To start off the comments, let me just say that I am completely fed up with the implied game that so many Arab regimes are playing. You know the one - "We'd love to have democratic elections and all, but you see, you had a cartoon of Muhammad and that gave the crazies a chance to prove how crazy they are! You now see why we can't have elections as long as you persist in allowing free speech." This cuts - again! - to the heart of the matter of our dependence on foreign oil. Rather than gain admittance to the international establishment through adhering to our norms, these regimes simply give us the morphine we need and we let them in. Here's the deal for everyone else: if you want to play in the international establishment, you have to respect various human rights. You have to realize your own regimes are not immune from criticism. But that's not the deal for these countries, is it? The minute they feel the slightest bit 'offended,' they haul out the whacko brigades to protest, intimidate, and in some cases, kill. Oh, but they're sorry! If only you hadn't done THIS VILE THING, they wouldn't have had to torch your country's embassy. If they are so offended by these international norms such as free speech, well, why don't they withdraw from the international community? Cease trade with us! Never talk to us again! But that's not their game at all. The message that is sent by these protests is this, I think: "If we were in charge, you right to free speech would be subject to our pleasure." So would any number of rights that we in West feel are inalienable. CNN, meanwhile, refuses to show the cartoons so as to avoid giving offense. Ugh.
First, I am in complete agreement that surge of violence, political sanctioning and pretty much every beyond peaceful protest and opinion giving is plain and simple madness on the part of the Muslims involved. There is absolutely no excuse and it cannot and should not be tolerated in Europe or in any country. The idea that offense, however grievous (and the cartoons ARE quite offensive to most of the Muslim faith)taken from an editorial in a liberal and open society entitles someone elsewhere in the world to hold the lives and property an entire country and all expatriates thereof as forfeit is insane. Thus, I support wholeheartedly the right of papers in Denmark or anywhere to publish anything that is not explicitly inciting others to criminal acts (which the editorial and cartoons clearly were not). HOWEVER, independent of what I believe papers and people to have a right to say, I also believe that the papers across Europe (and possibly soon in the US) who reprint the cartoons again and again, in support of free speech are acting with the utmost irresponsibility and lack of concern for consequence. An article from the International Herald Tribune, pointed out to me by a friend, makes the case that the realities of modern global communication have created a world in which it is almost impossible for journalists (or any creators of content) to control the context and lifespan of the things they publish. As such at least some thought should be given to the global consequences of what and more importantly how one says something. The initial article was an attempt to make a shocking point about fear-induced self censorship in the Danish media in the wake of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh's murder. So it is understandable why papers across Europe decided to "show solidarity" with the idea of press freedom by reprinting the cartoons. But if the goal is to promote free speech and liberal political values, not just at home, but in the world at large (and any liberal who doesn't aim at this latter is not worthy of the name), then editors need to consider whether their cause is ultimately hurt more by their actions than it is helped. Publishing the cartoons and then defending the right of the paper to have done that as the beginning of a debate on the merits of free speech in one thing, especially if a more diplomatic tone is used to argue after the initial shock tactic broached the subject, but to continue to bluntly provoke, in effect, flaunting free speech as a weapon is incredibly counterproductive. Any progress you make by taking a "stand" is more than erased by the enormous illiberal backlash caused by the tone of your argument. As with most ideals, there comes a point when purity of ideal starts to work against the practical achievement of any of the ideals goals. Setting off a firestorm of anti western, anti-liberal anger in the Muslim world does precisely nothing to advance the cause of liberty in the parts of the world that need it most. "But isn't this just the sort of kick start that the Muslim intellectual forum needs to force it into confronting this issue? After all, the recent boldness of islamist terrorists in attacking even their fellow Muslims in Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia has brought about unprecedented levels of introspective debate in the Muslim world. Might this not do the same?" The balance between shock therapy and trauma is very hard to gauge. In this case I think that the avalanche of continued publications has provided so much additional provocation to many Muslims (especially those in countries where their abysmal governance, unemployment, and general lack of hope have already provided ample kindling for anger) that any fledgling debate about free speech has been completely drowned out by a tide of irrational anger. A tide which could have well been predicted by the people choosing to continue to publish the cartoons. In short, the papers in Europe and around the world have, and should have, every right to publish those cartoons, but they are displaying foolish, and now tragic indiscretion by not caring to think about the global consequences of their actions, both in content and form. There is a lot to be said against the view I have just articulated, and I could say it myself, but I'd prefer to hear what others think.
