Jackhass wrote:Yeah, free-speech is all fine and good...but is unrest and protest across Europe worth it?
The protests and unrest are in the Muslim countries, not in Europe. And yes, freedom of speech is worth it. Freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy. As societies, it took us hundreds of years to get freedom of speech, and we're not going to give up on it. If this whole fuckup were to mean that the West collectively arrived at saying "we mustn't say anything that annoys this specific group of people", then we'd no longer have freedom of speech.
bustertheclown wrote:Again, I'm not talking about the realities of the situation. I'm talking about the tactics used in a battle of rhetoric. You're right, drawings are probably not terribly important, even if they serve as propaganda which helps to strengthen the negative public opinions held on one side. They probably aren't the worst there is or could be drawn out there, and the reaction that it has ignited is most certainly an overreaction.
That doesn't dismiss the weight that the reaction has carried, however. The fact that this one, perceiveably minor, slight to Islamic extremists has gained strength over months and has reached a blaring crescendo on the world stage speaks volumes for the power of even the most seemingly innocuos rhetoric to incite action. That's the nature of the game.
Yeah, but like I said before, this is not about Jyllands-Posten's cartoons. It's about Islamic fundamentalists trying to paint themselves as the true Muslims. And they find fertile ground for all their hostility towards the West, because of the fucked up state of the Arab countries. The drawings were the trigger, but the underlying reasons are something else entirely. Namely the Arab governments' tyranny, brutality and inability to solve the huge political, social and economic problems that plague their countries. Normally, the Arab governments don't allow for civil unrest, but here's something that will focus their populaces' attention on something else than their own blatant shortcomings. In the short term, both the Islamic fundies and the Arab governments win. In the long term, they lose, because they're worsening their relations with the West, which they're economically and technologically totally dependent upon.
bustertheclown wrote:I don't think it was calculative for the artist to answer the call, and draw the image. I think it was calculative for the newspaper to make the call in the first place, and then print some very negative imagery, when heated controversy was almost certainly to follow.
I don't see it as "very negative imagery". Of the 12 cartoons, there's two or three which, if you
really want to, can be seen as denigrating, the rest are perfectly mild-mannered or don't feature Mohammed at all. It's a good thing the drawings have recently been reprinted in newspapers in France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Jordan, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain, so more people can see for themselves, because some of the written descriptions of them have been unfair. I'm disappointed at the usually trustworthy BBC's now oft-repeated line that some of the cartoons "depict the Prophet as a terrorist", which simply isn't true. Misrepresentations like that are downright dangerous in this heated situation.
That said, to the Islamic fundamentalists, these subtleties don't matter at all, so meh.
bustertheclown wrote:Editors aren't stupid. They know the power of words and images, and they should be able to foresee the possible outcomes of what they choose to print. Certainly the newspaper(s) that have printed this at first didn't expect such a strong negative response, but, again, when Europeans are being maimed and killed to answer lesser transgressions, how could any editor claim ignorance of the possibilities?
No one can be expected to foresee the future, certainly not a gross overreaction. Frankly, this is like saying a rape victim should have foreseen what wearing a short skirt would result in.
And Europeans being killed over "lesser transgressions"? I'm lost here - who, where, when, why?
bustertheclown wrote:It brings me back to inherent responsibility within public expression, though. Those with the public platform to broadcast statements are responsible for the statements they make, not in the least because their statements can often become representative of entire nations and peoples. In this instance, I wouldn't put the initial responsibility on the shoulders of your Prime Minister. The many of the cartoonists themselves recognized the call as nothing more than an attention grabbing ploy. It's unfortunate that irresponsible act of one body can shift the responsibility to another's shoulders. That's what has happened, however, since this has become an issue of the greater political agendas at hand. All from one pass of a printing barrel.
Of course you have a responsibility for what you say in public, but you're not responsible for what other people do just because they don't like what you said. Jyllands-Posten chose to print some cartoons.
A Syrian mob chose to attack and burn down the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus today. That's
their responsibility, not that of Jyllands-Posten. All proportionality has been lost in this case. An editor is supposed to take into account that something he prints may result in angry letters or a lawsuit for libel, but certainly not that it may result in a mob of lunatics torching an embassy. No one could have foreseen that.
bustertheclown wrote:Certainly, I didn't mean to draw any sort of line that would connect US military action to Danish newspapers in a conspiratorial marriage. However, I still maintain that both major acts and minor acts should be considered, when looking at the events that led up to a state in which twelve drawings could cause an international controversy. I think it should be noted that in these debates, statements have often been made about how the core of the discussion is about the evils perpetrated by the "enemy", yet, when similar evils are pointed out to have been perpetrated by "allies", suddenly this is just about drawings again.
Lots of things have been done by major Western powers over the years at the expense of Muslim countries, things that would make people pissed off - but the drawings in themselves are surely just a trigger, and not a cause?
But you're not going to find a lot of support for the viewpoints of extremist muslims who want to kill people for drawing a cartoon. There may not be an objective morality at work here, but Howard has made a moral judgement with which a large majority of human beings would agree.
comedy bonanza!
