June 08, 2008
Look What You Made Me Do!Issues
One of the classic ways abusers internally deflect responsibility is via a twisted transferance of blame to the victim. In other words, it was something little Tommy had done (or heck, simply who he was) that made Dad (and, alas, it’s usually Dad) beat him black and blue.
What makes the dialectic particulalry insidious is that should Tommy accept the blame, the abuse leaps from being merely physical into psychological & emotional. In that strange realm, Tommy’s self-sufficiency & worth plummets as Good/Bad is no longer something he can independently judge for himself but rather, becomes wholly determined by the tormentor’s chosen response.
Sadly, the recent bombings of the Danish embassy in Pakistan has brought forth language that’s more fitting a domestic abuse case than international diplomacy -
Fauzia Mufti Abbas, Pakistan’s ambassador to Denmark, agreed that the Mohammed cartoons, first published in Jyllands-Posten newspaper in October 2005, had incited Muslim anger and were possibly the motivation for the attack, which killed eight and wounded as many as 30.
‘It isn’t just the people of Pakistan that feel they have been harassed by what your newspaper has begun,’ she said. ‘I’d like to know if your newspaper is satisfied with what it has done and what it has unleashed?’
Thankfully, the Dane’s recognize their values have worth & aren’t willing to accept blame -
Jørn Mikkelsen, Jyllands-Posten’s editor-in-chief, defended his newspaper’s decision to print the cartoons.
‘The decision to do so was in full accordance with Danish law, Danish press ethics and Danish press traditions. That the facts have been twisted in the rest of the world and misused for purposes that are no concern of Jyllands-Posten is something we can and will not take responsibility for.’
Bravo. The real criminals are the ones hurling bombs, not operating printing presses.
vinod on June 8, 2008 01:53 PM in Issues · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
hm. "The real criminals" presupposes a particular worldview, which i share. but, i have noticed that hindus and sikhs in india and immigrants to england of these groups (judging by accent) have used some of the same language as muslims in regards to hurt feelings, i.e., that free speech does not exist to allow for hurting religious feelings (i recall that language specifically during the case of the theater which the sikhs were objecting to a few years back). so i think this is to some extent a worldview difference, as evidenced from what i recall by a muslim commenter on this weblog who argued that free speech was simply an ends toward amicable intercommunal relations, as opposed to a fundamental and atomic individual right which was an ends in and of itself (and europeans might share the muslim view to some extent, ask briget bardot ;-).
also, as an empirical matter i think we have to remember that in many societies religious truths are held sacred and inviolable in a way that they are not in the west. in fact, i can enter into the public record that some muslims (immigrants) in college found my open expressal of atheism when they asked if i was a muslim rather disturbing (i think most "bad muslims" will admit they're not that religious, but i would simply state i don't believe in god and thought religion was silly). i have heard repeatedly the analogy between denial of the holocaust laws which suppress free speech in europe and protection of religious sensibilities. my gut reaction is twofold: 1) i do reject the moral foundation of these laws, but, 2) the holocaust was the murder of around 10 million people* by industrialized means. qualitatively that to me is very different from insulting a non-existent supernatural entity or his/her prophet/ but obviously for many religious believers the incineration of 10 million human beings is morally comparable to their hurt religious feelings since they do make that comparison** (if you integrate over 1 billion individuals perhaps, i don't know how you'd measure this).
p.s. i was in rural bangladesh in 1989 when l'affaire rushdie broke out and was asked to interpret some of the bizarre pamphlets about orgies and sex parties which involved the prophet & his wives in *the satanic verses*. some of the anger is partly due to the fact that what happens in denmark probably got wildly misrepresented.
* i'm using a round number because i am to understand that a large number of non-jewish groups were also targeted, e.g., gypsies and to a lesser extent various slavic groups.
** some animal rights groups use the analogy with chickens and pro-life activists abortion, so it's a powerful argument if you accept their premises.
john haidt on foundations of morality. i think part of the difference is that non-westerners have different a moral calculus than college-educated westerners (note that most americans believe we should ban flag-burning, but cultural elites generally veto these sorts of laws [e.g., antonin scalia ruled that that law was unconstitutional!]).
Aside from the points mentioned, it is also worth noting that we don't have a holocaust denial ban in Denmark.
Your metaphor doesn't work for me, Vinod. The Danish Embassy is not a child to the Pakistani car bombers. The fundamental problem here is that what Danish law permits may not be what other people and cultures permit, and it is certainly revolutionary to expect some corresponding respect from Europeans regarding other cultures. Although bombs aren't necessarily the best agent of change, they do tend to be used in the context of most revolutions, when other measures fail.
Here is the problem: We have recently emerged from 500 years of Europeans acting on legal authority conferred on them by their monarchs and home governments in lands where those monarchs and governments had no sovereign rights or authority. To redress the balance, where there is governmental as well as societal resistance to respecting the priorities of other cultures, as the Danes have shown there is, there needs must be some sort of confrontation with that government.
Judge Scalia's decision is correct in the context of constitutional rights the United States-- his decision may not be correctly applied in China, with respect to burning the Chinese flag, viz., see Ramchandra Guha on Mumbaikers pelting an image of Mao with eggs as a prelude to the 1962 war.