It's like I was saying in another thread. This isn't an argument about free speech, because one of the parties arguing isn't even considering free speech to be comething worth considering here. To the western world, the question is, "How can we let the tyranical Muslim world take away the inherent freedoms of the west?" whereas the question in the Middle East is, "You in the west want us to be free and democratic, and yet you use these things to insult our God, the cornerstone of all aspects of our life?" They're not debating the same issue, so they can't get anywwhere with their arguments (if we can even deign to consider the rioting a form of argument) except for an escalation in an already precarious political situation. This debate won't bring us closer to understanding, just closer to war. So sure, Denmark should be able to publish cartoons of Jesus masturbating Muhammed on top of the whaling wall if they want to, and anyone should be able to reprint it, but it doesn't make the best case for pluralism, you know?
What's funny is that this whole business began out of a children's book. The reason the Danish cartoons were printed was because a children's book author couldn't find anyone to illustrate a book about Muhammad. So they ran cartoons about how silly that was. And off to the races we go! Pope Benedict recently summed up the theocrat argument very effectively : "The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers." So there you have it. The only right that is now viewed as sacrosanct by all parties is the right to demand redress after being offended.
Kantian, I don't think anyone here is arguing that this particular excercise of free speech isn't harmful or offensive. Which is why we have to deal separately with what is and should permitted legally and what is prudent or tasteful to do. It is possible that you could argue that the cartoons were slander against all muslims (as distinct to being an insult to them (which is most certainly is), which would imply that they are offended, but that the offense is not part of a deliberate effort to spread specific harmful misinformation or to defame specific people), but I think that given their context in an article about self-censorship it is hard to argue that they were intened to make readers think that Muslims were all terrorists or some similar rediculous claim. The question that this raises, in my mind, is the difference between liberty and freedom. I've been meaning to post on this for some time, and perhaps I will, but in short, I would argue that Liberty carries with it connotations of responsibility whereas Freedom merely means lack of imposed restraints. Standby for a post sometime soon...
Let me play the Shaytan's advocate and throw this into the mix: we're talking about how offensive a cartoon is because of its content. But if we're serious about accepting that placing reverence for Allah as the highest virtue, doesn't that mean that ANY pictorial representation of humans is idolatry (as the more austere - and therefore most sensitive to offense - brands of Islam hold), one of the most harmful and insulting sins? Doesn't that cause harm and offense? Moreover, we know we're doing it - how can one draw a picture by accident ? - so we are culpable. We should stop all cartoonists at once! Now the ready retort to this is "Well, those are the fundamentalists!" implying we can't sell out the whole farm for the extremist types. But one man's fundamentalist is another's man of God. That is, even if we could agree that 'fundamentalists' should not have a veto on our liberties (correctly defined by Socratic), how do we determine what constitutes a 'reasonable' religious/ideological objection?
Whether "freedom" or "liberty" is used, there is no freedom of speech issue here, and "self-censorship" should be called what it is, a twisted, propagandist term for restraint. The issue here isn't whether the paper could print the cartoons or not - the could and they did - the issue is what purpose it possibly served other than to anger an unstable region and push it further away from the ideals the west would like to see instilled in it. It didn't serve Denmark, it didn't serve Islam, and it didn't serve the world. The only entity it served was the paper itself. This will do nothing to further the debate in the middle east, and nothing to bring any Muslims - fanatical or not - around to a different way of thinking, any more than Maplethorpe or Serrano are bringing the red states around to the first amendment cause. All this says to them is, "Hey! Look at our freedoms! Look what we can do with these freedoms - we can desecrate your faith! And if you get angry, we have the world at our back! Don't you want our freedoms? Well, we're forcing them on you anyway!" I think they sould have the same freedoms we enjoy, but I don't blame them for fighting us over them when we force them upon them in a way which threatenss their way of life. An no, of course I don't approve of their methods of protest, but I understand.
I don't think the paper was thinking on that broad of terms when it printed the cartoon(i.e. pushing an unstable region further away) - how could they? They were thinking of their audience, the Danes, and not of what people in Iran would think. The same with Mapplethorpe - even with the shock value, I think he was more focused on the people he would impress rather than the people he would alienate.
