I haven't really developed an opinion on the Danish Mohammed cartoons. On the one hand, I think that people who publish nasty jokes about other peoples' religious beliefs are basically kind of jerks. They are especially jerky when those religious beliefs are held mainly by an economically and socially marginal minority. On the other, I have considerable ire towards people who think that the correct response towards blasphemy is violence, threatened or actual.
But whatever one's opinions about the decision to publish, breathes there a libertarian with heart so dead that they can fail to thrill to the sight of Ezra Levant telling off the thought police Canadian Human Rights commission when they interrogate him about his motives?
MEGAN,
"They are especially jerky when those religious beliefs are held mainly by an economically and socially marginal minority."
Islam is confirmed as the second largest religion in the world. First, I don't see how it is more insidious to pick on a religion that is less popular than it is to pick on the grand-daddy of joke-butts, Western Christianity. Second, clearly if it is the second largest faith in the world, you must mean minority in some arcane demographic sense, such as the fact that most adherents tend to be, for lack of a better phrase, "brown-skinned". Economically, I would differ, as certain Islam fundamentalist nations are the richest in the world (i.e. Middle Eastern oil rich nations). I'm just curious as to how you rationalize coddling a faith whose adherents pursued the same types of bloody campaigns and empires of faith that Western ones have.
Peter-
I hope you're being willfully obtuse.
I think it is pretty clear Megan meant minority in Denmark.
I had much the same thought as Peter--I guess that muslims are a minority, but in the same way that christians or residents of India are a minority.
Apparently, Megan believes that the Danish cartoons were directed at a solely Danish audience--perhaps true, but somewhat irrelevant at this point.
Peter, I think you'll find that I also don't like coastal elites making stupid jokes about fundamentalists. Gentle humor about religion is fine, but those cartoons were not gentle. Again, I think the paper had a right to print them, but I think they were kind of acting like jerks to do so . . . just like I think the New York Times has a perfect right to print jokes about how Jews are greedy, but would nonetheless be pretty outraged if they did.
Discrimination against religious minorities is expression of our intolerance of their abhorrent cultural practices and as such represents social sanction, the job of which is "controlling behavior in these areas".
For that reason, we should "appreciate and celebrate" discrimination of minority groups and its contribution to "awesome weight of this emergent order".
Jolly-
Let's start with discrimination against bigoted morons, mmmmkay?
Dude, like having black skin, I don't think that holding religious beliefs is a form of behavior deserving of social sanction--whether that sanction comes from the New York Times, or religious people shunning atheists. I think you'll find our founding fathers agreed.
I think the paper had a right to print them, but I think they were kind of acting like jerks to do so
Here's where I disagree. The cartoons were the alleged cause of riots and death. I think everyone had the right to know just what the hell it was that started such a fuss. The issue had passed from "being a jerk," which description might well have applied to the original Danish publication, to "being highly newsworthy."
If somebody had been murdered for telling a joke about Jews to the wrong guy, you'd probably be curious to find out what the joke was; I would be. And if the NYT made the editorial decision to publish it (or a cartoon containing it) while reporting on the murder, your outrage would be (should be) considerably less than if they just ran with it because they thought it was funny.
"Jews" are sometimes believers in the Jewish faith, and are sometimes atheists. That is, they are a so-called "ethnic group".
"Muslims" are believers in a faith. Islam is not an ethnic group, but is instead a religious doctrine.
To ridicule Islam is to ridicule a belief. To further stereotypes against Jewish people is to incite hatred against a group of people.
Your analogy would be more apt if it compared the ridiculing of Mohammed, with,say the ridiculing of the Old Testament.
And your analogy would be more apt if the ridiculing of Mohammed, only sixty years ago, led to the slaughter of millions of innocent people -- regardless of whether they had a religion, or had no religion at all.
There is a vast difference between A) Incitement to murder, and B) The refusal to be dictated to by violent religious people.
The prohibition against Mohammed pictures is part of Islamic law, and not Danish, or Canadian law.
I'm talking about the original paper. After that, it gets, I agree, complicated.
2 Megan:
It is empirical question whether atheists should be ostracized for their beliefs.
