Europe Backpeddles Over Danish Cartoons
Religious and political leaders stepped up efforts to defuse the growing tensions between Muslims and Christians, as demonstrations continued across the Islamic world against the cartoons of Muhammad.
Pope Benedict XVI announced a three-day visit in November to Turkey, where the murder of a Catholic priest has been linked to the outrage caused by the Danish cartoons.
Father Andrea Santoro, 60, was shot in the back on Sunday as he knelt to pray in Trabazon in eastern Turkey.
His suspected killer, a teenage boy, is reported to have told police he was incensed by the cartoons…
FRONTLINE/WORLD . Dispatches . Dispatches . Denmark: Art and Religion Collide | PBS — This report which was published last December outlines much of the controversy over the Danish Cartoons — a situation that began in September and suspiciously resurfaced in the last few weeks. I find this very peculiar. Also this article goes into all sorts of details left out by the major media. For example:
In Kashmir, thousands of businesses reportedly shut down for a day in early December to protest the cartoons. (A reaction that left most Danes I spoke to perplexed). And according to the Danish Foreign Ministry, the youth group of Pakistan’s largest Islamic party, Jamaat-e-Islami, posted an $8,000 bounty on the lives of the cartoonists.
“That’s like $600 a head. You’re not going to get anyone in Denmark to kill anyone for $600,” comedian Omar Marzouk told me at a cafe one afternoon. “That’s my Pakistani brothers, though. They’re so cheap.”
MarzoukMarzouk is a first-generation Egyptian-Dane who has made a successful living challenging the political correctness that he believes prevents Danish society from engaging in honest dialogue, especially when it comes to his country’s immigrant community.
Marzouk’s comedy cuts both ways. He’s as likely to offend radical right-wingers as radical Muslims. (He posts death threats he receives from both camps on his Web site).
related links:
The Times of India Comes Out On Side of Muslim Protests
The right to freedom of expression is not an absolute right. All rights, legal and moral, come with responsibilities that contextualise them.
A right can qualify to be so only if it is exercised with responsibility, to the individual and society. The right to freedom of expression can be no exception.
The current controversy over cartoons featuring Prophet Mohammad misses this point. Certainly, that does not justify the violent response to the insensitive depiction of Islam.
But to defend an act that has provoked people across the world to react with indignation, under the ruse of freedom of expression, is to misunderstand the right.
And here’s an interesting Muslim perspective which hints at the possibilities that some other forces are at work while condemning the cartoons. I found this background paragraph particularly distressing though:
This is not a new proposition. It has always been a balancing act between competing rights.
That’s why Jyllands-Posten’s publication of the offensive drawings was “juvenile,” in the apt phrase of a New York Times editorial. That’s why most dailies in Canada and the U.S. have refused to reprint the cartoons (not because they are “afraid,” as some polemicists say).
Were they juvenile? In a huge story such as this shouldn’t the public judge for itself? I personally didn’t find them to be offensive or juvenile and thought a couple were typical of editorial-style cartooning — a little offensive to the target. But that’s their design. Are Muslims off-limits?
When there is news coverage of an event causing worldwide havoc and hand-wrining you can’t just ignore or supress the source of the anger in a cavalier manner. Not in Western society under any circumstances. That’s unless you want the populace to be befuddled and stupid.
That said, it’s apparent to me that this sort of suppression is a trend and a growing one.
Troublemaker, moi?
Final related link:
Are Extremists fanning the Outrage? Syria, Iran and others behind the reemergence of this controversy?
The country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in a nationally televised speech that the cartoons were part of a “Zionist plot.” Mohsen Rezai, an official on the Expediency Council — a powerful body of hard-line clerics — said the drawings were a “test” by the West to see what Muslims’ reaction would be.
Iranian state media depict the drawings as an act of the Danish government, not a private newspaper. “After insulting Islam with the drawings, the government has not apologized yet,” one newsreader said in a television broadcast recently.
What is there to say, other than the cartoons were apparently correct…
Iranian state media depict the drawings as an act of the Danish government, not a private newspaper. “After insulting Islam with the drawings, the government has not apologized yet,” one newsreader said in a television broadcast recently.
Why doesn’t it surprise me that people who live in countries with “state media” do not understand the concept of a private newspaper?
Why should they when any “news” they read has been approved by the government censors, or the paper is shutdown?
Interesting how other religions never protest when cartoons are made fun of them? It appears that people can make fun of anyone’s god but the Muslim’s. Total BS.
You know what Muslims think heaven is? 40 virgins. I’m sure a lot of people know virgins are lousy [at sex] and 40 of ’em? They have serious problems. Their lives are worth a couple hundred dollars. Why do I say that? That’s what the suicide bomber’s families get when the bombers blow themselves up.
