This has been building for days. As the controversy extended, most governments and businesses took a conciliatory position as a reaction to protests from radical portions of the Muslim community — in Europe as well as the Middle East. The result was shutting down usual standards of free speech. If the target of these cartoons was some other religion — in most of the nations concerned — there would have been some mumbling, the usual opportunist politicians expressing sanctimonious outrage and that would have been the end of it. In this case, boycotts and other economic and political pressures are beginning to have the opposite effect. Journalists, scholars and ordinary citizens are asking why should a sectarian religious viewpoint be allowed to override a constitutional right?
The editor of a French newspaper that printed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad has been sacked. Jacques Lefranc was dismissed by the owner of France Soir, as his paper became embroiled in a developing row between Muslims and the European press.
Some Muslim countries have withdrawn their ambassadors to Denmark and boycotted Danish products after a paper there first printed the cartoons.
The row intensified when France Soir, alongside the 12 original cartoons, printed a newly created cartoon on its front page showing Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy figures sitting on a cloud, with the caption “Don’t worry Muhammad, we’ve all been caricatured here”.
Publications in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain also re-ran the Danish cartoons on Wednesday to show support for free speech.
However France Soir owner Raymond Lakah, a French Egyptian, said in a statement to AFP news agency that he “decided to remove Jacques Lefranc as managing director of the publication as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual”.
Journalists at the newspaper stood by their editor’s decision on Thursday, printing a front page picture and editorial in which they strongly defended the right to free speech.
Religious freedom gives people the right to practise their faith or not, the editorial says, but should not become a means to impose the rules of a single religion on society as a whole.
Around the whole world, people from every culture confront the struggle for freedom of thought and speech. Some of the resistance is cultural. Some of specifically religious. Sometimes the focus is bigotry or patriotism. You don’t give up. You certainly don’t withdraw the freedom you’ve already won.
Journalists, scholars and ordinary citizens are asking why should a sectarian religious viewpoint be allowed to override a constitutional right?
One word, consideration.
Some countries have laws that prohibit language designed to promote hatred. This concept is alien to most Americans with their (near) unfettered right of free speech. It does stop extremist elements from the sheer denigrating blather they like to spew. I have not seen this policy have any cooling effect of the right to criticize, call attention to something, point out errors, or give opinions on politics.
There can be no societal interest in calling a specific religious group “dogs”. Yet knowing the effective insult this has on that group makes this pure hate speech. Why else would someone call this group such names unless it was solely to share their hatred and cause hurt.
Just for a note. There is a difference between challenging a religion’s beliefs and referring to those same beliefs in a totally derogatory manner.
Another example to put in the book about why the French are and always will be cheeze eating surrender monkeys. But it’s too late. Even the baleful eye of Sauron has taken notice. Yes, even as I write this Drudge has put one of the political cartoons in question on his page. So in the words of Yul Brenner from The Ten Commandments movie, “Where is your God now?” Meanwhile, South Park still does episodes with Jesus and God in it, Kane (some rapper) is on the cover of Rolling Stone dressed up like a crucified Jesus, NBC is going to do a comedy about the crucifixion right before Easter and Reuters has some pictures of Muslims stepping all over the Danish flag which has the Christian Cross in it. Apparently the ACLU and other human rights organizations haven’t been able to take Denmark to court and have them remove the Cross from their national flag.
Oh- and still no moral outrage over the kidnaping, torture and murder of innocents throughout the Middle East in the name of Islam. But political cartoons! Watch the rising tide of moral outrage.
Free speech is not a right when dealing with private businesses or institutions. The government can’t censor you, but a private newspaper sure can.
“There is a difference between challenging a religion’s beliefs and referring to those same beliefs in a totally derogatory manner.”
A fine line at best.
Muslims are going to have to learn to live in the world. In the world there are going to be people who do tasteless things. Tough.
The idea that Mohammed shouldn’t be depicted isn’t in the Koran. There are a number of Mosques that used to depict Mohammed and have had the depiction removed.
Meanwhile in the Iranian media:
“Jewish Rabbis Killed Hundreds of European Children to use Their Blood for Passover Holiday & Discussion on Holocaust Denial”
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP105305
If you go to the homepage of memri.org you can find many other examples of what’s going on in the media of the countries that are crying intolerance over these cartoons.
Good thing they’re not Catholic. Just think how offended they’d be when reading the typical left-wing tripe in the US!
Satire is not hatred- can it be offensive? Absolutely. Should it be censored? Not by a government, or at least not by a government in a “free” country.
Is the French newspaper wrong for firing the editor? Sorta…it definately shows a lack of balls…but if they have a large Islamic following and they would like to keep them happy, then firing the editor makes sense.
