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 (300 Views) | |
| Ecopoeia | Feb 7 2006, 11:27 AM Post #16 |
![]()
E-u-o-c-o-u-p-i-e-i-a-u-o-e-a
![]()
|
I'm on the side of the freedom of speech brigade, definitely, but I see no need to criticise the British media for not publishing. I do see a need to criticise the UK & US govts for their statements, though. That said, I think Ramadan's position is spot-on - let's not be afraid to criticise the insensitivity of the publishers, this is also freedom of speech. By the sounds of things the Danish rag that originally printed the pics is a nasty piece of work and I'm glad to see their motives questioned. However, freedom of speech is for right and left, as far as I'm concerned - I much prefer the more liberal approach of the US in this regard. Unlike the US, Europe has never really enshrined the priniciple (and given what happened in WWII, this should be of no surprise to anyone), hence the ongoing debates over whether or not to give the BNP a platform in the UK, for example. By the way, I wonder if Kenny remembers the debate over Freedom of Conscience. I was arguing against absolute freedom of expression back then... |
|
Enough is as good as a feast To Ill-Advisedly Go! | |
![]() |
|
| Ecopoeia | Feb 7 2006, 12:14 PM Post #17 |
![]()
E-u-o-c-o-u-p-i-e-i-a-u-o-e-a
![]()
|
Oh yeah, there was a timely South Park Xmas special on last night where Jesus went on a search and kill mission to find and save Santa from Iraqi torturers. Jesus was killed, leading Santa to declare that he wanted Xmas day to be remembered as the day when 'Jesus died to save me'. Offensive and funny - that's the way to do it. |
|
Enough is as good as a feast To Ill-Advisedly Go! | |
![]() |
|
| Ecopoeia | Feb 7 2006, 04:56 PM Post #18 |
![]()
E-u-o-c-o-u-p-i-e-i-a-u-o-e-a
![]()
|
Another interesting perspective We have lost our voice Moderate Muslims, from Denmark to the Middle East, are caught in the vice of a manufactured conflict Tabish Khair in Aarhus Tuesday February 7, 2006 The Guardian When I first saw them, I was struck by their crudeness. Surely Jyllands-Posten could have hired better artists. And surely cartoonists and editors ought to be able to spot the difference between Indian turbans and Arab ones. In some ways, that was the essence of the problem to begin with. It is this patronising tendency - stronger in Denmark than in countries such as Britain or Canada - that decided the course of the controversy and coloured the Danish reaction. One could see that the matter would take a turn for the worse when, late last year, the Danish prime minister refused to meet a group of Arab diplomats who wished to register their protest. In most other countries they would have been received, their protest accepted. The government would have expressed "regret" and told them it could not put pressure on any media outlet as a matter of law and policy. In their turn, having done their Muslim duty, these diplomats might have helped lessen the reaction in their respective countries. By not meeting them, the prime minister silenced all moderate Muslims just as effectively as they would be later silenced by militant Muslims around the world. Like many other moderate Muslims, I too have been silent on these cartoons of the prophet Muhammad and the ensuing protests. Not because I do not have anything to say, but because there is no space left for me either in Denmark or in many Muslim countries. This does not appear so to many Danes. Here the local controversy seems to be raging between two "Danish Muslim" public figures: Abu Laban, the Copenhagen-based imam who has coordinated much of the protest, and Nasser Khader, a member of the Danish parliament. Khader, liberal, clean-shaven, is posited against the bearded Abu Laban and seen as standing on the side of such "Danish" values as freedom of speech and democracy. He is supposed to represent sane and democratic Muslims. On the other hand, there is repeated talk of kicking Laban out of the country. In actual fact, of course, both Khader and Laban make it even more difficult for moderate Muslims to be heard. Laban is not afraid of being kicked out of Denmark, because it is not his political territory. Similarly, Khader does not depend on Danish Muslim votes for his survival in politics; he depends on the votes of mainstream Danes, and his politics are geared towards that end. The prime minister's refusal to meet the diplomats was also partly the result of local political considerations: his government is supported by the xenophobic and anti-Islamic Danish People's party. So much for Denmark, where complacency and smugness have reached extraordinary heights. In Muslim countries too we meet a similar string of local considerations. Surely the tensions between Hamas and Fatah played a role in the disturbances on the West