According to Islam: Blow yourself up for Allah and straight to your 40 virgins you go.
I stand corrected: Muslims get 72 virgin girls and 12 pre-puberty boys to abuse in heaven.
What the Middle East needs is a new Bob Marley or Woodie Guthrie type icon, one that has the guts to see through all the jive, probably one that would need to have more power in him than those guys. He would go after all the Reaganites and other Western bullshit, but would also have a particular target in the over-zealous honor cults in his own lands, the ones that use the label “religion” to justify creating mayhem, including fighting each other. How can you have ‘democracy’ in any culture where so many people seem to have a habit of fearing and mistrusting one another?
He would point out all the Pat Robertsons, Ayatollah Khomeinis, Meher Kahans and so on and people who follow them as the real problem, and ask “Why do we do this?”
Of course, musicians can’t do much, they don’t have armies or anything. But then again, they can give ideas, put a spark in it sometimes.
They published the cartoons in Yemen.
http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=919&p=front&a=1
apoplectic pundit – pot must be a great thing…Such a person like you propose would be put to death quicker then you can say allah akbar. These people are intollerent of anything that is not in the koran.
You keep using words like “lame” and “silly” for these cartoons but the Muslims are DEAD SERIOUS about mockery of the product. What is this so hard for Americans to understand?
The Prophet is as serious to Muslims as, let’s say, oil is to Americans.
If Americans reserve the right use “Shock and Awe” over oil, Muslims feel they have an even bigger right to use “Muslim Shock and Awe” over what they consider even more sacred than oil.
Why is this so hard for Americans to udners? The Muslim response is essentially a conservative one, with the sacred object changed.
“It appears that people can make fun of anyone’s god but the Muslim’s.”
Total BS? You’re right THIS statement is total BS! Don’t you remember the stink that the Christian extremists kicked up when Kanye West posed for a picture wearing a crown of thorns? And HE wasn’t even making fun of the of the Christian God.
Thank your lucky stars that religious extremists in our country don’t have as much pull, as they do in the Middle East!
Greg, I use the term lame because in essence they are lame and tame by any real comparison to seriously harsh cartoons. The cartoonists in the middle east are more harsh than that. I think I can define the parameters of my own post, can’t I? Or am I now insulting someone by using an adjective. And while some percentage of the Muslim population is dead serious, as you suggest, about their religion I don’t see how that has anything to do with my defining the cartoons as lame.
Greg, Americans DO GET IT. They get the fact that some of the depictions in the cartoons were DEAD ON. All of this mayhem proves it. Muslim clerics were complaining that some of the cartoons depicted the Muslim faith as being violent and terror-causing. Well….. The response to the cartoons sure seems to back that up.
way to go. i’m sitting in heathrow using the crappy 8 dollar an hour wifi service (won’t let me dl torrents, wtf is that) and i pull up your site… the guy sitting next to me was none to happy to see what is on the top right now. thanks… made my day. thank you mr. dvorak.
he also refuses the virgins deal.
Dear Admin (sorry I don’t think I know your name.)
From YOUR cultural perspective, the cartoons ARE lame but, in reality, it’s a dead-serious issue. I’m expecting that more people are going to die because of them… mabye A LOT more.
I’ve used this analogy before on this blog: flag burning.
To me personally, burning the flag is “lame” and certainly not worthy of a constitutional amendment. It’s just a symbol, after all.
But, if I said, “Why is everybody worked up about a lame flag burning?” it would show that I don’t understand how other’s are dead-serious about the flag.
Flag burning is not “lame” because millions are deeply offended by it The feelings of millions disqualify flag-burning from being lame — even if I don’t share that sentiment.
Cartoons of the Prophet are not “lame” because hundreds of millions are deeply offended by it and are willing to die over it and kill over it. So, the cartoons are not lame — even if you, personally, feel that way.
By the way, I don’t blame westerners from being a bit oblivious to how serious this issue is. I probably wouldn’t understand either if I hadn’t lived among Muslims for so many years.
As I said in the other post on this topic–
I do not question the free-speech right to attack, pardon me, “ridicule” someone’s faith. I question the intelligence of anyone doing so.
What purpose is served in belittling someone? Does it make you feel intellectually superior to put another down for their religion; to point to the illogic of their belief?
What is gained by provoking someone to the point of violence? (And you really don’t understand human nature if you think demeaning the core belief of a billion people will not provoke some to violence.)
Of course this situation is being manipulated by the Muslim power-brokers to incite riots around the globe. Just how hard do you think that is compared to, say … convincing someone to strap on a bomb?
Stupid.
