Please note that new user registrations disabled at this time.

The most famous cartoon ever (serius topic, no spam)

Anything goes... just keep it clean.
Post Reply
User avatar
Woozaii
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:00 am
Location: The land that flows with milk and honey.
Contact:

The most famous cartoon ever (serius topic, no spam)

Post by Woozaii »

It is a serius topic actually, and something that has been weighing on my mind heavily these last few days. This has to be this decades most famous cartoon: The drawings of Mohammed, that JP Århus were foolish enough to publish... I am sure you all have heard of it.

But just in case: Not so long ago, a danish newspaper (Jyllands Posten Århus) published 12 very provocative drawings of Mohammed in one of their issues. Mohammed was being displayed as a terrorist, and a lot of the moslems living in Denmark took great offense in this. Some of them then went down to the middle east, and complained. The middle east ambassadors then requested a meeting with the danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. He refused to even meet with them.
And now all hell has broken loose, and Denmark is in the middle of all this. The danish government, as well as Jyllands Posten Århus, claimed that there was no basis for a discussion, since the newspaper were simply utilising their freedom of speech (JP Århus has now officially apologised though), even though the drawings are unconstitutional.

Now The United States have been brought into this. As well as Germany and France, and Denmark can really do nothing to stop these events from escalading, and Denmark are closer to terrorism than ever, after the series of threats and attacks from varius militias troughout the world.

What do you say? What are your opinions?
Equalization is good.
Payback isnt.
User avatar
VonDondu
Posts: 3185
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by VonDondu »

First of all, no matter how offensive the cartoon might be, it's just a cartoon, and personally, I don't think it should be taken seriously. Maybe my attitude towards free speech is liberal just because I'm an American, but I don't think that any government should censor cartoons, no matter how offensive they are. The government can certainly issue a public statement condemning a cartoon if they choose to do so and clearly explain that the government believes that the cartoon sends the wrong message; but I don't think the government should accept any responsibility for the creation or publication of any cartoon, so I don't think that government involvement is necessary or even desirable.

Anyone who commits an act of terrorism is a terrorist, by definition. I think it would be very ironic if an individual or group of individuals responded to this particular cartoon by committing an act of terrorism. "Since you called me a terrorist, I will blow you up." Like it or not, it would prove that there is some truth in the cartoon. I hope that's not the message that anyone wants to send.

The cartoon might be "hate speech" and might be harmful in its own way, but I don't think it should be punishable. An act of terrorism, on the the other hand, should be punished, and even uninvolved parties should make a statement condemning it. After a terrorist attack, perhaps a few more cartoonists should make a statement in their own way by creating a few more cartoons about terrorists. I don't think the terrorists or their allies would have any right to complain.
User avatar
Obsidian
Posts: 1619
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2001 11:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Obsidian »

The whole situation is ridiculous. Initially I felt the cartoon was in poor taste, but now, on seeing the reaction it is getting, maybe it was entirely legitamate. You are protected from oppression for your religious beliefs, not from ridicule.
The waves came crashing in like blindness.
So I just stood and listened.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

[QUOTE=VonDondu]First of all, no matter how offensive the cartoon might be, it's just a cartoon, and personally, I don't think it should be taken seriously.[/QUOTE]

Whether it should be taken seriously or not, political cartoons are an entirely different genre from comic strips, and with a separate history. They've managed to bring down powerful heads of state in the UK and US repeatedly over the last 200+ years. (Nixon even stated at one point that a particular cartoon was responsible for his losing the 1960 election to Kennedy. He may have been right; the election was a toss-up, and the sleeze issue hadn't been discussed much--but the cartoon brought it to national view.) They're most defintiely serious business.

That noted, was printing those cartoons attacking the revered and wise founder of a legiittimate religion a tasteful thing to do? Not in the slightest. It was, in my opinion, disgusting. Does it constitute a hate crime? I think so, yes. It is a misrepresentation of the religion, just as Islamic terorists are using a twisted version of their religion to justify what is really criminal revenge for international socio-economc crimes. It incites people to believe that Islam is a religion about hatred and intolerance. If Islam's Prophet was shown rejecting modern-day terrorists or being blown up by them, some people might have started thinking. As it is, that magazine and its political cartoonists unfairly slammed Islam and its believers, and widened the sense of anger and betrayal on both sides. Declaring that by doing so they were celebrating "freedom of speech" is ludicrous. These same newspapers are international conglomerates designed to sell to the larget number of readers they can get. If freedom of speech was the criteria, why don't they commission Islamic cartoonists to reply in their pages in kind?