I agree with Fauzia Mufti Abbas.
A while ago, I published a three part article on blogcritics, The Last Mughal and The First Empress at
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/05/20/164413.php
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/05/20/164556.php and
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/05/20/164836.php
which elicited some erudite commentary as well.
We have recently emerged from 500 years of Europeans acting on legal authority conferred on them by their monarchs and home governments in lands where those monarchs and governments had no sovereign rights or authority.
the nation-state system is a lot younger than 500 years. and to a large extent 'legal authority' even today is a fig-leaf for the law of the jungle.... (i know whereof i speak as an american ;-)
Judge Scalia's decision is correct in the context of constitutional rights the United States-- his decision may not be correctly applied in China, with respect to burning the Chinese flag, viz., see Ramchandra Guha on Mumbaikers pelting an image of Mao with eggs as a prelude to the 1962 war.
yes, but the problem is that many muslims abroad want act as if blasphemy on danish soil is something they should be able to affect via international law. no one wants to impose civilization on the savages here, we just want to preserve the individual rights secured by the centuries long battle against superstitious barbarism which reigns supreme in most of the world. luckily there's always the USA where such rights are secured not by the fickle will of the majority but constitutional fiat...assuming our judges interpret the law "correctly" :-)
i think state sanctioned multiculturalism pretty much is the death knell for unbridled free speech. on the margins a liberal society can accommodate diversity, but when you have too much superstitious cacophany there's just too much possibility for anomie....
To redress the balance, where there is governmental as well as societal resistance to respecting the priorities of other cultures, as the Danes have shown there is, there needs must be some sort of confrontation with that government.
ah, the wages of the danish empire! creating civilizational blocks when done by the likes of huntington is ignorant, but we can talk about europeans in a general sense and their collective sin with no guilt :-)
hunh... Is Abbas saying that the bombers were right to kill and maim and they should not be punished?
Dude's lost it. Somebody give him a large wedgie with his chagga.
6 · razib said
ah, the wages of the danish empire! creating civilizational blocks when done by the likes of huntington is ignorant, but we can talk about europeans in a general sense and their collective sin with no guilt :-)
I know huh? Not that I necessarily agree with the Danish government, it is very right-wing and I've heard a few unpleasant experiences of coloured travelleres there. Nevertheless it's never OK to generalize. It's like saying all Indians are the same.
i wonder what really offends the western civilization ?
This is not totally relevant to Vinod's post, but in the larger issue of Muslim/Sikh/Hindu/etc responses to affronts to their religious/cultural/etc sensibilities, why haven't economic actions become more popular?
E.g. instead of bombing an embassy, a "don't buy Danish/etc" campaign would be more successful, wouldn't it? I'm sure Danish firms like Maersk (shipping), Lego (toys) and the internationally well-known Danish butter cookies would rather their govts do something to settle such issues than suffer massive sales drops?
The same thing could be said of the Sikh campaign in the 80s. Given the Punjab's "granary of India" status then, it might have been more successful to impose an economic blockade or something similar than try to attack the military.
Of course, using economic action implies huge organizational and PR skills, without which it's moot and a embassy bombing is an easier, faster way to hit your target. And I realize that there was talk of a boycott of Danish goods the 1st time the cartoons were printed, but I don't think it was that successful.
Appropriating the tactics used against South Africa etc. would also be one way of acting in a "Western"-sanctioned manner.
i wonder what really offends the western civilization ?
this. people should burn effigies in the same of such abomination, but that's just my values speaking (smeared feces on a koran don't really rise to the level of notice outside of my hypochondria).
Nevertheless it's never OK to generalize
actually, i think it is OK. it just comes across very clumsily in words. but if you're talking about probabilities, distributions, etc. in terms of your confidences it becomes more clear. i was more wanting to emphasize the double-standards at work with this sort of thing.
9 · Priya said
I mean excepting racial abuses or anything that violates human rights.
I mean excepting racial abuses or anything that violates human rights.
two points
1) there's a lot of interpretation on what counts as "human rights" or "racial" abuse
2) there is A LOT that offends people. A LOT (i say this as a person who offends all the time). but the masses have become habituated to the fact that their elites will tend to set a REALLY high bar in sanctioning the suppression of what offends the public moral sense. the protection of offensive speech is essential proof-of-principle, it's not a bug, it's the most extreme illustration of principle.
7 · khoofia said
Fauzia M. Abbas is probably female.
9 · Priya said
Wearing white after Labor Day.
Maybe if the Danish troops in Afghanistan got together for regular soccer games with the Pakistani Frontier Corps, this would help defuse the situation.
;-)
Moral Issues Divide Westerners From Muslims in the West,
homosexual acts - % of respondents who say it is "morally acceptable"
berlin muslims - 26%
paris muslims - 18%
london muslims - 4%
religious americans - 28%
us public - 48%
german public - 68%
french public - 81%
uk public - 66%
there's a difference in the zeitgeist. perhaps we should split the difference with western muslims minorities for the sake of multicultural amity? some acts are OK, some acts are not OK :-)
What is the Danish government supposed to do to "settle such issues"?