And now the press has painted us all into corner. They have imperiled our free-speech right through its reckless use. We can’t retreat now without forfeiting free speech to Muslim extremists. (Does this theme sound familiar?)
So where do we go from here? Armageddon?
Stupid. I guess showing a bit of respect for another is just too damn difficult for some people.
Dear gquaglia –
‘pot’, huh?… (maybe it was the Marley reference).
Yeah, you’re right, it probably would be a flash-in-the-pan. But surely you must agree that some kind of reformation will have to happen in Islam, before it can be tolerated in the modern world. And only they themselves can do this from within… outsiders most likely can’t do it for them. If they do, then maybe we could all be friends some day, do things like business and science and art together. This has happened before.
To me, the so called Armies of Islam are just a bunch of guys coming at us on horseback waving swords, even if they manage a sucker punch once in awhile (hijack a few airliners, throw a cripple overboard etc. etc.). It would be extremely sad if we had to do what Indiana Jones did to the grinning sword-twirler in ‘Raiders of The Lost Ark’.
(btw, “apoplectic” is one of my favorite ono mota poetic sounding words. Think of a cartoon of an angry ranting mullah, red-faced with steam coming out of his ears, telling a crowd to kill all infidels. When they’re through with that, kill all fellow Muslims who don’t follow him. Then he eventually kills himself… perhaps one of those tender young virgins will finally calm him down).
And then the old Nobodaddy aloft*
Farted and belched and coughed
And said, “I love hanging and drawing and quartering
Every bit as well as war and slaughtering
Damn the praying and singing
Unless it will bring in
The blood of ten thousand by fighting and swinging!”
– William Blake
(*God, Allah, Jah or whoever)
Mr. Dvorak – I believe you meant “backpedal.”
More importantly, why is there such outrage at Muslim extremists? Americans love revenge, too. When 9-11 happened, I remember reading about a redneck in the Southwest who drove his truck to a convenience store and shot and killed the owner who was Middle Eastern. I’m sure he thought this would solve something.
The minute we realize it’s all “us” and not “us versus them” there might be a chance we won’t disintegrate ourselves.
By rough estimates there are 1.4 billion members of the Islamic faith today, “all sects combined”. By the nature of the faith, and culture most are devout. Either the West has to get a hand on diplomacy or start an holocaust that would put the Third Reich or Ghengis Khan to shame. At times diplomacy seems snail slow and unproductive. Many times while the diplomats are arguing, the average Joe or Mohamed are not killing one another. This will be one of the hardest tasks the modern world will have to deal with. There are some good lessons to be learned from India. We have to alter this reactionary stance. Sable rattling only works when both sides know it’s only a mock fight. You have one side here swinging death blows.
Heh I make fun of all the gods representating all the cults of the planet. No one religion makes any sense. I will admit to be enough of a sucker to beleive in a higher power, but no one, be them Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish etc have the right answer.
Any of their gods if they are as described by what I laughingly call their Holy Men would look in disdain at their representatatives.
The truth is that is NOT an insult to Islam to publish Mohammed’s likeness or to joke about him or the Muslim God.
Here is a very interesting article from the WSJ opinion page. It is written by a man who seems to have quite an extensive knowledge of Islam and Arabic culture. His name implies that he himself is of that culture, but I was not able to verify that.
Bonfire of the Pieties
The obvious honest conclusion is there has been no blasphemy, and thus these protests are all politically motivated, period. The masses have been duped into giving their blood to protest something that’s not even a sin. I wonder if that means they don’t get any virgins when they get to Paradise.
Site Admin
I’ve been thinking about your question; “Are these cartoons juvenile” as the reason for not publishing the cartoons. Well the majority of newspapers in North America and Europe have not published them. Why? I suspect because they found them offensive or not in the taste that they want their journals to project. Judging from the editorials I’ve seen, that would appear to be the case. I haven’t seen the cartoons so I can’t judge.
I would use the same rational to test if the newspapers would publish a news making photograph that showed a penis. Should they also show that picture? I don’t know. What if the photograph was the Vice-President and a female reporter? I am sure that if some newspaper did show it for its news worthiness, forget about the TV news, there would be howls of condemnation.
Editors make judgment calls every day. Should they publish the photo showing a mutilated body in an auto crash? Is it proper to publish the name of an accused when it might identify the victim? Should they go with a story that might question the honesty of a Judge in the middle of a major trial?
The western newspapers have as much right to publish the cartoons as news as they have NOT to publish them for whatever reason. Freedom of expression does not compel them to publish. To publish or not to publish does not make the news item juvenile.
NOTE: You raised a rhetorical question, I don’t think you believe they are juvenile.