Also, we weren't forcing our values upon the Middle East. Again, it was FREAKIN DENMARK, not Jordan or even Israel that published somewhat offensive cartoons. Of course they were offensive, but I think they need to learn what most people learn early in life, that sometimes you just have to let things go, especially when someone you don't know who lives far, far away offends you. I know you all agree with me, as I've had discussions with several of the posters this week about this issue, but I just felt the need to say it again. I don't think we were forcing our views on anyone, I think this is a small issue that got blown way out of proportion by politicians and clerics and everyone else who knew they could score leverage and publicity out of it.
Be careful with your generalizations, Prometheus. Just as not all Muslims are Arab, not all Arabs are Muslim. The Arab world is not necessarily the Islamic world (lots of overlap, but not complete containment in either direction). I understand the message you sought to convey, but I remind you just as I remind my budding mathematicians to be wary of the implication arrows in your statements.
Cool, cool. Probably has more to do with the New World culture where violent demonstrations just aren't de rigeur. In North America, it's difficult for even the most devout Muslims to make Islam the focus of their entire life the way they can in the Arab world, or in places like France, where their cordoned away into their own communities. When you must depend on bevies of other faiths in order to live, thenit becomes much less a matter of jihad against the infedels and more about demanding respect and your proper place in society.
Fist off, Bookie, you mean indonesian muslims, not arabs. Arab is an ethnic designation, muslim is a religious one. Probably a typo.
I think we've all pretty much agreed at this point that A)the danish paper had a right to publish the cartoons, and B)the violent protests, and diplomatic and economic retribution are completely unjustified, irrational, and antithetical to western liberalism as we understand it. So lets move on to another question, namely, assuming that the west's ultimate aim is to bring the entire world into a global system of liberalism, which strategies work, and which do not? How does the liberal world at first coexist with and eventually absorb the illiberal world? What is a better short term goal, a democractic society, or a liberal(izing) one? Are the mutually dependant? Fire away!
I'm glad we've got some more discussion on the Arab-Muslim issue. I had a late night last night, so I didn't get to comment on Prometheus's original comment on it. But I agree with the subsequent comments by both Pascal's and Boudicca that this issue transcends Arab cultural angst: the Iranian regime, for one, has made great hay out of the cartoon. No, the issue is - and always will be - extremism versus liberalism, as Socratic said. But is it the goal of the West to spread liberalism? I agree that we should create a liberal international order, but is that the same thing as making every country's internal affairs "liberal"? Does the one necessarily require or lead to the other?
No. We only want others to think like us at the level of getting everyone to agree to a liberal system. We don't have an interest in forcing the Germans to adopt US laws. We DO have an interest in getting countries in the Middle East to form societies and governments where minority dissent can be tolerated and in which it is not considered okay to burn down buildings because you don't like someone's art. A world in which everyone buys into liberalism does NOT mean that all countries agree with each other on issues are instantly become best buddies. It does mean that they are all playing by the same rules. The Red Sox still hate the Yankees, but they both agree that they don't want rabid, Pimms crazed cricket fans running disrupting the World Series.
In all seriousness, I still think the idea of domestic/internal liberalism that we have in our heads is too embedded in our own experience. Is the dhimmi concept of Islamic governance liberal? It allows minority involvement and dissent to a degree, and certainly does not condone house-burning. But it's based on a religious ideal that places 'believers' at a different social and legal stratum from 'non-believers.' Is absolute legal equality of all citizens a bench-mark for liberalism?
Perhaps using the term "liberalism" as the catch-all for the sort of government I would like to see around the world is misleading. Certainly the my criteria for good government contain a large degree of liberty in many areas. But I also include a requirement of equal legal status for all citizens, and some form of representative government.
18 Comments:
To start off the comments, let me just say that I am completely fed up with the implied game that so many Arab regimes are playing.
You know the one - "We'd love to have democratic elections and all, but you see, you had a cartoon of Muhammad and that gave the crazies a chance to prove how crazy they are! You now see why we can't have elections as long as you persist in allowing free speech."
This cuts - again! - to the heart of the matter of our dependence on foreign oil. Rather than gain admittance to the international establishment through adhering to our norms, these regimes simply give us the morphine we need and we let them in.
Here's the deal for everyone else: if you want to play in the international establishment, you have to respect various human rights. You have to realize your own regimes are not immune from criticism.
But that's not the deal for these countries, is it? The minute they feel the slightest bit 'offended,' they haul out the whacko brigades to protest, intimidate, and in some cases, kill. Oh, but they're sorry! If only you hadn't done THIS VILE THING, they wouldn't have had to torch your country's embassy.
