Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to The United Nations Old Guard. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Cartoon Conflicts | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 6 2006, 11:54 AM (299 Views) | |
| Ecopoeia | Feb 6 2006, 11:54 AM Post #1 |
![]()
E-u-o-c-o-u-p-i-e-i-a-u-o-e-a
![]()
|
Another Grauniad article, this time on the cartoons protests in Europe - is this even being mentioned in the US? The writer is Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim banned in the US for links to terrorism (bollocks, it would seem). I saw him speak at the European Social Forum - he's a really inspiring figure and this article is as good a treatment of the subject as I've seen. Link Cartoon conflicts To describe the clash over the Danish depictions of the prophet as one between freedom and dogma will only fan the flames, says Tariq Ramadan Monday February 6, 2006 In Copenhagen last October, as demonstrations provoked by the Danish satirical cartoons about Islam were starting, a reporter from the newspaper that published them told me how intensely the editorial staff had debated whether to go ahead, how uncomfortable many of them had been about the whole issue and, at the same time, how surprised they had been by the strong reaction from Muslims and the Arab embassies. At the time, however, the tension seemed likely to remain within Danish borders. To Danish Muslims denouncing this as an instance of racism - a provocation capitalised upon by the ever expanding far right in the country - my advice was to avoid reacting emotionally, to try to explain quietly why these cartoons were offensive and neither to demonstrate nor to risk activating mass movements that could prove impossible to master. At the time, a resolution seemed to be at hand. One might ask, then, why it is that three months later, some find it in their interests to pour fuel on the fire of a controversy, with tragic and potentially uncontrollable consequences? A few Danish Muslims visited Middle Eastern countries and ramped up the resentment: governments in the region, only too happy to prove their attachment to Islam - to bolster their Islamic legitimacy in the eyes of the public - took advantage of this piece of good fortune and presented themselves as champions of a great cause. On the other side, the controversy was just what some politicians, intellectuals and journalists needed to paint themselves as champions of the equally great struggle for freedom of expression and as resistance fighters against religious obscurantism in the name of western values. We are facing an incredible simplification, a gross polarisation: apparently a clash of civilisations, a confrontation between principles, with defenders, in one corner, of inalienable freedom of speech and, in the other, of the inviolable sacred sphere. Presented in such terms, the debate has unfortunately become a battle of wills, and the question becomes: who will win? Muslims, wanting apologies, threaten to attack European interests, even to attack people; western governments, intellectuals and journalists refuse to bend under threats, and certain media outlets have added to the controversy by republishing the cartoons. Most people around the world, observing these excesses, are perplexed: what sort of madness is this, they ask? It is critical we find a way out of this infernal circle and demand from those stoking this fire that they stop their polemics at once and create a space for serious, open, indepth debate and peaceful dialogue. This is not the predicted clash of civilisations. This affair does not symbolise the confrontation between the principles of Enlightenment and those of religion. Absolutely not. What is at stake at the heart of this sad story is whether or not the duelling sides have the capacity to be free, rational (whether believers or atheists) and, at the same time, reasonable. The fracture is not between the west and Islam but between those who, in both worlds, are able to assert who they are and what they stand for with calm - in the name of faith or reason, or both - and those driven by exclusive certainties, blind passions, reductive perceptions of the other and a liking for hasty conclusions. The latter character traits are shared equally by some intellectuals, religious scholars, journalists and ordinary people on both sides. Facing the dangerous consequences these attitudes entail, it is urgent we launch a general call for wisdom. In Islam, representations of all prophets are strictly forbidden. It is both a matter of the fundamental respect due to them and a principle of faith requiring that, in order to avoid any idolatrous temptations, God and the prophets never be represented. Hence, to represent a prophet is a grave transgression. If, moreover, one adds the clumsy confusions, insults and denigration that Muslims perceived in the Danish cartoons, one can understand the nature of the shock expressed by large segments of Muslim communities around the world (and not only by practising Muslims or the radicals). To these people, the cartoons were too much: it was good and important for them to express their indignation and to be heard. At the same time, it was necessary for Muslims to bear in mind that, for the past three centuries, western societies - unlike Muslim-majority countries - have grown accustomed to critical, ironical - even derisive - treatment of religious symbols, among them the pope, Jesus Christ and even God. Even though Muslims do not share such an attitude, it is imperative they learn to keep an intellectual distance when faced with such provocations and not to let themselves be driven by zeal and fervour, which can only lead to undesirable ends. In the case of these cartoons - as clumsy as they are idiotic and malicious - it would have been, and it would remain, preferable if Muslims expressed