#10
I don't believe Pakistan is a big market for Lego or cookies. Nor is India for that matter.
while that may be accurate, it is also a fact that in western societies, the sensitivities towards non-western religions are not given as much respect as is given to their western counterparts.
well, that's a complicated issue and varies by nation to nation and situation by situation. e.g., in most liberal secular circles it's actually more OK to attack western religions because it's familiar, while non-western religions are seen as authentic expressions of marginalized voices. in more conservative religious circles, yes, the double standard does apply. how the governments in societies like canada applies anti-free speech oriented laws also varies according to this calculus. e.g., anti-porn legislation inspired by feminist principles in 1980s canada were famously used as instruments by conservatives to censor homosexual content disproportionately! similarly, anti-homosexual diatribes by christian conservatives probably are more on the radar in parts of canada as "hate" because christian conservatives are seen as a clear and present danger and muslim religious conservatives are not.
"clear and present danger"
this is an interesting point. avoiding the issue of whether muslims face threats on the scale of jews in 1930s germany because of anti-muslim hate, it is important to note that the objection to something like the danish cartoons in much of the muslim world is not because they foment anti-muslim hate or arouse a climate of danger. rather, they're offended at the blasphemy against their religion.
20 · ak said
Uhhh...really?
Isn't Christianity mocked endlessly in North America and Europe? At this point it is more taboo in the West to mock Islam than it is to mock Christianity.
At this point it is more taboo in the West to mock Islam than it is to mock Christianity.
taboo? look, i think people are scared :-) i mean my friends have never emailed me to suggest that i should be more cautious about mocking christianity or hinduism beause they're worried about me....
(but as i said, i think the taboo varies by subculture. if you want to hear anti-muslim invective just hang out with evangelical christians; they are quite militant atheists save for one god :-)
btw, i have to jet, but look up pew attitudes toward evangelical christians and muslims for USA. liberals are the least hostile toward muslims and most hostile toward evangelical xtians, with inversions for conservatives. the nonreligious are actually the most tolerant of muslims. american muslims of course aren't as primitive as the european rabble, and they're not as numerous.
Razib, you are very active on this thread, and I'm sure you're speaking as an American to the best of your ability, but this isn't about the nation-state system. Read what I wrote-- carefully, if you can.
Also just because you ban "hate speech" doesn't mean you have eliminated hate against some groups. Islamist groups that try to stifle anti-Islam speech are not sitfling anti-Islam ideas and sentiments. These ideas and sentiments fester and simply move underground. I think these attempts by CAIR, et al to prevent anyone from voicing anti-Islamic ideas is going to backfire.
The defense of those islamophobic cartoons as 'freedom of speech' is disingenuous.
It overlooks the perlocutionary speech act performed by the cartoonists to convince the public against the credibility of Islam. By ridiculing Muslims as fanatics, and Islam as a fairy tale these danish cartoonists have essentially silenced the perlocutionary power of a Muslim's speech act when it comes to important matters. Furthermore these types of depictions of Islam also silences the illocutionary power of a Muslim's act of speech when it comes to the right of self-determination on their own land (Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir etc).
By allowing for the freedom of speech of the cartoonists, you are thus censoring the speech of Muslims. Therefore this is a case of freedom of speech of one group vs that of another.
While I do not condone violence, it is one of the few outlets to express frustration when your speech is silenced and ridiculed as frivolous.
So, on that analysis, violence looks inevitable (or, at least, likely) no matter what we do. If it's a trade-off of free speech rights between "groups," then if we allow the cartoons, we stifle Muslim speech; if we forbid the cartoons, we stifle the cartoonists; and, apparently, in neither case can we be too surprised if the stifled resort to one of their "few outlets"--violence.
I seriously hope Amrita and George A are parodies. It it is frightening to believe that there are so many people for whom the Danish embassy bombings are not only justifiable and excusable, but also laudable.
24 · JGandhi said
I think everybody mocks somebody subtly or overtly in the normal course of life as in the interactions between different communities, regions, nations etc etc. The question is what "mocking" is ok and comes under the realm of liberalism and freedom of expression ? Don't know why printed, spoken words or theatre/movies needn't have such "high" standards of civiilty and tolerance whereas if in the act of anger of child abuse by the church, I garland the statue of Jesus or if I burn the US national flag for the Abu Gharib atrocities, it will not be acceptable. More than freedom of expression I think it is a question of whether "retribution" and what kind of "retribution" is acceptable or not.
32 · Priya said
I meant garland the statur of Jesus with footwear
If I understand correctly...
1. Danes print stupid cartoons.
2. Pakistani Muslims get in a lather.
3. Promptly set off a bomb in Pakistan and kill/injure many other Pakistanis.
Shabaash!
Sounds like you do condone violence. I let my 2 year old get whatever she wants when she lies down on the floor and bawls while refusing to budge, that's just good parenting. And adults throwing explosive tantrums to relieve peevishness, that's just good international citizenship.
32 · Priya said
Where are these not acceptable?
I agree. :-)
One good thing is that I'm improving my vocabulary. I was not aware of the words perlocutionary and illocutionary before.