If they are so offended by these international norms such as free speech, well, why don't they withdraw from the international community? Cease trade with us! Never talk to us again!
But that's not their game at all. The message that is sent by these protests is this, I think: "If we were in charge, you right to free speech would be subject to our pleasure." So would any number of rights that we in West feel are inalienable.
CNN, meanwhile, refuses to show the cartoons so as to avoid giving offense. Ugh.
First, I am in complete agreement that surge of violence, political sanctioning and pretty much every beyond peaceful protest and opinion giving is plain and simple madness on the part of the Muslims involved. There is absolutely no excuse and it cannot and should not be tolerated in Europe or in any country. The idea that offense, however grievous (and the cartoons ARE quite offensive to most of the Muslim faith)taken from an editorial in a liberal and open society entitles someone elsewhere in the world to hold the lives and property an entire country and all expatriates thereof as forfeit is insane. Thus, I support wholeheartedly the right of papers in Denmark or anywhere to publish anything that is not explicitly inciting others to criminal acts (which the editorial and cartoons clearly were not).
HOWEVER, independent of what I believe papers and people to have a right to say, I also believe that the papers across Europe (and possibly soon in the US) who reprint the cartoons again and again, in support of free speech are acting with the utmost irresponsibility and lack of concern for consequence. An article from the International Herald Tribune, pointed out to me by a friend, makes the case that the realities of modern global communication have created a world in which it is almost impossible for journalists (or any creators of content) to control the context and lifespan of the things they publish. As such at least some thought should be given to the global consequences of what and more importantly how one says something.
The initial article was an attempt to make a shocking point about fear-induced self censorship in the Danish media in the wake of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh's murder. So it is understandable why papers across Europe decided to "show solidarity" with the idea of press freedom by reprinting the cartoons. But if the goal is to promote free speech and liberal political values, not just at home, but in the world at large (and any liberal who doesn't aim at this latter is not worthy of the name), then editors need to consider whether their cause is ultimately hurt more by their actions than it is helped. Publishing the cartoons and then defending the right of the paper to have done that as the beginning of a debate on the merits of free speech in one thing, especially if a more diplomatic tone is used to argue after the initial shock tactic broached the subject, but to continue to bluntly provoke, in effect, flaunting free speech as a weapon is incredibly counterproductive. Any progress you make by taking a "stand" is more than erased by the enormous illiberal backlash caused by the tone of your argument. As with most ideals, there comes a point when purity of ideal starts to work against the practical achievement of any of the ideals goals. Setting off a firestorm of anti western, anti-liberal anger in the Muslim world does precisely nothing to advance the cause of liberty in the parts of the world that need it most.
"But isn't this just the sort of kick start that the Muslim intellectual forum needs to force it into confronting this issue? After all, the recent boldness of islamist terrorists in attacking even their fellow Muslims in Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia has brought about unprecedented levels of introspective debate in the Muslim world. Might this not do the same?" The balance between shock therapy and trauma is very hard to gauge. In this case I think that the avalanche of continued publications has provided so much additional provocation to many Muslims (especially those in countries where their abysmal governance, unemployment, and general lack of hope have already provided ample kindling for anger) that any fledgling debate about free speech has been completely drowned out by a tide of irrational anger. A tide which could have well been predicted by the people choosing to continue to publish the cartoons.
In short, the papers in Europe and around the world have, and should have, every right to publish those cartoons, but they are displaying foolish, and now tragic indiscretion by not caring to think about the global consequences of their actions, both in content and form. There is a lot to be said against the view I have just articulated, and I could say it myself, but I'd prefer to hear what others think.
It's like I was saying in another thread. This isn't an argument about free speech, because one of the parties arguing isn't even considering free speech to be comething worth considering here. To the western world, the question is, "How can we let the tyranical Muslim world take away the inherent freedoms of the west?" whereas the question in the Middle East is, "You in the west want us to be free and democratic, and yet you use these things to insult our God, the cornerstone of all aspects of our life?" They're not debating the same issue, so they can't get anywwhere with their arguments (if we can even deign to consider the rioting a form of argument) except for an escalation in an already precarious political situation. This debate won't bring us closer to understanding, just closer to war. So sure, Denmark should be able to publish cartoons of Jesus masturbating Muhammed on top of the whaling wall if they want to, and anyone should be able to reprint it, but it doesn't make the best case for pluralism, you know?