But does that make the nation as a whole in which the publication occurred, or the government in power, responsible? No. And this point will not be generally understood in nations where the concept of secularism is completely foreign. Denmark's regime I think has really blundered on this one. Instead of bluffing matters out, they should have immediately apologized and started work on hate crime legislation, as proof of good faith. They should also have set an example of religious tolerance for their citizens. They have done none of this.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
CM
Posts: 10552
Joined: Fri May 18, 2001 11:00 am
Location: Here
Contact:

Post by CM »

I will limit my views on the matter. But it is simply a matter of respect. Religion is something your respect even if you don't agree with it. The danish newspaper did not respect it. Secondly it is hypocritical pathetic and down right absurd that the EU countries and news papers speak of of freedom of speech. Last i heard neo-nazis had no freedom of speech. And if i recall correctly Denmark has made hate speech illegal. So much for freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to ridicule a faith or a person. It does not mean you have the right to insult others. That is why every single EU country has Libel and Slander laws.

I am personally extremely happy that the Danish diary company has lost 500 million dollars in 3 weeks. Syria and Saudi Arabia have recalled their ambassadors and Libya has closed down their Embassy.

At the end of the day it is an issue of respect. The cartoons showed a lack of respect for a different culture and faith. What you have is one society saying hey we don't find the pictures offensive so you shouldn't either. Last time i heard in a democracy one opinion is never 100% right. Of course looking at Europe you wouldn't realise that.

If Europeans don't find it disrespectful, that is not my concern. The fact is i find it disrespectful. I found find it disrespectful if they made fun of any religious figure. Europe on the other hand would not because there is no respect for religion.

Oddly enough the Russian Orthodox Church has supported the muslim countries in their actions.

Considering Europe's past history i am personally not surprised this came up. Europe has alot of issues with racism. Most of it is pushed under the carpet.

Edited: Posted something off topic.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran

"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Greg.
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Here, now
Contact:

Post by Greg. »

[QUOTE=fable]Whether it should be taken seriously or not, political cartoons are an entirely different genre from comic strips, and with a separate history. [/QUOTE]

Hitler banned the cartoons of David Low - who showed Fascism in a bad way...

Cartoons often leave a bigger impression than an article. Still - right to free expression.

Is there a link to see these particular cartoons?
User avatar
Aegis
Posts: 13412
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: Soviet Canuckistan
Contact:

Post by Aegis »

Political Cartoons, as Fable has said, hold an incredable amount of power and infulence over common people. For instance, during the period of the Reformation, both Reformer's (Lutheran, Zwinglist's, Mennonites and other such groups) as well as Catholics released all sorts of anti-institutional cartoons, be them for or against reform (My particular favorite being the Seven headed Pope. Good fun.)

The fact is even free speech has its limits, and these cartoons found that line, and stomped all over it. There is no reason that a depiction which insinuates all Islamic people to be terrorists, or even support terrorism. As it stands, the ones that do have proven to be the radical and extreme.
User avatar
CM
Posts: 10552
Joined: Fri May 18, 2001 11:00 am
Location: Here
Contact:

Post by CM »

Your timing is perfect or odd. Today at the UN in a meeting discussion human rights my Ambassador (The Pakistani one) ripped a new one into the EU. It was literally vicious on this very matter. The discussion ran into over time and well lets just say the discussion got extremely heated.

My ambassador was the first to speak at 10 am so basically it set the tone and mood for the day. I will try to get the electronic version of the speech to put up here and see what i can get from the EU side as they did respond. You guys can try: http://www.un.org/webcast to see if they have the item on live webcast. I doubt they do as it was a closed meeting. But if you find it let me know.

This topic caused alot of fuss in the UN today. Alot of fuss.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran

"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
User avatar
dj_venom
Posts: 4416
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 7:00 am
Location: The biggest island in the world
Contact:

Post by dj_venom »

I also agree with Fable.