I garland the statue of Jesus or if I burn the US national flag for the Abu Gharib atrocities, it will not be acceptable.
it will be legal and protected so long as you aren't violating property rights or something in the *united states*.
I let my 2 year old get whatever she wants when she lies down on the floor and bawls while refusing to budge, that's just good parenting. And adults throwing explosive tantrums to relieve peevishness, that's just good international citizenship.
well, i was on a liberal weblog once and some people defended the actions of muslims by an analogy with a person with down syndrome. they aren't responsible for their actions because they're not really full agents. how can you expect people like that be "good international citizens".
Razib, you are very active on this thread, and I'm sure you're speaking as an American to the best of your ability, but this isn't about the nation-state system. Read what I wrote-- carefully, if you can.
i did. stuff about legal authority on an international scope only matters after westphalia (1648), and especially after the treaty of vienna in 1814. the latter date is more important because i don't believe that the age of white supremacy for most post-colonial cultures (as opposed to those who went extinct or were obliterated as in oz & and the new world) shows up until after 1800 (the power difference in terms of technology wasn't that great even in the 18th century, as evidenced by the fact that the ottomans managed to beat back both the austrians and russians at various periods).
I was not aware of the words perlocutionary and illocutionary before.
sir, demz fightin' words!
So, mocking someone offends them and because they are offended they are effectively silenced? Can't they just mock back? Wouldn't "cheese eating surrender monkeys" work equally well in the Danish context? That way, both sides would be offended and consequently silenced, with much less headache for bomb disposal crews.
When Iranians et al burn an American flag and chant "Death to America" and "Death to the Non-Believers" for the benefit of Al-Jazeera, an act which is deeply offensive to a number of Americans, can they be expected to take responsibility for American violent retaliation? Symbolically destroying the Americans essentially silences the perlocutionary power of an American's speech act when it comes to important matters (can't speak if you no longer exist); moreover these types of depictions of America also silences the illocutionary power of an American's act of speech when it comes to advocating the spread of civilized ideologies (Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Nicaragua). Since the goverment of Iran doesn't seem to be inclined to stop this kind of behaviour, there may only be one avenue left to the silenced Americans. I wonder if they'll take it....
I may not know much about linguistics (along with history, biology and science books) but I do know that voicing an opinion does not automatically equal prohibiting someone from voicing a contrary opinion. Satire (such as my tongue in cheek comment about civilized ideologies above) does not equal censorship.
I may not know much about linguistics (along with history, biology and science books) but I do know that voicing an opinion does not automatically equal prohibiting someone from voicing a contrary opinion. Satire (such as my tongue in cheek comment about civilized ideologies above) does not equal censorship.
silence! mine ears are offended by such heteronormative eurocentric talk! ;-)
Razib, that's a brilliant example of a sentence with diametrically opposed illocutionary and perlocutionary meanings!
watch you what say kufar!
34 · Allahback, girl! said
Thats the funny part. It didn't kill one Danish citizen nor any westerner excepting (from what I have read) a Brazilian female who was working in the Danish embassy besides the Pakis.
Thats the funny part
remember when hindus and muslims rioted and killed each other because of something jerry falwell said in the USA that was anti-muslim? f**king 'tards.
Just like that Sam Cook song... The Danes seem to be a bit more sensible than the French who fight hate by convicting Bridget Bardot.
Speech is about more than just uttering words. Muslims may voice a contrary opinion, but a constant degradation of their religion means that anything a Muslim says is perceived as being far less worthy of consideration than the same thing said by a non-Muslim.
In the media, a Muslim person expressing an opinion on a serious issue is usually qualified as being a 'moderate', so as to distance that person from Muslim masses who are deemed incapable of making a rational contribution even to issues that directly affect them.
Would you not agree that if instead of George, I had an Arab Islamic name like 'Abdullah Bin Ali' there is a good chance the reaction here would have been far less dignified ?
The West is unable to have a productive peaceful dialogue with the Islamic world because it derides everything they stand for as stupid and barbaric from the get go.
Just to be perfectly clear I would much rather we resolve these differences through discussion, failing that would advocate some type of Ghandhian civil disobedience. But I do find it a bit ironic that the Danish cartoons are lauded as somehow being heroic examples of freedom of speech. Particularly so in a blog that discusses issues facing a South Asians, when you consider the parallels between the current perlocutionary silencing of Muslims and silencing of indigenous people under colonialism, where the natives were deemed to be incapable of self-determination.
The West is unable to have a productive peaceful dialogue with the Islamic world because it derides everything they stand for as stupid and barbaric from the get go.
if the shoe fits....
Just to be perfectly clear I would much rather we resolve these differences through discussion
also george, i note you have have a web link for CAIR-canada. i suspect if this website wasn't hosted out of north dakota but on a canadian server you might want to take it a bit further than discussion, right?