If it was true that atheism is detrimental to personal morality, dam right bornagin morons should shun us.
Man this is too good to make up:
"It is empirical question whether atheists should be ostracized for their beliefs."
It shouldn't be, I know this because I found the answer on the periodic table.
MM:
So, commetary, via cartoon, regarding the sometimes violent actions of some muslims, should be limited to avoid being a "jerk" because some muslims believe that depicting mohammed is blasphemy?
So anyone saying "goddamn" or "jesus christ" in public is a jerk because some christians view that as blashphemy and might overhear it? Or not, because christianity is the majority (or at least plurality) religion?
What about picking on Tom Cruise? How about your co-blogger, Sullivan, and his needling of Scientology, does that make Andrew a jerk? What about South Park's treatment of religion in general?
And by "limited" in my prior, I mean self-censored, not proscribed by law.
Zaleriana, when you see me opining unfavorably on other people's religious beliefs you're free to call me on it. But I don't. I don't like it.
Of course, the Danish cartoons did not mock Islam. It was three other cartoons that the Imams who worked the crowds (and falsely claimed had been published as part of the batch) that did that.
Dude, like having black skin, I don't think that holding religious beliefs is a form of behavior deserving of social sanction...
Why do you think those two are analogous? Does one who practices a socially unacceptable faith take no responsibility for his/her offenses?
I think Jolly's got you there. Not because Libertarians really should exercise their right to be racist, but because social graces have zero moral authority.
Fuzzy Face has a point--there were a bunch of Danish Mohammed cartoons and they were quite varied. As I recall, the cartoon assignment was simply to do a cartoon with Mohammed in it. There was the one with Mohammed with a bomb turban, which would definitely be a criticism of Islamic violence, and a few more critical ones. On the other hand, there was one that was just a very appealing color sketch of a man walking through the desert--there was absolutely no mockery there. One cartoon showed a modern school boy named Mohammed and at least one of the cartoons seemed critical of the newspaper itself and the cartoon assignment. There was also a lot of Danish inside baseball in the captions that I really didn't get. You have to take a close look at the cartoons and the captions to get the full effect.
The international uproar seemed to involve mainly people who had never laid eyes on the offensive material, so there was real news value in reprinting the cartoons and allowing the Western public to decide for itself how proportionate the murderous violence was to the offence given (as Fuzzy Face points out, much more offensive material was fraudulently circulated in place of the real Danish Mohammeds). For a while, very few mainstream news outlets were publishing those pictures. I can also tell you for a fact that when a professor I know sponsored a small panel discussion of the Mohammed cartoons, he had the cartoons available in an envelope, but none of the small number of Muslim students took a look. Of course, a big part of the offence was simply the artistic depiction of Mohammed. Also, I've heard that in majority Islamic countries, non-Muslims aren't even supposed to talk about Mohammed.
I'm with Megan on this one. "Bong hits for Jesus" was kind of jerky too, though I have to admit I hung out with those kinds of jerks in high school.
Does anybody know the relevant Canadian law? I mean, they don't have a 1st amendment - I'm assume that Canadians have some guarantee of freedom of speech, but is it codified the same way as it is in the US?
While I agree with Ezra Levant that he should not have to explain the motivations of his speech to a government bureaucrat, don't you kind of get the sense in the video that he's getting a huge kick out of it, and that at some level he's trying to turn it into his deepest ideological fantasy moment? "Monologuing", as the superheroes in "The Incredibles" would put it?
Corey,
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2 says
"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association. "
While I agree entirely with mr Levant's position, I do feel a litle sorry for the woman interviewing him. Now, maybe she's a true believer in these laws, in which case my sypathy is retracted, but most likely she is just some government official who is required to enforce laws she may or may not agree with, and has to listen to him repeat himself. A lot.
Having said that, the very fact he was called into that office in the first place is a sign his point needs to be repeated. A lot.
In some situations politeness is helpful but sometimes it is not. I saw the Danish cartoons as a part of a cultural struggle, with the cartoonist's asserting their right to freedom of expression against an increasingly powerful islam that stiffles critism.
