Sunday, February 5
The freedom to offend?
MEDIA, CENSORSHIP, EAST-WEST
I should probably comment on the cartoons of Muhammed that appeared in the Jyllands-Posten (Last year! Why has it taken this long for anyone to hear about it?). Would this be a problem in a socialist system? Well, yes, unless you're going by a letter-of-Marx enforced atheist state, but most people aren't dogmatic enough to take him seriously on that one. I think most socialists would argue that in the name of free speach, the cartoons would be published. As for me, I'm not sure. I understand the tradition of cutting humour and I definitely agree that no party should be exempt from it. It's just that some of the cartoons are just not that subtle. That's probably the most offensive one. Four of them are drawings that highlight the taboo, and make no comment about Muhammed himself. Compare others on the Mohammed Image Archive. The worst thing is that it seems that three much more offensive images are in circulation - and it's not easy for most muslims to get access to the originals (and here I'd say anyone propogating pictures they knew to be fakes should be in a lot of trouble indeed).
The turban-bomb depiction was blunt baiting. I think Posten could have been more considerate. Equally, I think burning embassies and boycotting danish products (because the muslim market is so crucial to the danish bacon industry!) is not only generalising - punishing a nation for the actions of a few cartoonists and an editor - but it also runs the risk of proving the point. In the name of Muhammed, they are burning down embassies: that's a much better indictment of Islam than a crude cartoon. Any muslim should definitely look at this picture (not a depiction of the prophet), and remember that the Jyllands-Posten published this as well.
And another point - the fact that the depiction of Muhammed is banned by Islam does not make it wrong for others to depict him any more than Islam's ban on drawing carrots means I must not publish my finest vegetable artwork for fear of offending. We can't all live by the beliefs of others, but we can all try to respect those beliefs. The recent violence is based on the perception that many westerners are out to get muslims - which is partially true: many people are afraid, many people equate islam with terrorism, and there is a small minority who use this to tremendous political and economic gain. Interesting question (particularly for UK readers): does publication of these pictures constitute as an incitement to violence *in reaction* to the pictures?
MEDIA, CENSORSHIP, EAST-WEST
I should probably comment on the cartoons of Muhammed that appeared in the Jyllands-Posten (Last year! Why has it taken this long for anyone to hear about it?). Would this be a problem in a socialist system? Well, yes, unless you're going by a letter-of-Marx enforced atheist state, but most people aren't dogmatic enough to take him seriously on that one. I think most socialists would argue that in the name of free speach, the cartoons would be published. As for me, I'm not sure. I understand the tradition of cutting humour and I definitely agree that no party should be exempt from it. It's just that some of the cartoons are just not that subtle. That's probably the most offensive one. Four of them are drawings that highlight the taboo, and make no comment about Muhammed himself. Compare others on the Mohammed Image Archive. The worst thing is that it seems that three much more offensive images are in circulation - and it's not easy for most muslims to get access to the originals (and here I'd say anyone propogating pictures they knew to be fakes should be in a lot of trouble indeed).
The turban-bomb depiction was blunt baiting. I think Posten could have been more considerate. Equally, I think burning embassies and boycotting danish products (because the muslim market is so crucial to the danish bacon industry!) is not only generalising - punishing a nation for the actions of a few cartoonists and an editor - but it also runs the risk of proving the point. In the name of Muhammed, they are burning down embassies: that's a much better indictment of Islam than a crude cartoon. Any muslim should definitely look at this picture (not a depiction of the prophet), and remember that the Jyllands-Posten published this as well.
And another point - the fact that the depiction of Muhammed is banned by Islam does not make it wrong for others to depict him any more than Islam's ban on drawing carrots means I must not publish my finest vegetable artwork for fear of offending. We can't all live by the beliefs of others, but we can all try to respect those beliefs. The recent violence is based on the perception that many westerners are out to get muslims - which is partially true: many people are afraid, many people equate islam with terrorism, and there is a small minority who use this to tremendous political and economic gain. Interesting question (particularly for UK readers): does publication of these pictures constitute as an incitement to violence *in reaction* to the pictures?
# posted by Phugebrins @ 12:00 