In both World Wars, both sides have used cartoons and they have worked. I remember a good one in my history textbook which insulted Hitler and his army, then on the next page was a very similar line insulting the Americans.

As such, they have always swayed people, and continue to do so.

But I remember times when Christians have gotten angry about Jesus being in articles, however that didn't seem to be as bad. However I think we have got a huge problem in today's society, when the word terrorist, means Arab. And, as a result, a lot more frequently Arab means terrorist.

I won't go into the whole terrorism issue, as this is not the place, but I think the cartoon shouldn't have been done, and this fuss not caused.

They're all in the wrong... and just remember, two wrongs, don't make a right.
In memorian: Fiona; Ravager; Lestat; Phreddie; and all of those from the 1500 incident. Lest we forget.
User avatar
Karembeu
Posts: 828
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Sunnansjö, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Karembeu »

Here are the cartoon pictures thats causing the big fuss....remember that they were published in september 05 I think....guess they are a little slow on reacting... :rolleyes:

[url="http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/28.htm"]http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/28.htm[/url]

My personal opinion is that it was totally right to publish these drawings... It all started with a Danish author wanting to publish a childrens book about Mohammed...seeing the reaction that got, the Danish newspaper chose to publish these 12 drawings as an expression of "freedom of speech"...

Respect of religion...of course....but seeing the reactions this publishing is getting....the "moslems" are doing themselves the bigges illfavour...
“Child abuse doesn’t have to mean broken bones and black marks. Young growing tissues are far more vulnerable to carcinogens than those of adults.
Knowingly subjecting children to it is child abuse.”
User avatar
CM
Posts: 10552
Joined: Fri May 18, 2001 11:00 am
Location: Here
Contact:

Post by CM »

Its amazing these governments defend freedom of speech. Yet a british author who wrote that everything that occured during the holocaust didn't he has to go to trial. When the book was published about the atrocities in Algeria by the french and this guy goes to trial. Talk about hypocrasy. What happened to freedom of speech then?
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran

"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Just as Aegis noted, free speech has its limits. The newspapers may be trying to paint the whole issue as free speech vs. religious censorship, but it can be viewed, too, as free speech vs social responsibility.

[QUOTE=Karembeu]My personal opinion is that it was totally right to publish these drawings... It all started with a Danish author wanting to publish a childrens book about Mohammed...seeing the reaction that got, the Danish newspaper chose to publish these 12 drawings as an expression of "freedom of speech"...[/QUOTE]

Funny how they've never seen fit to challenge Danish Christianity, isn't it? Never published cartoons of Jesus bombing Baghdad, or Moses drowning Arabs in a Red Sea flood? Or could it be that it's always easier to defend free speech when it's aimed at someone else, not at the people you're selling newspapers to? I smell the pungent aroma of hypocrisy, I truly do.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
dragon wench
Posts: 19609
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
Contact:

Post by dragon wench »

Beyond the already-stated issues of respect and hypocrisy, I also find this akin to throwing gasoline on a fire that has been burning brightly since 9/11.

Tensions between the Middle East and Western nations have been extreme since 2001, and the Invasion of Iraq. Publishing cartoons like this only serves to inflame those tensions further, and it is extremely stupid to have done so... :rolleyes:

IMO, free speech is great until somebody is hurt. To make a free speech argument here is indeed disingenuous.
Free speech or repression arguments apply to cases like Salman Rushdie, James Joyce (his novels were banned for a time in the US), or Burma's detained leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
Spoiler
testingtest12
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Spoiler
testingtest12
.......All those moments ... will be lost ... in time ... like tears in rain.
User avatar
Karembeu
Posts: 828
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Sunnansjö, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Karembeu »

[QUOTE=fable]Funny how they've never seen fit to challenge Danish Christianity, isn't it? Never published cartoons of Jesus bombing Baghdad, or Moses drowning Arabs in a Red Sea flood? Or could it be that it's always easier to defend free speech when it's aimed at someone else, not at the people you're selling newspapers to? I smell the pungent aroma of hypocrisy, I truly do.[/QUOTE]