They could be wrong, but I don't see how you can dismiss their motives as "jerkiness".
Also calling Muslims in Denmark a economically and socially marginal minority really understates the political power of Islam.
brooksfoe: Yes (,and if it were me, I might have cut it about half-way through), but what if a moment comes and it is your deepest ideological fantasy moment? We can't be self-consciously ironic all the time.
Anyway, my heart is a-thrilled. That was awesome.
greenish:
Indeed. He's obviously having the time of his life, but he is running real risks by defying the HRC. (I wonder--do his legal troubles with a repressive political regime make him eligible for refugee status in the US?) More than a few people in his position would automatically argue on the HRC's grounds, using the HRC's premises, whereas Levant is straightforwardly denying their right to regulate speech in Canada. Here's hoping he and Macleans win.
I don't know the names of the bloggers involved, but I believe there have been cases of Canadian bloggers getting in trouble for comments (!!!) on their blogs. It is a very uncongenial environment for free speech up there, and it has been for some time.
he's in his lawyer's offices, not the HRC's offices, but the point is the same: having to answer to the state as to the motivations of why he exercised his right to freedom of speech
keep in mind, this is in Alberta, the most conservative province
in quebec, it is illegal to put up a sign in the wrong language...
What we're seeing here is a micro-level example of the civilizational cul-de-sac that is state-empowered multiculturalism. Islamists use the power of the state to silence critics of Islam, all in the name of "tolerance" and "respect" and "diversity". Then these very same Islamists demand--again, in the name of "tolerance"--the right to preach strident, hate-filled Wahabbist nonsense. Since when did modern liberalism mean the acceptance of illiberalism in our own country? Since when did liberalism become a suicide pact? Why does the state force us to tolerate illiberal intolerance? It's a shame Megan doesn't have the guts to call the Canadian HRC what it is--a truly abysmal infringement on liberty.
I don't think that religions should "off-limits" for criticism. Look at Fred Phelps. Is he off limits for his behavior because it is religious? Obviously one shouldn't judge all Christians based on his example, but if one were to create an editorial cartoon mocking him, it would probably include some Christian religious symbolism.
The fact that Muslims riot, threaten death, etc... whenever anyone mocks their religious is worthy of mocking in itself. Christians deal with it all the time.
It's one thing to say, "Those cartoons offended me, I wish you hadn't published them." It's quite another to say, "I will kill you for publishing those cartoons," or "Your country should put you in jail for publishing those cartoons." Unfortunately, many Muslims took the latter approach. And when they do, my sympathy jumps from the offended to the cartoonists.
It's kind of like when my son is annoying his sister and she hits him in the head with a block. I may have been about to punish my son for being annoying but the hitting with the block is a much worse offense and it gets punished while my son gets a mere warning and a lot of sympathy for his bruise. The vocal, extremist Muslims remind of my seven year old daughter, only with guns and explosives.
I agree with others, too, that unlike race, religion is a choice and as such, can be worthy of criticism. Criticising a religion for it's practices or beliefs (including satire) is perfectly legitimate. Spitting on anyone who practices a religion is not.
I'm not even sure the bomb turban cartoon was that bad. I took it as a commentary on people who hijack a religion for violent ends, not a condemnation of the whole religion. Someone looking for offense could take it otherwise, of course, but that message is not absolutely required by the image. It's in the mind of the beholder, as are most things that people get spun up over nowadays.
But once somebody commits violence over something like this, I do think it's important to publish the pictures. The main reason is so that everyone can see them and judge for themselves. This immunizes the population against the sort of thing that triggered a lot of the problems in this case -- agitators circulating much worse cartoons that weren't in the original set.
Dude, like having black skin, I don't think that holding religious beliefs is a form of behavior deserving of social sanction--whether that sanction comes from the New York Times, or religious people shunning atheists. I think you'll find our founding fathers agreed.
No, I don't think that our founding fathers did agree -- unless "social sanction" in that sentence is meant to be identical with "government sanction," which strikes me as a pretty artificial ascription of meaning.