In the media, a Muslim person expressing an opinion on a serious issue is usually qualified as being a 'moderate', so as to distance that person from Muslim masses who are deemed incapable of making a rational contribution even to issues that directly affect them.
muslims are labeled as moderate because in the last 10 years a series of acts of major terrorism have been committed by muslims in major western cities (new york, madrid and london). if anglicans started blowing themselves on buses i'm sure we'd make sure to label anglicans 'moderate' as well when it is appropriate. racism, colonialism and prejudice exist. so what? blacks in the arab world experience all that as well but none of them blow themselves up. the 'vigor' with which muslims make their presence felt when they feel aggrieved strongly suggests that they don't need to be coddled and protected from insulting speech.
This is hilarious. Is this going to be the official Pakistani position on the blast? The Pakistani elite has fastidiously played its role of keepers of the barbarians for decades. Even today morning, a suited-booted Husain Haqqani was with Wolf Blitzer, articulately arguing for more co-operation between CIA and ISI, and bemoaning Pakistan's terrorism problem. This doesn't gel with the script. Maybe Pakistan doesn't think Denmark is important enough to warrant the hand-wringing parade. Or is this a signifier of a major change within Pakistan. Lets see if Pakistan apologizes for the faux pas.
Thus far, George A has accused the cartoons of "preventing Muslim self-determination" and equated them to 300 year run of European colonialism. Who knew? Apparently the pen really is mightier than the sword.
>
Not really. It might help if you quit using buzzwords like "perlocutionary" to excuse the inexcusable, though. Such a paradigm is not sufficiently out of the box to leverage synergy.
Seriously, dude, tell me you're a troll. You read like a National Review cartoon strawman.
Speedy
sakshi, stop trying to engage in perlocutionary silencing of pakistanis. you are clearly one who perceives them as barbaric and violent from the get-go (oh, i wonder why!).
You read like a National Review cartoon strawman.
i was thinking the same thing!
For the other ignoranti like me:
per·lo·cu·tion·ar·y
–adjective Philosophy, Linguistics.
(of a speech act) producing an effect upon the listener, as in persuading, frightening, amusing, or causing the listener to act.
Incidentally, I do not perceive Pakistanis as any more inherently barbaric than Indians. I do feel that the Pakistani elite completely abdicated their responsibility post-Independence, and played a hypocritical game of out-Islamizing each other just to keep their tenuous hold on power. The Zia-ul-Huq years fucked Pakistan up for good.
btw, I realized you were being sarcastic :) (that was not clear from my comment).
One final comment, to clarify I am not defending the attack on the Danish embassy or any other terrorist incident.
What bothers me is that the Jyllands-Posten cartoons are made out to be emblems of free speech. Far from a fruitful exchange of ideas, the cartoons along innumerable with other such acts conducted under the shelter of free speech have lead to the marginalization (de facto 'silencing') of Muslim voices.
It was not my intent to equate colonialism with problems facing Muslims. I just wanted to give an example of a case where a group of people had been silenced, not literally, but by denying them any authority to speak seriously on some of the biggest issues that faced them. I apologize if anyone was offended by this comparison.
Many people, Americans in particular, ideologically ascribe to freedom of speech without rationally considering its implications. Hopefully you can read my comments with an open mind to understand a different perspective, even if you ultimately choose to reject it.
Peace.
Note: The views expressed here are my own, and not those of CAIR-CAN.
"I do feel that the Pakistani elite completely abdicated their responsibility post-Independence, and played a hypocritical game of out-Islamizing each other just to keep their tenuous hold on power. The Zia-ul-Huq years fucked Pakistan up for good."
sakshi, your words hurt my feelings and i feel it may result in social injustice. can you email me your real name so i can make sure to sue you if you enter kanada?
thank you,
illiberally yours & proud
What bothers me is that the Jyllands-Posten cartoons are made out to be emblems of free speech. Far from a fruitful exchange of ideas, the cartoons along innumerable with other such acts conducted under the shelter of free speech have lead to the marginalization (de facto 'silencing') of Muslim voices.
your personal assertion that muslims are being marginalized and 'silenced' (why the quotes???) doesn't speak to whether muslims are truly being marginalized or 'silenced.' since i'm not sure what 'silenced' as opposed to silenced means, let's focus on the marginalization. how do marginalized groups stop being marginalized? do you think a group will cease being marginalized pariahs if they ask the state to intervene on their behalf to muffle critics, vulgar and obscene though they may be, with fiat power? agency can not be handed on the silver platter or slipped through the skirts of the take, it must be grasped through personal and concerted action (you allude to this yourself). as it is, suing individuals because of 'hate speech' simply makes muslims more marginalized and detested. the united states has the best protection of free speech aside from the nordic countries in the western world, and i would argue that it has one of the best records of relations between muslims & non-muslims.
Many people, Americans in particular, ideologically ascribe to freedom of speech without rationally considering its implications.
this is because americans tend to privilege freedom of speech on deontological grounds. speech are the ends, not the means. granted, there are limits we place on speech, so curtailment is a principle that is in common circulation. many others tend to see speak through a more consequentialist lens. part of the miscommunication is simply a chasm of normative frameworks which really are going to be difficult to resolve in any manner satisfying to "both sides." to use an analogy, asking an american to rationally consider the implications of freedom of speech is liking asking someone to rationally consider the implications of abolitionism. one can admit that abolition implies some sort of settlement where ex-slaves can fend for themselves, but there is no doubt that slavery is simply not on the table as a rational course of action no matter the consequentialist arguments brought to bear.