Actually...it's "funny" you should compare it with "Danish-Christianity"... As far as I know "Danish-Christianity" is the same as Swedish-Christianity... Consider then the "Ecce Homo" exhibition they made in Swedish churches...even in the big church in Uppsala, Sweden. 12 pictures depicting a half-naked Jesus...surrounded by 12 homosexual disciples... Respectful...not really... Did anyone really care? Did anyone burn Swedish flags and storm Swedish embassies and boycott Swedish products? The answer is no... Hypocrisy...yes

Btw....did you even look at the "mohammed-drawings?!? Did you see arabs bombing New York?!? Did you see Mohammed drowning christians in the Eufrat river?!? The answer again is no... Pretty harmless drawings and making a fuss about them just proves a point...
“Child abuse doesn’t have to mean broken bones and black marks. Young growing tissues are far more vulnerable to carcinogens than those of adults.
Knowingly subjecting children to it is child abuse.”
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

[QUOTE=Karembeu]Actually...it's "funny" you should compare it with "Danish-Christianity"... As far as I know "Danish-Christianity" is the same as Swedish-Christianity... Consider then the "Ecce Homo" exhibition they made in Swedish churches...even in the big church in Uppsala, Sweden. 12 pictures depicting a half-naked Jesus...surrounded by 12 homosexual disciples... Respectful...not really... Did anyone really care? Did anyone burn Swedish flags and storm Swedish embassies and boycott Swedish products? The answer is no... Hypocrisy...yes[/quote]

You seem to have missed mentioning the whole point of the Ecce Homo exhibit, as a gigantic artistic protest against AIDS. Whereas the picture showing Islam's Prophet with a bomb for a headdress--this was a protest against what? At a guess, let's say, Islam. As I wrote above, a similar situation would show Jesus personally at the head of troops slaughtering civilians in Iraq, invading Baghdad, etc. Not a protest against AIDS. If you're going to draw analogies, they have to be accurate analogies, or no one will accept them.

Btw....did you even look at the "mohammed-drawings?!? Did you see arabs bombing New York?!? Did you see Mohammed drowning christians in the Eufrat river?!? The answer again is no... Pretty harmless drawings and making a fuss about them just proves a point...

Of course I've seen the drawings. Do you want to discuss what they do show, which is more logical than dismissing them instantly for what they don't?

For the rest, I think that with respect you're missing every single one of my points, as though you'd never bothered to read beyond the first sentence once you saw where I was going. What about "freedom of speech vs. social responsibility"? What about media corporations running anti-Islamic cartoons to a Christian readership? Reread my posts without overlooking their content. Then, I'll be happy to discuss any of my comments seriously with you, and in detail. :)
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Luis Antonio
Posts: 9103
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:00 am
Location: In the home of the demoted.
Contact:

Post by Luis Antonio »

I guess Muslim people are making a storm on a glass of water. But then, they are far more religious (and they have far more fanatics) than catolicism and the other traditional religions seem to have.

Its not a matter of respect, but it seems that the only excuse to them is the fanatic behavior to justify the attacks. I'm scared about that matter specifically cause many people get hurt, and its not about killing who bothers you, its killing anyone who is around someone who bothers you - or not. That's what makes me think what kind of poop do these fanatics have on their minds, but ok, no problem, I wont discuss the poop itself.

I think they have every right to draw Mohammed, as they have every right to burn american flags, spit on the face of known capitalism symbols and stuff.
Flesh to stone ain't permanent, it seems.
User avatar
Xandax
Posts: 14151
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Post by Xandax »

Personally - I find the whole situation rather stupid.

The core for me isn't freedom of speech as much as it is respect for others.
I can understand that muslims feel their religon offended by the drawings, but going from that to threathing to kill danes (norweigen and french), siegeing and storming embassies and other such insitutions, threathning with (more) terrorisme, governments endorsing boycuts of danish - all for something which nobody in the country nor government can actually do anything about is very far out in my view.
Then further more demanding excuses from the Government and even the danish royal family (and some even from the danish king eventhough we haven't had one for 20+ years), when it is something the government can't at all interfeere with. It is stupidity on a high level.
If the government starts to interfere with something the media writes, which doesn't infringe any laws, one of the fundamentals of our democracy vanish.
Also when talking about respect for religon, then how does it look when the flags people are burning depict the christian cross - in both the danish and norwiegen flag the cross symbolises christianity. Where is the respect back to other religons? I hear a lot about Islam being a religon of tolerance and forgiving, yet here we see that government and populations wants *their* rules to cover a foreign country and no respect given for christianity. There is no tolerance or forgiving. Had the people been so "noble" - they'd see that the newspaper was responsible and targted thoese people (not by fatwa and deaththreats), but no - it is the entier countries.
How often is it said that not all muslims are terrorists when (yet another) muslim terroist group does something? Well - Pot, meet kettle, and boy is it black.

