It isn't as if the UN, the OIC and the EU needed any new reasons for me to despise them, but a joint statement like this ought to provide some food for thought for those advocates of freedom of expression inclined to think well of any of these organizations.
The anguish in the Muslim World at the publication of these offensive caricatures is shared by all individuals and communities who recognize the sensitivity of deeply held religious belief. In all societies there is a need to show sensitivity and responsibility in treating issues of special significance for the adherents of any particular faith, even by those who do not share the belief in question.In other words, freedom of speech is a good thing, except when used too freely, particularly in a manner which fails to "show sensitivity and responsibility in treating issues of special significance for the adherents of any particular faith": seeing as national socialism and communism are both faiths, albeit of a political variety, are we now supposed to refrain from "insensitive" criticism of both ideologies as well as those who hold them? Am I supposed to respect the "beliefs" of Christians and Muslims who think women belong at home making babies, and homosexuals should be jailed or killed, simply because said beliefs are "deeply", "sincerely" or "fervently" held? What happens when one set of "issues of special significance for the adherents of any particular faith" happen to collide with those of another, as with Muslims and Jews over Israel's existence, with monotheists versus polytheists, or even with the numerous splinter groups within any major religion? Do we simply command that everyone shut up then?We fully uphold the right of free speech. But we understand the deep hurt and widespread indignation felt in the Muslim World. We believe freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion, and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions.
This is just the sort of mealy-mouthed, deeply unprincipled gush I was referring to in saying the idea that one ought to respect any set of "beliefs", simply because they are deeply held, is utterly stupid; if you choose to believe with all your might that the earth is flat and 2 plus 2 make 5, I'm under no ethical (let alone legal) obligation whatsoever to treat your beliefs "responsibly" and "with respect", no matter how many others like you there are out there willing to resort to violence upon hearing my expressions of disdain: in fact the opposite is true, and mockery is just what you need lots more of. You want to get me to stop laughing at you and your foolishness? Simple - just abandon your stupid notions.
PS: On a related note, I invite you to witness two stunning examples of journalistic hypocrisy, the first by CNN, which has refrained from publishing the offending Danish cartoons "in respect for Islam" despite having had no problem reprinting Ofili's dung painting of the Virgin Mary some years back, and the second - and much more brazen - example being courtesy of the New York Times, which also reproduces the Ofili painting, but does so in the very body of an article in which European newspapers which have reprinted the Danish cartoons are lambasted for supposedly "exploiting the general Muslim prohibition on images of the Prophet Muhammad to score cheap points about freedom of expression"; if there ever was a newspaper article which epitomized the noxious mixture of cowardice, fence-sitting and condescending pandering which characterizes the response of far too many so-called "liberals" to Islamic provocations, it has to be this one: at least with the CNN article a (farfetched) argument could be made that a more "respectful" attitude towards religion had been introduced over the last 5 years (though the publication of a picture of Kanye West as Jesus undermines this rationalization somewhat), while the NYT has no excuse whatsoever for trying to dress up fear of being given the Theo van Gogh treatment as "sensitivity" and "maturity." Had these organizations simply come out and said "We refuse to publish these cartoons out of a duty to ensure the safety of our staff", I'd have a lot more respect for both of them.
"The anguish in the Muslim World" - not a word about the anguish in the Western world about intimidations and murders of writers. How very generous of these idiots who imagine they speak for someone.
"deeply unprincipled gush.."
Except that it is not unprincipled at all. The principle is an arrogant, patronizing atitude towards everyone but themselves - Muslims are wild and hysterical to these people, Westerners who demur are uneducated racists, etc.
"cheap points about freedom of expression";
Disgusting. Freedom of expression was bought with rivers of blood and there is nothing cheap about it or any assertion of the right.
I don['t get the commnet about Kanye West though, although I wonder that it may be a little heretical to cast someone as pretty as Kanye West as Jesus. The thing is that Jesus is amused rather than insulted.
Posted by: Jim | February 08, 2006 at 10:46 PM
Have you seen this?- http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html
A (sane) Egyptian who points out that a major egyptian Newspaper ran the 'offensive' cartoons months ago to little reaction by the public.
Posted by: Ross | February 08, 2006 at 10:52 PM
"I don['t get the commnet about Kanye West though, although I wonder that it may be a little heretical to cast someone as pretty as Kanye West as Jesus."
A bunch of the fundagelicals have their knickers in a twist because it offends their "sincere", "deeply held" beliefs that a black rapper who insulted George Bush should be trying to pass himself off as Jesus H. Christ, whom everyone knows to have been an Aryan GOP Voter. This irritation is no more rational than the Muslim ire over these cartoons, but at least it isn't being expressed in boycotts, flag-burnings, death threats and embassy burnings.
"A (sane) Egyptian who points out that a major egyptian Newspaper ran the 'offensive' cartoons months ago to little reaction by the public."
Bah! He's obviously another racist trying to hide his religious and ethnic hatred of Muslims and Arabs behind a veil of rationality, of course (and maybe even a paid agent of Mossad to boot)! Who else but such a person could say as he did that
["They proved, once again, that the arab world is retarded and deserves no better than its leaders."]
If it is racist to state obvious facts about the condition of the Muslim world today, then an awful lot of commentators with Muslim backgrounds must be self-hating or something ...
