To the death, I suppose
Thursday, February 02, 2006

From Slinging Ink, on the naughty cartoon apocalypse:

We therefore call on free-thinking bloggers everywhere to post the images on their sites and, through sheer weight of numbers, defeat those who would deny us our right to freedom of expression. We also request the that the companies that host these blogs do not capitulate to this 21st century inquisition. In particular we expect the British government to respect the vote that was passed in the House of Commons not two days ago.

I'll provide links to the cartoons but I'm not going to reproduce them here, for the same reason I don't post Bernard Manning jokes: I think they're shit.

Some of these cartoons barely pass as art let alone satire. Some of them, in my opinion, are making no other point than attempting to be deliberately inciteful. It's a taste thing, I suppose. If they'd been clever and made me laugh I'd have posted them.

This whole thing is the equivalent of Little Johnny being given detention because he drew a knob on his pencil case (which is actually funnier than these cartoons). It's childish, it's puerile but the seas didn't boil and the skies didn't rain blood. The people who drew some these cartoons are arseholes but, in what we laughingly call our liberal society, we must defend their right to be arseholes. So scribble away lads, somebody, somewhere must find you funny.

And, whatever your faith, if it's not up to withstanding a few rubbish drawings or a sweary opera, then your god clearly isn't as great and powerful as you keep telling us he is. What exactly are you frightened of? Get a bloody grip, eh?


14 Comments:

On February 02, 2006 10:41 AM, Blogger lucien de la peste said...

Quite agree about the quality of the goods, Justin, something we posted on earlier in the week.

Bernard Manning though....you're having a turkish, right? Comedy genius in this burgh.

Thanks for the link.  


On February 02, 2006 11:55 AM, Blogger Friendly Fire said...

While the cartoonists have the right to say what they want, and no one should bow to terrorism, the problem with the cartoons was that they were genuinely offensive, bigoted, actually. Many suggested that Muhammad was a terrorist or approved of terrorism. It's easy for people in the West to assume Muslims are not rational people, who get upset at the slightest mention. But this isn't that case.

These cartoonists went out of their way to find the most offensive way to depict Muhammad and then sat back, stunned that people didn't like their uninformed takes on Islam.

It's really a slap in the face to law-abiding, hard working muslims and says "this is what they really think about you".

What truly offends me is the way people are saying "well, they have the right to say it". We have the right to say many things, but why avoid the responsibility for your words.

When I insult politicians, I don't say "why are they mad, I have a right to say that", I say, "well, yeah, because that's what I think". I don't hide behind the right to say something.

If just one of them said "we don't respect Muslims" I could understand that. But it seems in this case, they wanted to disrespect Muslims and then not have any consequence for their actions. This in countries with state sponsored religions.

The reason France Soir's editor got fired wasn't fear, but the fact that the cartoons are provocative and offensive.  


On February 02, 2006 11:57 AM, Blogger Friendly Fire said...

Those were Steve Gilliard's words above and I row right in behind them.  


On February 02, 2006 12:59 PM, Blogger Ceridwen Devi said...

The site posting these cartoons is according to our man in Amsterdam who can read double Dutch a nasty right wing anti immigration and gung ho let's have a war on terror site. In liberal Mokum these days you go to jail if you have no ID!  


On February 02, 2006 1:30 PM, Blogger lucien de la peste said...

These cartoonists went out of their way to find the most offensive way to depict Muhammad

D'you think so?

Give us time and we'll come up with some worse ones.

As Justin said, the only thing those cartoons offend is our sense of humour.  


On February 02, 2006 2:09 PM, Anonymous Osama Saeed said...

I've posted more on the Muslim viewpoint on these on my site. If people have a right to offend, then they should also expect people to have a right to be offended.

http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2006/02/those_blasted_c.html  


On February 02, 2006 3:36 PM, Blogger CuriousHamster said...

The cartoons are in very bad taste and not actually funny. There's a fine line between satire and incitement and it's hard to make a judgement on the cartoonist's motives without more information on the context.

It is interestimng that the cartoons originally appeared about four months ago in a Danish newspaper. It does seem slightly odd that it's taken that long for them to "go viral". The Religious Policeman thinks that this storm has been whipped up by the Saudi government to distract attention from the deaths at the Hajj. I suspect he may have a point.  


On February 02, 2006 4:10 PM, Blogger Justin said...

Ink Slinger, just to clarify further, I wouldn't say the only thing those cartoons offend is our sense of humour (although I hope they did of most if not all sentient adults).

It's clear the cartoons have offended (some) Muslims and that's their right. It's just that I'm not sure why, if Islam (and Christianity in the case of Jerry Springer) is the mighty faith it's bigged up to be, some Muslims have to take all this to heart so (I'll admit I still have a lot to learn about Islam). They're cartoons drawn by people with the same talent (and, I suspect, sophistication) as my one year-old daughter, designed to provoke in the most despicably calculating way.

It would have been massively more satisfying if a leading Muslim cleric were to stand up and say, "Well, may we respectfully suggest that these cartoonists try an art class and maybe a comedy workshop? We also humbly offer to buy them some books with lots of pictures and (but not too many words) about Islam and the Prophet that can put their misconceptions straight."