Megan:
It's certainly your right to not discuss this beyond your initial post, but now I'm genuinely curious about how you feel about (others) mocking Scientology. Do you find those who mock Scientology to be jerks?
As a relavent note, I'm a lapsed catholic. And have no problem with anyone, at any time, mocking Scientologists. I wouldn't go quite as far as the Germans, but I certainly don't think that they deserve their tax-exempt status. Indeed, I think that religious organizations should NOT get automatic tax-exempt status in any event--prove up a charitable cause and use, or pay taxes, folks.
Megan, apparently you committed a terrible sin, and you called people jerks when they were.
Truth has no place on the internet!
Keep it up!
While I agree entirely with mr Levant's position, I do feel a litle sorry for the woman interviewing him. Now, maybe she's a true believer in these laws, in which case my sypathy is retracted, but most likely she is just some government official who is required to enforce laws she may or may not agree with, and has to listen to him repeat himself. A lot.
I have zero sympathy one way or another. She can quit her job if her conscience bothers her about it. It sort of makes me think of the guy in Germany during WWII who's job it was to sit in a room with a table, making sure the trains that transported the Zyklon-B, got there on time. He did kill anyone, likely was a nice enough bloke. But he knew he was a small cog in the machine.
Or maybe he didn't, Or maybe, if he didn;t do his job, the SS would hurt him. So maybe the analogy isn't perfect. But, imagine that guy in a free society. Like, Canada. Before that commission got started.
Bill Nelson: If it is okay to ridicule Islam but not Jews, because Islam is a religion, and Jews are a people, then it is okay to say that Judaism is a base, trashy religion, a tribal superstition, and a hinderance to moral order, although it's not okay to say Jews are (pick your slur).
This is one of the best forums I've seen about this issue (the cartoons issue, that is)! About 99% of what you see online is people raging about 'Eurabia', Sharia, 'freedom' and all kinds of other bigoted xenophobic nonsense. About 99% of the remaining 1% seems to be written by Muslims. I am glad to see some varying viewpoints from the West. Well done Canadians! :)
1. Media has real power. What is printed reflects, represents and influences public opinion in no small way. The reprinting of the the cartoons itself was the issue at hand. The media itself was a central actor in events, so printing the cartoons was not simply about reporting the news. I could care less about people's actual beliefs, but it is a different thing for me to say that people who believe something are idiots and for a mainstream newspaper - many mainstream newspapers, not to mention politicians and seemingly society as a whole - to attack an already marginalized group.
2. Muslims are a group. The nature of the cartoons was a religious reference, but, as a group, Muslims felt assaulted. And they had good reason to. Muslims may not be a minority in terms of global numbers, but in Europe, they most certainly are. In the world as well, they are overwhelmingly poor and, at least in the way that many see themselves, living in the shadow of Western dominance.
A professor of Islamic studies who I saw speak on this topic said that when he saw the cartoons, his first reaction was fear for the safety of his Muslim wife and children. I think that says a lot.
What pleasant and civilized slicings and dicings the comments to this thread have been.
And what a pity we have no publishers in this country (save, perhaps, the redoubtable Mr. Flynt) with the courage and prescience of Mr. Levant.
He's not fighting a battle with his government in real time - he's fighting the battles of the future, so perhaps they will draw less blood. He's a patriot.
In our country (the U.S. - I presume everyone understands that) we fight the battles of the past, and apparently do our best to lose those that our ancestors once won.
We are pathetic. I am ashamed.
JF
What a bunch of bloody fools. It must feel good as one hits enter, to the last self-indulgent comment made from the periphery of the game, with nothing to lose or gain. Well then again, free speech is a pretty important prize, but other than that. Islamic extremists believe it is their duty, to kill anyone who thinks differently than they do. Think about that! It may well be morally righteous to defend them in the slightest, but then that would prove that morally self-righteous people can be jerks, fools, stupid and otherwise in leave of basic common sense. I would love to be present as the sword of the extremist was coming down toward Megan's neck, only to whisper, don't say anything unkind, less you be a jerk for your last split second on the planet.