I don’t need any more reason to know we’re doing the right thing by screwing up the middle east, but thanks for the article.
Pat,
While I agree that editors make judgement calls every day, I think it is absurd for publications to write article after article on a particular topic without showing the public what they are talking about. While it’s true that anyone with internet access can quickly find the cartoons for viewing:
http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/
many people still depend on the print and broadcast media for their information. It is negligent on the part of broadcasters and print media to NOT site the evidence that they are refering to in their stories.
Is everybody showing support for a group of people acting like homicidal 2 years olds forgetting one important thing?
Yes Christians are offended by pictures of a rapp star with a crown of thorns – yes patriots are offended by someone spitting on the flag. However – NONE OF THEM ARE RUNNING RAMPANT THROUGH THE STREETS BURNING BUILDINGS AND KILLING PEOPLE.
Iran’s papers have run anti-Christian blasphemous cartoons and articles for years! Have I gone out and whacked an Imam and burned down an embassy? No, of course not – I’m (sort of) an adult.
When the people responsible for this start acting like adults – I’ll start respecting their point of view.
The scary thing is that their actions will soon create an “us or them” fight to the death kind of war. I cannot conceive how horrible a place the earth would be if a fundamentalist religion of ANY type “won” a conflict like that.
So … I guess a cartoon of Mohammed holding a lit match would be blasphemous too, huh?
Alarm–
“Is everybody showing support for a group of people acting like homicidal 2 years olds ….”
Who is showing support for them? I sure as hell am not.
“When the people responsible for this start acting like adults – I’ll start respecting their point of view.”
Oh the irony!
“The scary thing is that their actions will soon create an ‘us or them’ fight to the death kind of war.”
Their actions? Which came first, the pictures or the riots? But you are right, we are on the verge of a “fight to the death kind of war.”
And how did we get here? Through the pure arrogance of people who feel they have an obligation to ridicule religion.
Stupid.
Sounds The Alarm,
I never said that I supported the Arab extremists who are “acting like homicidal 2 years olds”, as you so succinctly put it. I was merely pointing out that, the statement “It appears that people can make fun of anyone’s god but the Muslim’s” is incorrect!
Furthermore, you are right that “NONE OF THEM (i.e. Christians) ARE RUNNING RAMPANT THROUGH THE STREETS BURNING BUILDINGS AND KILLING PEOPLE.” But, there was a time in Christian society when exactly this sort of thing had occured. A couple of examples, that pop to mind, are the crusades and the Salem Witch Hunts. Granted, these were many years ago. But, those Christian societies were very much influenced by religious extremists, much like the Muslim people are today.
So, to sum up, I do not support the Arab extremists whatsoever! In fact, I think it’s pretty ridiculous and that’s putting it mildly!! However, I do not believe you should make a rash judgement about an entire religious or cultural group without first looking at the facts.
“I personally didn’t find them to be offensive or juvenile and thought a couple were typical of editorial-style cartooning — a little offensive to the target.”
Well, as long as you didn’t personally find them offensive or juvenile, that’s good enough for the rest of the planet. “A little offensive” to the intended audience? Were you going for understatement of the new century with that one?
The Times of India article basically says what I tried to say a few times in comments to another post, which is that those framing this as a freedom of speech issue just don’t get it, and that this sort of thing is generally not covered under law in most countries that claim to have freedom of speech. In Canada many years back there was a cartoon that depicted an RCMP officer wearing a turban with the caption,”Doesn’t it make you Sikh?”. Just there, with a turban on his head… and that one did go to court.
Just insulting minorities, whether by race or religion, regardless of the argument that it really was only intended in a light-hearted manner, in the name of free speech is a no-no for any society that claims to be civilised. That having been said, I think humankind is regressing in that regard…
I’ve had nothing but admiration for the Catholic Church over the last three decades… I hope that Pope Benedict continues down the path of his predecessor, as he has so far (I believe the scandals in the US are a localised problem… besides, haven’t the US Catholics been behaving badly wrt the Church’s teachings for some time now?)
Thanks for you thought out response.
I concede your point about Christianity. I’m not a big fan of it either.
I was not pointing at Islam generally as much as at fundamentalist Islam. I believe there is a big difference. Also please note my final paragraph applied to all fundamentalists.
Given the above corrections, I’ll stand by my statements.
J. Cottrell
Yes, I know the cartoons are out there if I CARE to see them.
I have no desire. As my example above, if there is a photograph of the Vice-President with his penis out, I’m sure it would make every news outlet. Not too many people would really want to see the V-P’s penis though. (At least I hope not.) We can still make a judgment call with just the description.
I see your point too.
I find it absurd that a cartoon can be the catalyst for burning, murder and violence, but I’m not a muslim.