their values and grievances to the public at large without clamour, better if they paused until such a time as calm was possible. Instead, what is welling up today within some Muslim communities is as unproductive as it is insane: the obsessive demands for apologies, boycotting of European products and threats of violent reprisals are excesses that must be rejected and condemned. However, it is just as excessive and irresponsible to invoke the "right to freedom of expression" - the right to say anything, in any way, against anybody. Freedom of expression is not absolute. Countries have laws that define the framework for exercising this right and which, for instance, condemn racist language. There are also specific rules pertaining to the cultures, traditions and collective psychologies in the respective societies that regulate the relationship between individuals and the diversity of cultures and religions. Racial or religious insults are not addressed in the same way in the various western societies: within a generally similar legal framework, each nation has its own history and sensitivities; wisdom requires acknowledging and respecting this reality. The reality is also that the Muslim presence within western societies has changed their collective sensitivity. Instead of being obsessed with laws and rights - approaching a tyrannical right to say anything - would it not be more prudent to call upon citizens to exercise their right to freedom of expression responsibly and to take into account the diverse sensitivities that compose our pluralistic contemporary societies? This is not a matter of additional laws restraining the scope of free speech; it is simply one of calling upon everybody's conscience to exercise that right with an eye on the rights of others. It is more about nurturing a sense of civic responsibility than about imposing legislation: Muslim citizens are not asking for more censorship but for more respect. One cannot impose mutual respect by means of legislation; rather one teaches it in the name of a free, responsible and reasonable common citizenship. We are at a crossroads. The time has come for women and men who reject this dangerous division of people into two worlds to start building bridges based on common values. They must assert the inalienable right to freedom of expression and, at the same time, demand measured exercise of it. We need to promote an open, self-critical approach, to repudiate exclusive truths and narrow-minded, binary visions of the world. We are in dire need of mutual trust. The crises provoked by these cartoons shows us how, out of "seemingly nothing", two universes of reference can become deaf to each other and be seduced by defining themselves against each other - with the worst possible consequences. Disasters threaten that extremists on both sides would not fail to use for their own agendas. If people who cherish freedom, who know the importance of mutual respect and are aware of the imperative necessity to establish a constructive and critical debate, if these people are not ready to speak out, to be more committed and visible, then we can expect sad, painful tomorrows. The choice is ours. · Tariq Ramadan is visiting fellow at St Antony's College, Oxford University and senior research fellow at the Lokahi Foundation, in London |
|
Enough is as good as a feast To Ill-Advisedly Go! | |
![]() |
|
| Ausserland | Feb 6 2006, 05:48 PM Post #2 |
|
Resident Curmudgeon
![]()
|
An excellent article -- balanced and thoughtful. Thanks for sharing it. |
|
If at first you don't succeed, give up. There's no sense getting frustrated. (\ /) ( ..) C('')('') ![]() ![]() ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Ecopoeia | Feb 6 2006, 06:20 PM Post #3 |
![]()
E-u-o-c-o-u-p-i-e-i-a-u-o-e-a
![]()
|
All the more galling that The Sun ran a campaign to keep him out of the country and the US won't allow him in at all. |
|
Enough is as good as a feast To Ill-Advisedly Go! | |
![]() |
|
| Knootoss | Feb 6 2006, 10:21 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Klingon-hater
![]()
|
From a Dutch cartoonist:
|
|
~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the WA "If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words." | |
![]() |
|
| Knootoss | Feb 6 2006, 10:48 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Klingon-hater
![]()
|
Respectfully, I disagree with the article and I am somewhat surprised by the way the British media have been suppressing the cartoons by refusing to reprint them. The British government and the U.S. State Dept. have also issued declarations siding with the "enraged Muslims" over their concerns. I've seen these cartoons. I find them boring and un-funny, but they are hardly provocative. I understand from the general forum also that the people who roused the debate created a booklet adding other, false cartoons which were never actually posted in the Danish paper! (For example one showing Mohammed as a pig) With all respect, this is about civil liberties and freedom of expression. I do not mean to insult Muslims unnececarily, but apologies are absolutely not in order and the approach of the British shows a complete lack of solidarity with the Danish people. This time, all of Europe should unite and show one face to the Muslim world on this issue... not use the rhetorics of appeasement. |
|
~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the WA "If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words." | |
![]() |
|
| Fonzoland | Feb 6 2006, 11:16 PM Post #6 |
|
Resident Grammar Nazi
![]()
|
A reply can be found here, in form of anti-semitic cartoons. ![]() I am a strong supporter of freedom of expression, and I would never defend any punishment or restrictions on the media in these circumstances. However, I do find the original cartoons needlessly provocative, especially given the trend to restrict free (inflammatory) speech from european muslim leaders. |