Since when did conservatives start caring about social injustice? ;)
Also my shuddha Bharatiya name would be impossible to a mleccha tongue like yours ;) .
I understand the frustration and anger against ridicule. I do believe that many concepts that Muslims hold dear are attacked. However, I do not believe that they are the only group whose views are attacked/ridiculed/marginizaled. For Christ'sAllah's Krishna's sake, the Love Guru movie alone should be evidence of that. Judging from the previews, various aspects of Hinduism are exaggerated or perverted or played straight for laughs (or, judging by the audience reaction to the preview, dead silence). It's unlikely that Hindus will be able to produce and distribute a rebuttal movie using the same network of theatres, so they are effectively silenced from that avenue. Is that justification to bomb movie theatres that show it or put a hit out on Mike Myers? Imprisoning him for crimes against comedy is one thing, but assasination?
I don't think it's fair to characterize this as analgous to colonization-- a) the publishing of cartoons was done as a response given the chilling effect that threats of violence for potentially offending Muslims had had on other individuals --it was essentially a refusal to be cowed by threats of violence b) the publishing was done in Denmark by a Danish paper and neither the Danish embassy, nor the Danish government insisted that they be reproduced in Muslim countries and c) the controversy had little to do with issues of self-determination in another area of the globe but rather had to do with the rights of Danish citizens in Denmark. If you agree that Denmark and its citizens should be subject to violence because they offended Muslim sensibilities or marginalized Muslim issues to the point that no one would take such issues seriously then logically you have to agree that Muslim nations and nationals and Muslims who do the some to other's sensibilities should also be subject to violence. Please feel free to let the Pentagon know, before next year's budget gets set.
I agree that there is definitely prejudice against Muslims in the West and that prejudice can be reflected in cartoons, editorials, or possibly even the categorization of individuals as "radical" or "moderate", but I'm pretty sure that Muslims aren't the only targets of prejudice, that there are in fact other avenues open to Muslims in the West to address such prejudice without resorting to the prejudice reinforcing tactic of engaging in violence, and that one person's "prejudice" is another person's "legitimate critcism". I also think there's some confusion in that it is assumed that being heard and acknowledged must necessarily equal being agreed with. People may hear calls for self-determination in Afghanistan. They may strongly disagree. The two are different concepts. Resorting to violence because someone disagrees with your opinion is certainly an option but again, it cuts both ways. They may see one's World Trade Centre and raise one a carpet bombing of the Kush.
liberals are the least hostile toward muslims and most hostile toward evangelical xtians, with inversions for conservatives. the nonreligious are actually the most tolerant of muslims.
I guess I'm not the only who has noticed how the elite white starbucks liberals go out of there way to avoid saying anything bad about islam, yet have no problem attacking christians and there religon.
I think it was Rosie O'Donnell who said that there was no difference among the hardcore nuts in both religons.
Sorry George, I posted before reading your clarification regarding colonialism--please disregard my comments on that point.
When Iranians et al burn an American flag and chant "Death to America" and "Death to the Non-Believers" for the benefit of Al-Jazeera, an act which is deeply offensive to a number of Americans, can they be expected to take responsibility for American violent retaliation?
Didn't the Iranians right after the Danish cartoons came out have a contest in one of there newspaper to come up with cartoons mocking the jews.
The West is unable to have a productive peaceful dialogue with the Islamic world because it derides everything they stand for as stupid and barbaric from the get go.
Yeah, it always easier for everybody to blame the west.
cartoons mocking the jews.
jews control the world, so they can't be marginalized.
QED
Yeah, it always easier for everybody to blame the west.
only white hands are bloody :-) ....
Yeah, it always easier for everybody to blame the west.
Maybe the west should make a commitment to making the above task a bit more difficult.
Can anyone remind me of the particular reasons that people were offended by the cartoon? I was in Pakistan when the cartoons first caused a stir (note: they had been published previously months earlier, no one seemed to mind then). I first read that the cartoon violated a prohibition against depicting the Prophet Muhammad. However, there have been drawings/paintings of Muhammad in the past (see Iranian painting for some examples). Later, it seems, the argument moved toward the "insulting nature" of the cartoons.
Neither explanation strikes me as even close for justifying car bombs.
68 · HMF said
Maybe Barack Obama should give a speech to call for an elevated international dialogue on cartoons.
Re: the cartoons being an example of free speech. I don't think the greater Islamic world would have cared (as much) if they were simply being ridiculed in a cartoon. The problem lied merely in depicting Muhammad(pbuh) in pictorial form.. which is such a big no-no it's not even funny. In fact, I'd be happier with the newspaper calling all Muslims towel-headed terrorists than if all they drew was a stick figure labelled Prophet Muhammad. It seems like a weird thing to get jumped up about - but that's the way it is I guess, and it would have been good of the newspaper to have heavily taken it into account (even if what they published was in line with 'Danish press ethics'). In any case, the ultimate price has been payed and the only people to blame are the poor excuses for 'Muslims' who have gotten much too used to using violence to make their points.