Bank? Surely, some of the reactions - especially in Syria - were the working out of Islamic and pro-Iraqi frustrations on one of the allies of the US's invasion of Iraq? One could, of course, follow the Qur'an's injunction against portraying Allah or Muhammad without forcing it on people who do not share one's faith. But then the question arises: why should people who do not share one's faith bother with images of one's prophet? For the sake of freedom of expression, said Jyllands-Posten. The only thing expressed by the cartoons, however, was contempt for Muslims. But why, you might ask, should Islamic fundamentalists be worried about respect from a west that they mostly find unworthy of emulation? The answer to this lies in the histories of Islamic fundamentalism and European imperialism, aspects of which are horribly interlinked. As a reaction to European imperialism and, later, a political development of the west's fight against communism and socialism, Islamic fundamentalism is a quintessentially modern phenomenon. Hence, in their own way, Islamic fundamentalists are much more bothered about the opinion of "the west" than a person like me! The Danish government should have apologised long before it did - but was right not to act against Jyllands-Posten. Freedom of expression is necessary not because it is a God-given virtue, but because if you let the authorities start hacking away at it you are liable to be left with nothing. But along with the right to express comes the duty to consider the rights of others. This applies as much to Jyllands-Posten as to the mobs in Beirut. Between the Danish government and Islamist politicians, between Jyllands-Posten and the mobs in Beirut, between Laban and Khader, the moderate Muslim has again been effectively silenced. She has been forced to take this side or that; forced to stay home and let others crusade for a cause dear to her - freedom - and a cultural heritage essential to her: Islam. On TV she sees the bearded mobs rampage and the clean-shaven white men preach. In the clash of civilisations that is being rigorously manufactured, she is in between. And she can feel it getting tighter. She can feel the squeeze. But, of course, she cannot shout. She cannot scream. Come to think of it, can she really express herself at all now? · Tabish Khair is assistant professor of English at Aarhus University, Denmark, and author of The Bus Stopped |
|
Enough is as good as a feast To Ill-Advisedly Go! | |
![]() |
|
| Ecopoeia | Feb 9 2006, 03:27 PM Post #19 |
![]()
E-u-o-c-o-u-p-i-e-i-a-u-o-e-a
![]()
|
More: Our media must give Muslims the chance to debate with each other We used to say 'When in Rome do as the Romans'; but Rome is now Tunis, Cairo and Tirana, while London is all the world Timothy Garton Ash Thursday February 9, 2006 The Guardian Facing me in my living room, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed says a Danish cartoonist who insulted the prophet should be tried in an Islamic court and then "he will be executed according to Islamic rules". Of course the Syrian-born Islamic cleric is not physically sitting in my living room; he's on a television screen, live from Beirut, where the Danish embassy has just been trashed by demonstrators. That makes the death threat only slightly less threatening. Imagine how it feels to be one of those Danish cartoonists. For centuries, there has been a good rule for the coexistence of civilisations. It said: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." Globalisation has undermined that rule. Because of mass migration, peoples and their cultures are physically mixed up together. Rome is no longer just Rome; it's also Tunis, Cairo and Tirana. Birmingham is also Kashmir and the Punjab, while London is all the world. Because of worldwide mass media, there is no longer such a thing as local offence or local intimidation. Everything can reach everyone. Competing cultures try to spread their norms around the globe: George Bush for western-style democracy, Pope Benedict XVI for Catholicism, Omar Bakri Mohammed for sharia. How should we live in this brave new world? How can we stay free in it? Like most of my friends, I have been agonising about this over the past week. We feel this is a defining moment, for all who live in Europe. And we know that there are no simple answers. The least bad outcome will be a painful compromise between the universal right to free speech - the oxygen of all other freedoms - and the need for voluntary self-restraint in such a mixed-up world. One thing, however, I know with certainty: violence, or the direct threat of violence, of the kind we have seen in the past few days, is totally unjustified as a response to any published word or image. That is the first thing to be said. I have been saddened to see British politicians and commentators, particularly