And @CM/Fas - the neo-nazies does infact have free speech in Denmark, and they exersise it often, just as many muslim organisations does. The border goes when they encourage violence or requests others to break the law, by for instance asking people to kill jews whereever you find them (which a muslim organistion stated in Denmark, and which neo-nazies have also stated), then it is a matter for the courts.

Also I find it fun (yes - fun) that so many muslims are protesting the fact that one drawing depicts Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, and they do so by using violence and guns and murderthreats. Not a sign of peace.

I also think it is good that more newspapers - even a Jordan one have shown the drawings. People need to be aware of what goes on. I hope more newspapers dare to show them, despie the outrage.


This issue fully illustrates to me, that religon is a bad thing, a dangerous thing. It is extreemly visible when people can be so threaten by a few drawings that they turn to such violent behaviour something is indeed wrong. Why are they so insecure about their religon that they need to force their views upon others. Muslims are forbidden to illustrate Mohammed as I understand it - but people in Denmark is not by any means subject to islamic "law" anymore then muslims not living in this country is subject to danish law.

I fear for the world if these people ever will be able to enforce their views on the rest of the world... because what is next area of a society which offends Islam? Let's hope sanity and common sences prevails in this situation, but I'm not holding my breath anymore.
Insert signature here.
User avatar
Xandax
Posts: 14151
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Post by Xandax »

[QUOTE=fable]<snip>
Funny how they've never seen fit to challenge Danish Christianity, isn't it? Never published cartoons of Jesus bombing Baghdad, or Moses drowning Arabs in a Red Sea flood? Or could it be that it's always easier to defend free speech when it's aimed at someone else, not at the people you're selling newspapers to? I smell the pungent aroma of hypocrisy, I truly do.[/QUOTE]

Oh I guess you'd be so very supriesed how much and often for instance the Christian God and the "danish" interpretation of religon is depicted in so many ways. You obviously don't know it for sure, but are just trying to state it as if you do.


You might smell hypocrisy but it seems to be comming from some other place.
Insert signature here.
User avatar
Lestat
Posts: 4821
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:14 pm
Location: Here

Post by Lestat »

If people have an issue with these cartoons, that they take it to the courts, demonstrate (peacefully) in the streets, write editorials in newspapers and show that the ideas presented in these cartoons are wrong, rather then doing their utmost to confirm the misguided image of Islam as a religion of violence and terrorism, presented in these cartoons.
It would also be nice if there would be as much outrage about muslim media [url="http://cartoonbox.slate.com/hottopic/?topicid=7&image=0"]caricaturising e.g. Jews[/url], routinely cast as vilains in many Egyptian films (not to say anything about the very lukewarm reaction in the muslim world when the president of a self-avowed Islamic Republic says he would like to see another member state of the UN "wiped of the map"). If the defense of free speech in this case seems selective, how much more selective is this outrage in the muslim world?

It is not as if other religions have not been confronted with similar “insults” ("Passion of Christ", "Life of Brian", routine caricatures & jokes on about every Christian figure of worth, even on this board). Just as some people think that Christianity is worthy of ridicule, say Nietzche who called it a religion of slaves or people who call the Pope a murderer for his stance against condoms, so some think that Islam is worthy of ridicule.

Several Flemish newspapers republished the cartoons, here is my best translation of the justifications of three of them with which I wholeheartedly agree:

De Standaard

Living in a tolerant and multicultural society is not easy. Because in such a society there are things that people get annoyed by. There are values that are absolute for one group and that another group finds far less important. There is a clash of opinions. Different views. Flaring conflicts. There is resentment and indignation. The organisation of a peaceful clash of values is an essential part of an open, modern and tolerant society.