But like Osama says above, if you're going to deliberately set out to offend somebody (although I feel this is a nastier attempt at something deeper than offence), don't be surprised if they get offended. If you spray "Johnny bums his mum" on a wall, you can't really cry foul when Johnny, who loves his mum very much, wants to punch you in the mouth.  


On February 03, 2006 10:36 AM, Blogger lucien de la peste said...

Justin, three points in response to yours....

First, the cartoons don't set out to offend muslims. They are designed to ridicule the terrorists, a device that has been used throughout history to strengthen people's resolve against their enemies (presumably, for the war or against, we are all agreed that they are our enemies). If ordinary, moderate Muslims take offence at them, could it not be argued that they sympathise with the terrorists, in which case they are fair game?

Second, we found an interesting perspective on the cartoons from an Islamic perspective (albeit an educated, secular Islamic perspective, if that's not a tautology) here, which is definitely worth a read. Interesting if only for the fact that Butler lives in Australia, where Arabs are routinely referred to as "Lebs" and "Wogs".

We also note that newspapers in Egypt and Jordan have now published a number of the caricatures, again as a gesture in support of free speech and the Enlightenment values that are the absolute bedrock of European society.  


On February 03, 2006 12:12 PM, Blogger matt said...

I am a Christian who was offended by Jerry Springer the Opera. However, the people who were involved in the Opera have a right to freedom of expression which I deeply respect. I also have a right to freedom of expression when it comes to my offence.

My feeling is that understanding will come through freedom of expression on all sides, with people not just tolerating each other but having the grace to accept what others have to say.

Personally I think this country and the world in general is in a total mess that can only be sorted out by following Jesus. However, I accept that is not a majority view in this country and may even offend some of you. You equally have the right to say whatever you like about my faith and I will defend your right to do so. Cue: avalanche of offensive comments.

Another question is: at what point do we as a society accept that people will get angry if you push them too far? Perhaps it's more to do with whether the actions are deliberately provocative? However, you could argue that there comes a point where certain offensive viewpoints become "acceptable" or received wisdom in wider society. e.g. Irishmen as stupid navvies, Americans as ignorant tourists, Jews as responsible for Germany's problems after WWI.

At which point do comments about certain people groups stop being freedom of expression and become dangerous? Was Hitler responsible for Germans in general coming to see the Jews as subhuman, or was he just a product of the society he was in? Are our leaders able to change the prevailing social climate? - I hope so because if they aren't then the ethnic, social and religious divides in this country are going to get worse and there's nothing we can do (except turn to Jesus of course ;-)  


On February 03, 2006 3:47 PM, Blogger Norbert Trouser-Quandary said...

I think its alos worth having a look at this, from Germany:
http://www.signandsight.com/features/588.html

The matter of who is provoking who with the provocation stick is not quite as straightforward as it seems, especially if you add in what The Religious Policeman says here:
http://muttawa.blogspot.com/2006/02/memo.html  


On February 03, 2006 5:56 PM, Blogger ejh said...

If ordinary, moderate Muslims take offence at them, could it not be argued that they sympathise with the terrorists, in which case they are fair game?

Hmmm, we're going to try and say that Muslims who are offended are therefore presumably sympathisers with terrorism?

Well, I gues that's what this little wheeze was all about.  


On February 03, 2006 7:07 PM, Anonymous Don said...

'These cartoonists went out of their way to find the most offensive way to depict Muhammad'

Didn't do much of a job, then, as the protest instigators found it expedient to add three more to the mix. And they were really nasty.  


On February 09, 2006 4:31 PM, Blogger lucien de la peste said...

Well, I gues that's what this little wheeze was all about.

Which wheeze, the cartoons or the disproportionate response orchestrated by the Saudi government and the terrorist sympathisers?

When the excellent Anglo-American docudrama, Death Of A Princess, was first scheduled for broadcast on PBS (way back in 1980) it met with an outcry of protest from the Saudi Royal Family. There was an equally vociferous response from many Senators, Congressmen and senior Reagan administration insiders.

At the time, acting Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, wrote to PBS president Lawrence Grossman. In this letter, which was simultaneously released to the press, he urged PBS to "re-evaluate" its decision to show the programme, given the subject matter's "potential damage to our relations with an important ally." Heavy pressure was also brought to bear by Mobil Oil, chief underwriter for many PBS programmes, in the form of demands that PBS pull the film as it reflected badly on Saudi life. The seed of fear was also planted that perhaps the Saudis would turn off the tap on America's oil supply. To PBS' credit, they didn't cave in.

PBS has revisited the programme some 25 years later and it has even more impact today, particularly when viewed alongside the US' kid glove treatment of Saudi Arabia post 9/11 and its use of the oldest sleight of hand trick in the book, the art of misdirection. The liberation of Iraq and the West's colonial aspirations there have now resulted in a more fractious and radical Islamic state than the secular nation that it replaced, but the US administration believes it is one that can be controlled.

How little things have changed. As demonstrated by 9/11 and this latest shit storm, the 'true' Islamic faith was hijacked by an odd assortment of repressive and paranoid men many, many years ago... and their actions are still resonating today.

Another salient point about the cartoons:

Guess which was the only European country sucessfully to force its media not to broadcast Death Of A Princess.

The answer? Denmark, and much good it did them.  


Post a Comment




Links to this post:

Create a Link


Home