on the left, hesitating for a long moment to say so clearly, or feeling it necessary to say other things first. (Do you want to leave the defence of free speech and non-violence to David Davis?) I have also been saddened, though hardly surprised, by the weakness of the EU's reaction to the criminal attack on the Danish embassy in Syria, which seems to have been permitted, if not actively encouraged, by the Syrian regime. We should have said: when you burn the Danish flag you burn our flag. Why weren't all EU ambassadors instantly withdrawn from Damascus in protest? Violence or the direct threat of violence - as in those posters held by London protesters that read "Behead Those Who Insult Islam" - is both morally unjustified and, rightly, brings the threat of criminal prosecution. It is right that Abu Hamza has been convicted for incitement to murder. (Incidentally, this shows that we do not need a new offence of glorification of terrorism, since he was convicted under existing laws.) Those Danish cartoons were offensive, perhaps even abusive - and I was not in favour of their re-publication in various European newspapers - but they were not threatening to any particular group or individuals. They are in no way comparable with a death threat to individual cartoonists or torching an embassy - with people dying in the process. And let's not have any of that tired old higher nonsense about "structural violence" or "repressive tolerance". This violence was unjustified and criminal, but perhaps it was also effective. One way of looking at the self-restraint of the British media over the past week is to say how responsible, pragmatic and sensitively multicultural they all were. Alternatively you might say they were scared of having their offices burned. Was it wisdom with a seasoning of fear, or rather fear packaged as wisdom? Throughout history, violence has often paid off, but the struggle of civilisation against barbarism is to ensure that it doesn't. That said, the question remains: how to strike the balance between free speech and mutual respect in this mixed-up world, both blessed and cursed with instant communication? We should not fight fire with fire, threats with threats. The danger at this critical moment is that we will see the beginning of a vicious spiral, with Muslim extremists blowing wind into the sails of anti-Muslim extremists (such as Nick Griffin of the BNP, and how I wish he had been convicted a couple of days before Abu Hamza), whose violent language in turn drives more moderate Muslims to support the jihadists, and so on down. But I do not agree with yesterday's Guardian leader when it said that the BBC's Today programme was wrong to broadcast an interview with Omar Bakri Muhammad, who was also interviewed by Channel 4 news. On the contrary, I think the British media have done exactly what they should by letting us hear the voices of Muslim extremists but setting them against moderate and reasonable Muslim voices, as well as those of non-Muslims. There was a riveting discussion on Newsnight, in which two British Muslim women calmly argued with the ranting, demagogic, but in style and accent also recognisably British, extremist Anjem Choudary, of the al-Ghuraba groupuscule. Perhaps it would have been better still if the discussion had been chaired by, say, Zeinab Badawi rather than Jeremy Paxman; but the essential point is that it provided a civilised platform on which Muslims could argue with fellow Muslims. Reporters sweepingly write of "Muslim anger" erupting across the world, but many British Muslims are as angry with the jihadist provocateurs as they are with the Danish cartoonists, as we will doubtless see in the demonstration planned by British Muslims in London this Saturday. The temptation, to which too many are succumbing, is to see this as a showdown between Islam and Europe or the west (although, for once, the US has been somewhat out of the firing line). That is how extremists want to frame the argument, as in the poster waved outside the Danish embassy in London: "Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer". But the real dividing line is between moderates and extremists on both sides, between men and women of reason and dialogue, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, and men and women of hatred, such as Abu Hamza or Nick Griffin. Not for the first time in recent history, the means are more important than the ends. In fact, the means you choose determine where you'll end up. This is not a war, and it's not going to be won or lost by the west. It's an argument inside Islam and inside Europe, where millions of Muslims already live. If reason prevails over hate, it will be because most British, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Danish and altogether European Muslims prevail over their own extremist minorities. We non-Muslim Europeans can contribute to that outcome, by our policies abroad, towards Iraq, Iran, Israel and Palestine, and at home, on immigration, education, jobs and so forth. We can also contribute by cultural sensitivity and self-restraint, but we cannot compromise on the essentials of a free society. Offering platforms of civilised free speech for European Muslims to conduct their debate with each other, as the British media have done this week, is one of the best answers we can give to hate. |