At this point it is more taboo in the West to mock Islam than it is to mock Christianity.
You have never heard Islam being called inherently evil in the United States?
‘It isn’t just the people of Pakistan that feel they have been harassed by what your newspaper has begun,’ she said. ‘I’d like to know if your newspaper is satisfied with what it has done and what it has unleashed?’
That's just poppycock. The masses of muslims in South Asia do not get up every morning, fire up the internet and trawl google news.
Popularity or longevity of politicians is determined by the strength of their defense of the "book" rather than a policy providing/improving the "well-being" of citizens. It happens here to some extent, but in South Asia, getting folks aggrieved is business as usual. Even the communists have their "book"!
it's hard to figure out what this post is about, but even harder with the exotic spelling, grammar and punctuation. please have some mercy on your readers!
One recurring theme among men who want to avenge some perceived slight -- be it a caricature or something else -- is that they feel "dishonored". Honor is a big part of the motive for these revenge bombings.
In parts of the world where the state is weak, where law and order are flimsy at best, where the police is more menace than protection, people are more inclined to fall back on the honor principle: Always be prepared to lash out at any slight, so nobody dares to mess with you and your tribe/clan/family. Honor replaces the absence of law and order.
This I can understand... and mock.
Ah thats interesting. Not that I believe in violence as a form of retirbution but what you are effectively saying that by forcing people to indulge in non-violent means of protest by tolerating whatever insults or injustices heaped on them, we are silencing people. But note non-violent means of retirbution is not universally aplied take for e.g. Iraq/Afgahnistan invasion. It is the mighty who set the rules of engagement whether with arms or with spoken/print/movies/theatre etc and what kind of injustices/insults deserve what kind of response.
9 · Priya said
76 · Priya said
you contradicted yourself, the moment you typed that statement.
76 · Priya said
its unlikely that the Chinese could use bollywoods network of theatres to protest caricatures in indian films. what to do? two words:
You tube.
I think there's something of a false dichotomy developing here. Why can't we agree that (1) Blowing things up is usually not a constructive solution, and blowing people in this case is wrong; and that (2) the cartoons, while not criminal, are offensive and insensitive?
Manju: The Chinese are one step ahead of us. I believe there was a post in SM or Ultrabrown about "Kung-fu defeating Yoga" on Youtube
George A (29):
Wow.
Just...wow.
These same exact arguments have been used by racists in the South long before you ever brought them here.
For starters, this argument is nonsensical. Freedom of speech is not only for one of two groups of opposed viewpoints. Both groups may speak as freely as they want in a society that provides for real freedom of speech. It sounds like you're still pretty unfamiliar with how it works, which is why your interpretation of free speech sounds a lot like restricted speech to me.
Let's go ahead and allow for relative numbers and positional strengths, though. Hmm...so Danish political cartoonists are the dominant force in the equation? And the hordes of angry Muslims who objected to the cartoons are the oppressed? Riiiight. And that's why people had to die. Suddenly it's all so clear to me!
No one's "overlooking the perlocutionary act" of the horrible terrible evil cartoonists who wrote those terrible no-good perfidious cartoons. And "ignoring their perlocutionary act" doesn't somehow silence Muslims elsewhere, or if it has, I've seen absolutely no evidence for it. The line you draw between the ability to self-govern in Afghanistan and these cartoons is about the biggest ol' load of
foul shiteutter nonsense I've come across.But hey, nice SAT words you got there. Can you use them in an argument so that they make sense this time?
muslimperson (71):
That's about the saddest defense I've ever heard of all this, even if it is true. In a nutshell, you're telling us that the religion is insane, and there's nothing anyone can do because that's just how it is. I mean no disrespect; it sounds like you don't believe any of this crazy claptrap to be true yourself, but it only makes my own refutation of religion--any religion, all religion--seem like a really good idea.
80 · Vaitandika said
That dichotomy reg. freedom of speech will persist because what is offensive and insensitive is very subjective and nobody in a diverse society will agree to one common set of acceptable behaviour (unless you have a moral censor board). I think in a more democratic society there are more civil ways of protesting and this also requires that the civil protest be effective in such a society and generates discussions instead of violence.
I'm just glad this website is not based in Canada. If it was there a good chance that it could end up like Marc Steyn and Maclean magazine cause some people can't take any valid criticism.
The only things the west respects are money and force.
Anyone know what happened to Spoorlam, she asked sadly...?
85 · Tenali said
don't forget leanness
It's sad. But is there hope for some islamic fanatics in pakistan when even so called not very religious people from India I know seem to express a desire for censorship in India when it is appropriate? I know quite a few rich doctors from India in my friends and family network and some of them seem OK with censoring people when needed.
And yes, there are Christian fanatics on the rise in the US. THere were protests 2 decades ago when Last Temptation of Christ came out. But there were no theater burnings or murders as a result. Imagine if there was an Islamic equivalent.
86 · Finkie said
in that case, i give you carla bruni. money? check. power? check. leanness? check.
Port, hey, that was Manju who said that, not Finkie! Don't cultivate a reputation for fickleness!