Lastly, the reaction to these cartoons in the Islamic world, assuming it hasn’t been grossly exaggerated by the press, is completely out of any and all proportion. Rioting? Boycotting Danish goods? Gunmen outside of an EU office in the Middle-East? That’s not piety, that’s ridiculous.
Protest a depiction of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban by threatening to bomb a building. Islamic irony cracks me up.
As one of the European newspapers stated “They can’t bomb us all”.
Milo said:
“There are a number of Mosques that used to depict Mohammed and have had the depiction removed.”
Being a Muslim, I have never heard of such a case. It is very well known to all Muslims (at least to the ones that i know) that depicting Prophet Muhammad is a big no-no. Muslims take this very seriousely.
Well, taken literally, you could say that the 2nd commandment prohibits taking photos and making drawings of humans, as humans are supposedly created in God’s image, and creating sculptures and likenesses of heaven and the things in it is prohibited. Of course, most Christian churches, modern and old, are in violation of this commandment anyway where depictions of heaven are concerned.
Actually, I believe there are some sects who do interpret it this way.
Good thing they’re not constitutional democrats. Just think how offended they’d be when reading the typical right-wing tripe in the US!
Pat, I don’t disagree with your position a whole heck of a lot — but, you bring up a discussion that took place a week ago. As I mentioned in the introductory paragraph above. The Danish paper realized they were pretty dumb and the only citizens who wanted to persist in slander was a tiny group of fundamentalist Christians. Surprise!
What has happened since — is what this post is about, what the incident involving the European press is about. Most reasonable folks, pro-democracy or whatever, understand the arrogance of telling other nations how to “reform” their culture, religion and government. Most reasonable people expecially reject doing it at gunpoint. But, the question in play is how do you order and organize your own citizenry’s rights — according to your own constitution?
Personally, I think the radical islamist sects — which are as small a minority in their own way as the Pat Robertsons of the world — are so accustomed to bullying everyone else on their own turf, they consider it smart and usual to try it out on the rest of the world. I think they made a mistake. This could have walked away from being a big deal in the 1st 48 hours.
Eideard: I disagree with your statement the radical Islam is as small a minority as Pat Robertson’s cult. Radical Islam is a worldwide phenomenon, and while Robertson is an idiot at least he’s not armed. Also, the very fact the Danish cartoons have caused such a ruckus shows that it isn’t just radical Islam that’s so intolerant.
Note that this started 4 months ago and only recently hit the fan due to foot dragging and misunderstanding.
Timeline, background info, and controversy over at Wikipedia about the very page that explains the controversy. It’s a recursive controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons
(Click on the “discussion” tab at the top for debate about where and how to display the images central to the controversy.)
The nitpicking isn’t worth it — but, Don, my experience is that the Robertson army is probably armed as often as is, say, the Mahdi Army. Not as many RPG’s, I suppose. But, better automatic weapons.
Considering that the Muslim religion is the largest in the world and one of the few with any growth, the Islamists who truly fit the extreme mold cetainly are significant in numbers; but, still, a damned small percentage. Yesterday I watched an interview with a Saudi ambassador who is Wahhabi. He considers the violent and warlike membership of his sect to be less than 1% — yet, our TV talking heads would lump in the whole puritan trend he represents.
Do the Bin Ladens of the world have significant worldwide support? You bet. I think we not only know many of the reasons for that — we’re watching them in action in Iraq — and Washington, DC.
Ed.
Thinking about your comment comparing Robertson to the radical Muslims. He might also be dangerous but I believe Robertson is taken with a grain of salt from most extreme Christians. If they agree with him, they don’t try to put his ideas into play. The radical Muslims I believe may be more naive or trusting in their leadership and more willing to follow through. That is why there are so many suicide bombers believing they will get their eternal reward by killing others.
But maybe Robertson doesn’t need suicide bombers when he has Bush with his F-16s and cruise missiles.
#1- Pat you wrote:
“Journalists, scholars and ordinary citizens are asking why should a sectarian religious viewpoint be allowed to override a constitutional right?”
“One word, consideration”
Here in New York, our Mayor allowed a case to be dismissed (“consideration”) for a 57 year old man who “accidently” killed a baby by giving him herpes after he had sucked the 8-day-old’s penis. Mayor Bloomberg let the man go because he was a rabbi– Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer– performing the Jewish ritual of metzitzah b’peh in which a rabbi sucks the blood of a baby’s penis after circumcision. In this case, the rabbi had herpes (also known as its euphistic name cold sore) in,on, or around his mouth. The baby boy contracted the disease and later died.
Here is a link to the New York Times article (you might have to be a paid subscriber):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?ex=1139115600&en=ec8629bb11ba487b&ei=5070