![]() I met God the other day, but all I got was this lousy quote: "He's too feminine for his shirt...too feminine for his shirt...oh so feminine it hurts..." | |
![]() |
|
| Knootoss | Feb 6 2006, 11:20 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Klingon-hater
![]()
|
Well, I've seen the Arab-European League ones. The AEL gets a lot of coverage here in the Netherlandsm you know. Made me smile. Quite inventive of them. However the fact that the AEL is allowed to publish these things should say something. (Even if it might be problematic in Germany.) The fact of the matter is that the whole 'hatespeech' thing is fairly silly to begin with, and if this helps expose European hypocrisy as well then that is only a good thing. |
|
~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the WA "If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words." | |
![]() |
|
| Fonzoland | Feb 6 2006, 11:44 PM Post #8 |
|
Resident Grammar Nazi
![]()
|
Yeah, I also liked the approach, from a purely creative stance. But I am afraid it will do little to pacify the issue. |
![]() I met God the other day, but all I got was this lousy quote: "He's too feminine for his shirt...too feminine for his shirt...oh so feminine it hurts..." | |
![]() |
|
| Knootoss | Feb 6 2006, 11:49 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Klingon-hater
![]()
|
Jews torching the Belgian embassy in Israel you mean? |
|
~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the WA "If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words." | |
![]() |
|
| _Myopia_ | Feb 6 2006, 11:54 PM Post #10 |
|
Autonecromancer extraordinaire
![]()
|
I believe in anyone's complete legal right to publish this kind of rubbish. But it just seems to me to be common sense and common courtesy not to do so. These things are clearly offensive to a very large number of people, many of whom have absolutely nothing to do with the values that the cartoons are attacking. It's not courageous to defend your right to freedom of expression by baselessly insulting innocent people who you know are going to be sensitive to such things. It's like if I went to Texas and wandered the streets waving a burning American flag, on the basis that the US government and its Texan leader have done bad things. Of course people will be offended, and I would be completely unjustified in causing the kind of distress that would inevitably result. And it would probably only serve to fuel the kinds of attitudes that I'm opposed to. |
|
The Liberal not-quite-Utopia of _Myopia_ Liberty with Compassion - La liberté et l'humanité | |
![]() |
|
| Knootoss | Feb 7 2006, 12:21 AM Post #11 |
![]()
Klingon-hater
![]()
|
Soooo... boycott Denmark? |
|
~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the WA "If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words." | |
![]() |
|
| _Myopia_ | Feb 7 2006, 12:27 AM Post #12 |
|
Autonecromancer extraordinaire
![]()
|
Of course not. The Danish government's line, which (as far as I know) is simply "it's none of our business what the newspapers choose to publish" is a perfectly reasonable one. If I was Danish, I probably wouldn't read that paper, but then by the sound of it, I probably wouldn't have been a reader anyway. Continuing the analogy, that would be like if the Texans boycotted the UK because of my flag-burning. |
|
The Liberal not-quite-Utopia of _Myopia_ Liberty with Compassion - La liberté et l'humanité | |
![]() |
|
| Ardchoille | Feb 7 2006, 02:04 AM Post #13 |
|
Figurehead, SS Petulant Snit
![]()
|
Okay. Here's a link to a blogger who's compiling a list of all blogsites that have published the cartoons, and here's a reprint of the Boston Globe's online satirical take, in which Hindus are reported as outraged because a Danish newspaper ran an ad for a supermarket sale of beef and veal. I'm a journalist, and I was proud a couple of days ago when our union president gave a decidedly balanced comment on the issue, ending (predictably) with a quote from Milton's Aeropatiga. He didn't say, "Publish and be damned", but I got the impression he wasn't solidly behind Australian newspapers' general no-publish decision. That was before the deaths. I was okay with the 'publish' decision when it seemed likely that the people doing the deciding would be the people taking the risks. I wouldn't really be thrilled to work in a building I knew was a target, but I'd have worn it. Besides, the more of us doing it, the harder to pin us all. Now it looks as if the people who are dying are the poor, the uninformed, the very people who are offended. And as if the people killing them are the same. So now I don't know. The article TBlack posted is everything Ausserland says. I should stop seeing it as an issue of 'free speech, right or wrong'. But am I just jumping at the first excuse to back down from a dangerous position? I wouldn't publish anti-Semitic cartoons. But I've laughed myself silly at cartoons mocking Christians, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas, Seventh-Day Adventists, Wiccans and New Agers. Did I see as 'mocking' what others saw as 'anti-'? Every 'yes' has a 'yes, but'. |
| I'm not the real me. | |
![]() |
|
| Knootoss | Feb 7 2006, 09:05 AM Post #14 |
![]()
Klingon-hater
![]()
|
Le Sigh. I hate these zionist organisations in our country...
|
|
~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the WA "If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words." | |
![]() |
|
| Knootoss | Feb 7 2006, 09:14 AM Post #15 |
![]()
Klingon-hater
![]()
|
ardchoille: *nod* |
|
~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the WA "If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words." | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Real World News · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic | 1:03 AM Jul 11 |