"A professor of Islamic studies who I saw speak on this topic said that when he saw the cartoons, his first reaction was fear for the safety of his Muslim wife and children. I think that says a lot."
When I see that someone has been reprinting those cartoons, I fear for their safety. So far, there hasn't been any violence that I know of toward any such person in North America. On the other hand, it's becoming clear what even very minor accidental slights (the Mohammed teddy bear) can lead to outside the US. It's just prudent to realize that what happens routinely outside the US (spasms of violence directed towards those who express insufficient reverence towards Islam) could also happen here, given the right population mix.
Eztra's video may give Americans erections, but it won't play well in Canada. Free speech is not a religion here -- like the pirates code, its more of a guideline.
In this video, all we see is a loud aggressive man intimidating a small blonde woman. And, despite my personal affection for loud, melodramatic, grandstanding men, most Canadians identify more with petite, soft-spoken women.
Also, we're more fond of alcoholics than stockoholics. Sorry Ezra.
Yes, it says your friend is a histrionic fool. Really, what about any of those cartoons put his wife or children in danger? What about them exposed muslims to violent hatred? Maybe the bomb turban one (the most offensive in my view), but is there any reason to think that a bearded guy with a donkey in the sun is going to inspire some bigot to go on a killing spree?
My comment was directed at this quote:
A professor of Islamic studies who I saw speak on this topic said that when he saw the cartoons, his first reaction was fear for the safety of his Muslim wife and children. I think that says a lot.
What is the obsession of whether he "should" have published them. The whole point is: did he have the right?
"Should" is a dangerous word. It implies interfering in others freedoms not proscribed by law, based on your opinion. If you are pontificating about what people "should" do - you are always unwelcome and in the wrong. Either it's legal or it's not. End of story.
Writing blogs about whether or not you think someone is a jerk is completely useless and wholly anti-libertarian.
This is the worst post since the really bad one about not liking some people who chose to go to a particular bar.
If you are pontificating about what people "should" do - you are always unwelcome and in the wrong.
So, no objection if I label you as unwelcome and in the wrong, for declaring that people should not say "should." Right?
To the people that commented on "A professor of Islamic studies who I saw speak on this topic said that when he saw the cartoons, his first reaction was fear for the safety of his Muslim wife and children. I think that says a lot"...
Hi :) Unfortunately, this thread really seems to have degenerated. In a society that is overwhelmingly hostile to a minority, it is natural for a member of that minority to feel fear. The xenophobia and nationalistism that are all too common now and expressed above by failing to distinguish between Muslims and homicidal extremists and general fear of Islam is a perfect example of that hostility.
Denunciation of extremist violence is a given; it does not belong in the same sphere of debate as criticism of free speech and censorship.
I don't believe that it is the place of government to limit speech of any kind. The anti-Islam and anti-Muslim movements must be exposed as the bigotry that they are – and this must be accomplished through public consciousness. The proponents of these views do not deserve to be prosecuted for holding them – they deserve to be humiliated, intellectually tarred and feathered. We have accomplished this as a society in regard to other groups. It is time to apply those lessons and stop allowing it to be a debate that is acceptable in the mainstream.
Every comment here is "obtuse". Some silly woman thinks publishing cartoons is "kind of jerky". Muslims murdered, burned, rioted, and issued fatwahs sentencing death upon people who are "infidels".
When an "obtuse" woman says it's "kind of jerky" for a publisher to print those cartoons...she is telling ME and others that we can not see those cartoons...because she thinks it's "kind of jerky".
The story, the world event is or was; hundreds of thousands of "people" rioted, murdered, censored..over drawings on paper.
The story is those drawings! Every thinking human needs to see the drawings to draw their own informed opinion.
What is "jerky" and silly woman-like, is discouraging printing those drawings in any terms. Because what these animals are saying is YOU nor I can not see the drawings. We CAN NOT see, you or somebody like you will not permit us to see, think and decide.
I am quite sure one day you will be a fine mother in law.
In order not to offend a minority, the cartoons should have been published in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Then the majority would have been offended. There would have been no riots, it not being necessary to ask Euros to enforce Sharia. Justice could have been done immediately.
tehag