|
Enough is as good as a feast To Ill-Advisedly Go! | |
![]() |
|
| Ecopoeia | Feb 13 2006, 11:43 AM Post #20 |
![]()
E-u-o-c-o-u-p-i-e-i-a-u-o-e-a
![]()
|
NS responds! Violent Violetists Protest Artists The Issue Several musicians have recently produced songs in which "Violet" sings silly and offensive things, causing outcries of horror from the Order of Violet. The Debate 1. "THIS IS BLASPHEMY!" shouts Chastity Broadside, Grand High Poobah of the Order of Violet. "Our holy scriptures specifically forbid any portrayal of our prophet's most holy voice. We cannot permit people to slander and mock our prophet and insult all of us. These people are simply doing this to see if we are extremists. Death to the blasphemers!" [Accept] 2. Speaking anonymously and from hiding, one of the musicians says, "It was just meant to be a joke! I never thought that they'd take it so seriously. I just wanted to give them a little ribbing like I do the other major religions of Pastafarianism and Frisbeetarianism." Charles Falopian glances over their shoulder to see if anyone is watching, "Please don't try to figure out who I am. I'm scared for my safety. The government should protect my freedom to insult whomever I want. Freedom of speech should hold nothing sacred, not even God." This is the position your government is preparing to adopt. 3. "Freedom of speech is important, but so is freedom of religion. Surely we can strike some sort of balance?" says Anne-Marie Dodinas, chief spokesperson for the WSOC (the Whitstable Society of Compromisers). "Freedom of speech comes with a responsibility. People must avoid anything that insults another's religion, and if they aren't willing to do it themselves, the government must enforce it." [Accept] 4. "His Holiness, the Grand High Poobah of Violet, has the right idea, but doesn't take it far enough," says Elizabeth Wu, says the Prelate of Primary Public Relations for the fanatical organization Whitstable's Concerned Citizens for Our God. "This nation needs an official religion, and not support the Godless heathens who worship the idolotrous Violet. Appoint me as your spiritual adviser an I'll ensure that all people worship God in the correct way." [Accept] 5. "They've got it all wrong. Freedom of speech isn't the problem, religion is!" shouts Roger Hendrikson, at a local AA (Atheists Anonymous) meeting. "If religion were outlawed, this problem would solve itself. Just send them in for medical treatment. After all, anyone who believes in some big invisible dude who can do anything is clearly nuts." [Accept] The Government Position The government has indicated its intention to follow the recommendations of Option 2. If you wish, you may simply dismiss this issue. Issue by: The Game Administrator's Realm of SalusaSecondus Editor: SalusaSecondus |
|
Enough is as good as a feast To Ill-Advisedly Go! | |
![]() |
|
| Hirota | Feb 13 2006, 12:32 PM Post #21 |
![]()
|
Clearly common sense prevails within the UK media. It's not something I'd ever thought I would say beforehand, but if the worst the Blighty media does is publish a censored version, then clearly the British media are a more intelligent bunch than I first thought. I've seen them too, and whilst they don't really affect me, I can appreciate how they could offend. Add into that how it is perceived by some that the west is attacking their values, and you can understand that their actions are a reaction to those perceived attacks. I'm not saying their actions (such as burning embassies etc) are justified, I'm saying that I appreciate they have their reasons. Well, propaganda is hardly a new thing. I disagree, the French should certainly apologise given their track record on suppressing freedom of expression in schools. If pupils are banned from religious symbols in school, then that’s an infringement on freedom of expression. It strokes me as hypocritical. There is a reason for that – it’s called common sense. Just like Europe did with Iraq I’m sure. I did not see much unity and solidarity in Europe then. |
![]() |
|
| Groot Gouda | Feb 13 2006, 02:41 PM Post #22 |
![]()
|
