A certain parallel struck me in thinking about this whole cartoon controversy. Proverbially, even the most radical defendants of free speech will say that it is not appropriate to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. The argument, of course, is that such "speech" can cause people to panic, will lead to a stampede, and is likely to cause people to be physically harmed in the process. Given the rioting, violence and death which has happened in the wake of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy I wonder how many people are willing to make that connection?
4 comments:
why do muslims have to start killing at the drop of a hat? why not take it in good humor? why are you guys always running for blood with a sword in hand? its not just now but a trend through ages. isn't it a fact that muhammad himself promoted conversion through the sword? what about all the destruction that muslims have carried out on other religions, the shameful destruction of the bamian buddha being the most recent example. when it comes to you guys all this is fine because the qoran is against idol worship but if someone else does something 'un-islamic' there come out the swords. what do you say to that?
1. The Danish Government is 100% right. The pictures were published by individuals We don't live in a tribal society anymore - individuals are free to express opinions that the Government may or may not agree with.
2. The moderate muslims (yes, they exist) are also 100% right. They felt offended by the cartoons and they have the right to protest and attempt to educate. If the protest extends to boycotting Danish products that is also a completely legitimate tactic. Although once again, the individual vs group thing bothers me .. the German Nazis committed the Holocaust, that doesn't mean Jews should refuse to set foot in a Mercedes.
3 The newspaper in question, was no doubt provocative. But what the hell .. the right to provoke and offend has always been a cornerstone of the West. For those blaming colonialism, I suggest they read about the Piss Christ which was not only allowed to be displayed in America, but was in some part subsidized by the American taxpayer. If radical Muslims cannot deal with this freedom, maybe they should start ignoring the West completely.
4) The radicals who are burning embassies and marching with 'death threat' signs are utterly and completely wrong. Trying to protest cartoons that portray Muslims as violent barbarians, they are behaving like violent barbarians. Denmark isn't Saudi Arabia - things like drinking alcohol, or depicting the Prophet may be grave offenses against the Sharia - but the Sharia doesn't apply to non-muslims. Those who wanted to follow it, would have converted - the rest of us simply don't care. Similarly, Hindus revere the cow, but that doesn't mean they should go around burning Embassies in New Delhi just because they serve beef in the supermarkets of Saudi and the U.S.
anonymous #1 - you can't just lump all Muslims together in one category and then assume that what you see in the newspaper today has been happening in some constant way throughout history. "Islam" and "the West" and "Christianity" etc. have existed for centuries and the relationships between them have changed over time in radical ways.
During the Golden Age of Islam, it was the Muslims who definitively developing science and technololgy and learning and it was the West which had its Dark Ages.
Even in terms of something as emblemnatic as the status of women, there were several places in the Muslim world where women had the right to vote and hold public office before several countries in Europe.
The things you are reading about now, are not just due to some fixed aspect of "the West" and "Islam". They are also due to other economic, political, cultural factors besides just religion.
anonymous #2: I would agree with many of your sentiments but would take serious exception to certain points.
everyone really does have their sacred cows. So while I agree that when it comes to a certain range of issues, you'll probably find a great deal of freedom of expression in the West, there are still limits. In England and certain other countries it is my understanding that anti-(Christian) blasphemy laws are still on the books and occasionally enforced.
In other places there are laws against Holocaust-denial or Nazi expressions.
Even in the US, after 9/11 I was surprised to read about how several newspaper editors lost their jobs beceause they were being too critical on Bush. Bill Mahr (former host of Politically Incorrect) lost HIS job in part because of saying that the 9/11 hijackers weren't cowards.
And, in what is perhaps the most apt comparison, after 9/11 several papers stopped carrying the Boondocks because of its political content.
So while I think we should definitely feel good about the level of freedom of expression which exists in the West, it would be a mistake to think it has no limits.
If it is a "touchy" enough subject, some speech will still be banned, even in the West.
And I agree that the reaction to Piss Christ does demonstrate a certain amount of freedom of expression, but I think it also think it also demonstrates that Westerners don't care so much about religious matters and have gotten more secular.
Post a Comment