've certainly done it.

I don't think it is nearly the random act of bad taste people are making it out to be. If anything, it has been such a violent response that not even Islam can help but take a good hard look at itself.

"Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar told the Italian daily il Giornale on Saturday that the cartoons were an offense that should be punished by death.
"We should have killed all those who offend the Prophet and instead here we are, protesting peacefully," Zahar said.

Link


That's gonna be a fun guy to negotiate with...
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well he didn't kill all the ones responsible - I suppose he thinks that was both generous and a sign of restraint. Does sound like the Middle East is back to normal now.

If the press is about shedding light on the world and bringing issues into the public mind for discussion, they've certainly done it.


You're right. They certainly have brough it out into the public arena, with several embassies destroyed, the Danish reputation in tatters in the middle east and at least 5 people dead. I hope it was worth it.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
hmmm....

"You have offended me. Therefore, I will hunt you down, and murder you in your sleep with a pitchfork, as I rape and kill your wife, and put your children into slavery....all while burning your home to the ground. Your offense to me is because of my religion, and therefore, is justified. Oh, by the way....I am a Christian, and the 10 Commandments said so."

Does that make any sense? No...it doesn't. But....that is what you are (seemingly) saying....except, you wouldn't stand for a Christian or a Jew saying that....but rather a Muslim....

Although, perhaps I am misunderstanding you? Why should we dance around Muslims in fear that we may offend, but any other religion, we should just say, "Oh well, damn Christians need to get their butts under control!!"

Sounds hypocritical to me....unless you want to bow facing Mecca and pray all those times per day. Or, maybe you are a muslim, already?

I guess I do not understand why we should bow down to Muslims....why?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not sure who you're talking to Myth. If it's me I don't know how you got all that from what I wrote. My line about the Hamas leader's restraint was supposed to be a joke - you know, the Middle East is back to normal when the Palestinians are preaching death to the infidel.

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. I can't figure out where anyone has benefited from the incident, and it's done nothing to improve the reputation of free speech, particularly in those nations that are newly democratising. So what was the point?

And also, what would your statement be in response to the Iranian's proposal? That's what I'm particularly interested in at the moment.