;-)
What's your metric for "on the rise?" I'd think "on the decline"--see, e.g., Obama & McCain (vs., say, Bush & Gore in 2000, what w/ Tipper and all. . . .)
The apex of Christian fanaticism isn't now, but came during the 30 Years War (Protestants Vs. Catholics). Now there was a period of slaughter in the name of God.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_years_war
The "Denmark as abused child" analogy is a facile one. It's my understanding that a newspaper run by members of the white majority held a contest to see who could most successfully mock and humiliate members of a racial/ethnic minority. All this against the backdrop of right-wing, anti-immigrant political parties enjoying success at the polls in Denmark. What do you think the reaction would be if the Chicago Sun-Tribune held a "send in the funniest cartoons of [blacks/Asians/Jews]" contest? Would they even dare try such a thing?
Now if the Sun-Tribune did hold this contest, would it justify violent retaliation? Would it justify government intervention in the newspaper? OF COURSE NOT. So please, don't read this as some justification of the response to the Danish cartoons, or of Abbas' outrageous response to the response.
A better analogy would be if someone screamed a racist, sexist or homophobic epithet at you, and you pulled out a gun and shot them. Your response is totally inappropriate and wrong, but to suggest the instigator is "defending his values" from "the real bad guys" is a slanted read on the situation, particularly if the person screaming the epithet is from a group that already enjoys some form of privilege.
So ethnic Danes in Denmark should not have their culture and identity and values privileged in their own land? Of course I agree they should question if the cartoons were a reflection of their values.
They can, provided you are comfortable with an ethnocentric view of the world where immigrants only deserve second-class treatment, and cannot expect to be acknowledged on an equal footing. I believe that a lot of people will consider such a world-view hopelessly tribal.
I will give Pakistanis (and muslims in general) credit for one thing...they don't hold back on expressing their opinion. This woman was sitting in the middle of Denmark, as the ambassador, and she's openly blaming the Danish paper (and possibly by extension Danish and western society). An Indian diplomat on the other hand would have buried his head in the sand until he could think of something conciliatory and apologetic to say.
Sometimes shame is the appropriate response. Unless, of course, you wish to hold basic human rights hostage to political expediency! After all, what are a few lives lost if it means keeping the masses distracted and extending your hold on power?
I'm amused by the "screams of racism".
If you read the history behind the cartoons, the contest was announced so that people can continue to draw without any fear from the "faithful" who have been successful in killing a film maker in the streets of Europe and were successful "perlocutionarists".. :-) (Add to that a couple of killings over Satanic Verses and a few bomb blasts).
Well, I don't think history is particularly helpful in evaluating these things. I am not in Denmark, so I don't know the exact sentiments on the ground, but from what I have read in many places, JP generally has an anti-immigrant, and particularly, anti Islamic immigrant, tilt. Of course, in the interests of balance, they also supported the KristallNacht by the National Socialists, so maybe that evens things out?
#92: Mary Mary Quite Contrary: thoughtful comment.
#98: Allahback, girl!: the points you bring up are relevant details which ought to figure in any nuanced analysis of the situation. of course, it is futile to expect nuance from ultra-nationalists or religious fanatics alike.
98 · Allahback, girl! said
I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.
#95
What if the Indian diplomat were muslim? ;)
Seriously though, Indian diplomats do not hold back. Diplomats have immunity and as much as I disagree with what Ms Fauzia statements, there is nothing irregular in her making them.
98 · Allahback, girl! said
wow, thanks for that pointer. Although I don't think one could hold a contemporary institution hostage to the POV its stewards had taken in 1938, such an editorial heritage makes me unsympathetic. Moreover, reading up more on Jyllands-Posten (their portrayal in Danish satire, and the infamous refusal to print cartoons mocking Jesus) confirms that the paper has been acting to provoke, rather than to open up debate. They are, of course, as a private publication and not enjoined to promote any frank point-counterpoint dialog between commentators of different persuasions. That does indicate a lack of editorial maturity and poor journalistic ethics. Of course, I don't mean to condone violence here; nevertheless, the JP has much to apologize for itself. Not for the cartoons, but for its general slanted and biased political coverage.
Well, in the first line you claim that history is not helpful in evaluating the need for these cartoons, but then in subsequent lines fall back on history of 1930s. What's your point?.
Well, my point about their editorial tilt, if it wasn't blatantly obvious, is that using history to judge the purity of motives of the newspaper or Islamists is not particularly illuminating, since neither side is without blame. I think the justifiability of this bombing, which killed innocent civilians, can be evaluated without trying to make the JP folks out to be the standard bearers of the torch of freedom and justice. Which they certainly don't seem to be.
102 · portmanteau said
Jyllands-Posten, like many of the drowning-in-red-ink, wingnut-welfare recipient conservative rags in the US, is attempting to sell a product and in a marketplace where crazy-con alternatives to the MSM are scarce. Their American equivalents constantly dare their ACLU-loving counterparts to support them in whatever crass display of un-pc bravado is in fashion at the time (Holding all those Crazy Time-Traveling Muslimofascistic Wright-Mongers to task!) and chortle in unrestrained glee when the ACLU fails to immediately support their right to do a particular X-content crazy stunt.