Posted by: Abiola | February 08, 2006 at 11:18 PM
The Offili picture of the Madonna was not regarded as blasphemous generally in the "Christian world" and attracted no comment at all when it was displayed in London, not even from our own evangelicals; it was only a small sect of Americans who disliked it and it is quite likely that they were at least as offended by the portrayal of the Madonna as a black woman. Curiously nobody was offended by the fact that there were also details in the picture made up of pictures cut out of pornographic magazines, but since you had to actually see the picture in order to realise that, I suppose it's not surprising.
Posted by: dsquared | February 09, 2006 at 07:17 AM
You're all missing something--or at least not stating it. The fact that sometimes such potentially inflammatory images (or statements) pass under whatever radar serves as the threshold for the ummah outrage detector points to the socialization factor in these (especially the violent) outbursts.
I would gather (actually have gathered from a lifetime of observing human behavior) that these people are not different in most ways from ourselves and our society. What IS different is that, in the case of certain matters having to do with religion or social matters, they have a poorly-developed "rule of law" and poor enforcement of whatever law exists in such matters.
What we are actually witnessing is an example: an illustration of the extent to which so many Muslims--apparently everywhere--are deathly scared of certain of their fellows (and somewhat uncertain about just which ones may pose potential danger to themselves and their loved ones. History in the West provides plenty of examples of similar behavior (witch-hunts, lynch-mobs, urban riots, etc.). Further, the same history indicates that effectively applied suppression (of ACTION) actually works, not only by preventing or punishing malefaction itself but by freeing most from the danger posed by a presumed influence of the few.
These people are not different from us in nature but in behavior; and, while the former is not malleable, the latter is certainly so.
Posted by: gene berman | February 09, 2006 at 01:09 PM
I agree with you 100%. The UN and EU bureaucrats are so far removed from the opinions of regular people that it is hard to believe. Obviously, there is no accountablity.
Posted by: Matt | February 11, 2006 at 02:35 AM
Just look at this bloody moron threatening the Japanese:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060211f1.html
I tell you: people associate with these countries at their own risk. Contrary to what John Esposito and his ilk might want us to believe; the problem *is* freedom of expression. Muslims believe they have the right to goad and prod dissenting views into silence; whether it be on women, on religion, or on science. And when they cant get their way politically, they take to the streets. This is not about \"special sensitivity\" needed during the war on terror, it is about what Muslims believe and what they do. They would have \"sacred areas\" erected where the mind of individuals do not venture, neither their mouths comment, nor their fingers write. This is what they want. Anyone who pretends otherwise is deluded.
Feelings? Care about your \"feelings\"? Grow the hell up! Can you imagine a diplomat telling a free country that an exercise by a private establishment is a provocation? This is what we have come to: Accept tyrannical immigrants at your own risk!
Posted by: Chuckles | February 11, 2006 at 08:49 PM
"The Foreign Ministry on Monday recommended media organizations not reprint the caricatures out of consideration for Muslims and for fear it could trigger attacks on Japanese. The ministry also issued a statement Tuesday saying Japan understands the distress of the Muslims but they should not resort to violence.
"Reprinting (the images) is a provocation," the ambassador said. "It is as if they are saying 'we don't care about your feelings.' "
He added that even pictures of the caricatures that show them indirectly is unnecessary. The Japan Times printed a photograph in its Feb. 4 editions of a person holding a French newspaper that carried the cartoons."
The scary thing is that the threat is a realistic one, even in a country with as few Muslims as Japan; just look at what happened to the Japanese translator of "The Satanic Verses", Hitoshi Igarashi, way back in 1991.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/04/18/specials/rushdie-translator.html
["TOKYO, July 12 -- The Japanese translator of "The Satanic Verses," by Salman Rushdie, was found slain today at a university northeast of Tokyo.
The translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, 44 years old, was an assistant professor of comparative culture who reportedly studied in Iran in the 1970's. The police said he was stabbed several times on Thursday night and left in the hallway outside his office at Tsukuba University."]
Funny how far the peaceful reach of the Religion of Peace extends.
Posted by: Abiola | February 11, 2006 at 09:37 PM
The death of H.I. was a particularly poignant episode: And I wonder, just how besieged people in countries with less robust political structures must feel...Look at Isioma Daniel for instance: Yet, many would have us believe that Muslims, and other Religionists arent the problem!
On another note: It seems Hindus are desperately giving Muslims a run for their money.
http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HB11Df06.html
[...However, attention is being drawn to Hindu fundamentalists taking umbrage at India\'s top artist, M F Husain, who has been booked by police for \"hurting sentiments of people\" with paintings that depict nude gods...]
Yeah, yeah, dem gods sure dont like to be nude, do they now? And what fickle sentiments all these acolytes seem to possess. At least, they arent beheading people and burning embassies yet...
This world is a hopeless place with so many stupid people around. All these crazy religions need to be housebroken.
Posted by: Chuckles | February 11, 2006 at 09:59 PM
By the way Abiola; you and some of the other readers might find the comments of Spengler over at Asia Times Online on this affair to be particularly apropos: When he isnt worrying about Hispanics and rhapsodizing about Xtian virtues and Franz Rosenzweig, I find him to be quite a delightful affair - certainly more nuanced and savvy than many other pundits out there.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB07Ak02.html
His closing, with a flourish:
[...I would not have drawn nor published these cartoons, but when the lines are drawn, I stand with Western freedom against traditional authority. I write these lines over a Carlsberg and shall drink no other lager until the boycott of Danish product ends...]
PS: It seems the Pope shares your belief on the incompatibility of Islam with Western Democracy. And I say, *he should* know about such things.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA10Ak01.html
Posted by: Chuckles | February 11, 2006 at 10:13 PM