The case of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that the Danish paper Jyllands Posten published at the end of September last year, and that led these last days to severe conflicts, is such a clash of values. The images concerned are shocking to Muslims. Islam forbids the human depiction of the Prophet. By depicting Mohammed as a terrorist the cartoonist hurts millions of people in what is very dear to them: their deepest faith. It is not a deed that a paper should consider lightly.

The desirable and necessary respect for religion and faith is clashing inevitably with the freedom of opinion and press. They are not absolute. E.g. calling for the assassination of someone is not comprised under the concept of freedom of the press. But the freedom of speech is since the Enlightenment one of the cornerstones of western society. Without Freedom of Speech – captilised – no democracy. Or to paraphrase the quote attributed to Voltaire: “I detest your opinion, but I'd give my life so you can continue to express it.” Ridicule, criticism, satire and irony – even if it is evidence of a questionable taste – are an inextricable part of this Freedom of Speech.

Aren't muslims allowed to be angry about these cartoons or about the lack of respect they experience? Of course they are. As much as christians were allowed to be angry about Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' or, closer, catholics felt hurt by Bart Peeters' 'Koken met Jezus'. But this anger or even deeply hurt feeling does not justify them limiting the freedom of speech. What Theo van Gogh said about muslims was hurtful and reprehensible. But it was no reason to kill him. To dispute someone's opinion is something completely different from disputing someone's right to express that opinion.

In this case the basic values of democracy and western though are disputed. To clearly express how important the editors of this paper think these values are, we decided to reprint a number of the concerned cartoons today.


Het Nieuwsblad

Respect is not a synonym of going down on one's knees for those who have a different opinion. One does not show respect by forcing others to accept you're right, by calling for the death of Salman Rushdie (because of his Satanic Verses in 1979) or by killing film maker Theo van Gogh (because of his movie Submission in 2004)

Wat deserves respect is the freedom of speech and the right to be well informed. The right to have a different opinion and to say it, write it, print it, show it, draw it, film it and spread it... is one of the most valuable rights we have. That right of freedom of speech has not been obtained without struggle, but is a precious thing, because it's a sign of an emancipated and free society. It should be a universal right, because progress and democracy only exist where opinions can clash. A real Enlightenment works on alternating current.

In the name of the right to free speech our paper publishes today the damnable cartoons.


De Morgen

If it comes down to the defense of the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, we're all Danes today. Our society cannot tolerate that artists or journalists are silenced under threat of economic, physical or political violence. The cartoons in question did not have the object of promoting hatred and racism and they're not extracts from xenophobic pamphlets. They're “works of art”, for which the freedom of expression is valid a fortiori.

Because let us be clear: it is not the expressed opinion as such that worries the fundamentalists. It is the freedom with which it is expressed that scares them. That freedom is the largest threat to the system from which they draw their power. For that reason, all authoritarian regimes – whether from fascist, communist or fundamentalist nature – will fight freedom and its defenders in the arts, the press or politics.


Was the paper wise to publish these cartoons? Maybe not, that is what migh fall under the "social responsibility" Fable mentions. But they were fully in their rights. And in view of violent reactions in some places, I indeed believe that it is almost a duty to reprint these images (as BTW one Jordan newspaper also did).
The right to freedom of speech means that the likes of Pat Robertson can say that Katrina was a punishment of God. That must have hurt quite some people too. If freedom of speech is only reserved when it doesn't hurt, it's worth crap.
I think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability.
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
User avatar
Greg.
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Here, now
Contact:

Post by Greg. »

This isnt just in relation to these cartoons, but look at the complaints Hitman 2 got... Because you could shoot armed muslims in a mosque etc. How many games have you played where you have shot armed people, who would be assumed as Christian, in a church.

It may be that people in Christian countries have become less religious/less extreme in their religion/beliefs. 'Life of Brian' received many complaints when it was made, but there was no violent rioting. Although this could just be a cultural difference. Rather a lot of Commonwealth and American war veterans hate the Japanese for their cruel treatment of WWII PoW's, but this was due to the concept of 'Death before Surrender' which was more prevalent in Japan than in the West.

It was slightly unnecessary to depict a religious icon as inciting terrorism; but the cartoonist has is right to freedom of expression.

EDIT - has anyone noticed how racist the 'Tintin' comics are - I mean Tintin makes his face up like a black and white minstrel to pretent to be a cabin boy on a cruise ship...
Post Reply