I admire the Britisch for not giving in to populists whose only goal is to throw oil on the fire. Sure, it's a basic right that one can publish nearly everything one wants, but in the Netherlands, I wouldn't call it free speech. All that we are garantueed is a lack of state censorship. That doesn't mean that everything can and should be published. Republishing those cartoons now might be an excellent way to show freedom of the press, but serves no other purpose but to make things worse and insult. The freedom of speech also means that one has to take responsibility and not say everything just for the sake of being able to say so. There will be a time when muslims will get used to cartoons about their prophet, but that time isn't now. (although those outraged by this are not proper muslims, of course. Proper muslims are not allowed to worship anyone other than Allah, so that excludes Mohammed. Those protesting now are violating the will of Allah by worshipping a prophet and by not leaving judgement to Allah, but judging themselves.) |
|
Sincerely, Michel (Mr April) Groot Gouda Member of the International Democratic Union. Writer of the Sex Industry Worker Act, the Natural Disaster Act and The Right to Form Unions. | |
![]() |
|
| Ecopoeia | Feb 13 2006, 02:47 PM Post #23 |
![]()
E-u-o-c-o-u-p-i-e-i-a-u-o-e-a
![]()
|
Well, the reason for not publishing images of Mohammed is that idolatry is unacceptable. And the cartoons are hardly idolatry. In other words, many of the protestors are really fucking wrong. |
|
Enough is as good as a feast To Ill-Advisedly Go! | |
![]() |
|
| TBlack | Feb 13 2006, 03:03 PM Post #24 |
|
The baby killer
![]()
|
Actually art depicting living things in general, to Sunnis is considered shirk as only God (not Allah, Allah is just the Arabic word for God) is allowed to create. Some Sunni Muslims believe pictures that depict nature realistically (not interpret or invent). Shi’ite Muslims have a tradition of depicting the Prophet and the key figures (such as the Imams) in art But 'proper Muslims' are called to respect the Prophet. He was a prototype for human perfection. I'm not sure weather the commands about respecting him come from the Qur'an or Hadith so I can't be certain how reliable that ruling is, but it is a part of Islam. It can be shirk to ask that he not be depicted disrespectfully but not necessarily, it would depend where the individuals intentions come from. |
|
"You would think it obvious to anyone, with a grain of intelligence, that there are far too many people born in England." .:I'm melting!: http://alwaysautumn.etsy.com :. | |
![]() |
|
| Flibbleites | Feb 13 2006, 05:05 PM Post #25 |
![]()
|
Is that the new issue? |
|
The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites Founder and Regional Delegate of Final Fantasy Another HotRodian puppet Mr November | |
![]() |
|
| Ecopoeia | Feb 13 2006, 05:19 PM Post #26 |
![]()
E-u-o-c-o-u-p-i-e-i-a-u-o-e-a
![]()
|
Yup. A couple of my nations got it today. |
|
Enough is as good as a feast To Ill-Advisedly Go! | |
![]() |
|
| Flibbleites | Feb 13 2006, 05:57 PM Post #27 |
![]()
|
And all I got was the old Violent Violetists one.
|
|
The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites Founder and Regional Delegate of Final Fantasy Another HotRodian puppet Mr November | |
![]() |
|
| Yelda | Feb 13 2006, 06:17 PM Post #28 |
|
Godmodding Blatherskite
![]()
|
Two of my puppets got it. I had one pick option #2 and the other pick #3. |
| OMGwtf | |
![]() |
|
| Gruenberg | Feb 13 2006, 06:19 PM Post #29 |
![]()
|
Gruenberg picked #1; my nice puppets picked #2 or, in one case, #5. |
|
[size0]Everything that can be done visibly in this world can be done by demons. For an organisation that likes to think of itself as elite, [UNOG] doesn't have the highest of standards when it comes to membership. -- Cluichstan | |
![]() |
|
| Knootoss | Feb 13 2006, 07:45 PM Post #30 |
![]()
Klingon-hater
![]()
|
I picked #2 on that issue. Sooo tempted to pick #5. ![]() Groot Gouda... I must disagree. The Dutch constitution is actually fairly limited on this issue:
However we are also signatory to various treaties which enshrine freedom of speech in a much stronger fashion. The European Convention on Human Rights notably goes much further. According to Article 10. of that Convention freedom of expression may only be limited if this is done by known law and if limitation is needed for a fixed number of circumstances. (National security, preventing crimes, to preserve the neutrality of the judiciary). Not insulting other peoples religion is specifically not mentioned. The European Court on Human Rights has ruled on this as well. (EHRM 24 februari 1997, de Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium - thank you wikipedia.)
|
|
~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the WA "If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words." | |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Real World News · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic | 1:03 AM Jul 11 |