What's funny is that this whole business began out of a children's book.
The reason the Danish cartoons were printed was because a children's book author couldn't find anyone to illustrate a book about Muhammad. So they ran cartoons about how silly that was. And off to the races we go!
Pope Benedict recently summed up the theocrat argument very effectively : "The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers."
So there you have it. The only right that is now viewed as sacrosanct by all parties is the right to demand redress after being offended.
Kantian, I don't think anyone here is arguing that this particular excercise of free speech isn't harmful or offensive. Which is why we have to deal separately with what is and should permitted legally and what is prudent or tasteful to do. It is possible that you could argue that the cartoons were slander against all muslims (as distinct to being an insult to them (which is most certainly is), which would imply that they are offended, but that the offense is not part of a deliberate effort to spread specific harmful misinformation or to defame specific people), but I think that given their context in an article about self-censorship it is hard to argue that they were intened to make readers think that Muslims were all terrorists or some similar rediculous claim.
The question that this raises, in my mind, is the difference between liberty and freedom. I've been meaning to post on this for some time, and perhaps I will, but in short, I would argue that Liberty carries with it connotations of responsibility whereas Freedom merely means lack of imposed restraints. Standby for a post sometime soon...
Let me play the Shaytan's advocate and throw this into the mix: we're talking about how offensive a cartoon is because of its content.
But if we're serious about accepting that placing reverence for Allah as the highest virtue, doesn't that mean that ANY pictorial representation of humans is idolatry (as the more austere - and therefore most sensitive to offense - brands of Islam hold), one of the most harmful and insulting sins? Doesn't that cause harm and offense? Moreover, we know we're doing it - how can one draw a picture by accident ? - so we are culpable. We should stop all cartoonists at once!
Now the ready retort to this is "Well, those are the fundamentalists!" implying we can't sell out the whole farm for the extremist types. But one man's fundamentalist is another's man of God. That is, even if we could agree that 'fundamentalists' should not have a veto on our liberties (correctly defined by Socratic), how do we determine what constitutes a 'reasonable' religious/ideological objection?
Whether "freedom" or "liberty" is used, there is no freedom of speech issue here, and "self-censorship" should be called what it is, a twisted, propagandist term for restraint. The issue here isn't whether the paper could print the cartoons or not - the could and they did - the issue is what purpose it possibly served other than to anger an unstable region and push it further away from the ideals the west would like to see instilled in it. It didn't serve Denmark, it didn't serve Islam, and it didn't serve the world. The only entity it served was the paper itself. This will do nothing to further the debate in the middle east, and nothing to bring any Muslims - fanatical or not - around to a different way of thinking, any more than Maplethorpe or Serrano are bringing the red states around to the first amendment cause. All this says to them is, "Hey! Look at our freedoms! Look what we can do with these freedoms - we can desecrate your faith! And if you get angry, we have the world at our back! Don't you want our freedoms? Well, we're forcing them on you anyway!"
I think they sould have the same freedoms we enjoy, but I don't blame them for fighting us over them when we force them upon them in a way which threatenss their way of life. An no, of course I don't approve of their methods of protest, but I understand.
I don't think the paper was thinking on that broad of terms when it printed the cartoon(i.e. pushing an unstable region further away) - how could they? They were thinking of their audience, the Danes, and not of what people in Iran would think. The same with Mapplethorpe - even with the shock value, I think he was more focused on the people he would impress rather than the people he would alienate.
Also, we weren't forcing our values upon the Middle East. Again, it was FREAKIN DENMARK, not Jordan or even Israel that published somewhat offensive cartoons. Of course they were offensive, but I think they need to learn what most people learn early in life, that sometimes you just have to let things go, especially when someone you don't know who lives far, far away offends you. I know you all agree with me, as I've had discussions with several of the posters this week about this issue, but I just felt the need to say it again. I don't think we were forcing our views on anyone, I think this is a small issue that got blown way out of proportion by politicians and clerics and everyone else who knew they could score leverage and publicity out of it.
Be careful with your generalizations, Prometheus. Just as not all Muslims are Arab, not all Arabs are Muslim. The Arab world is not necessarily the Islamic world (lots of overlap, but not complete containment in either direction). I understand the message you sought to convey, but I remind you just as I remind my budding mathematicians to be wary of the implication arrows in your statements.
Fair enough, except that it was the Indonesian Arabs that attacked just recently attacked their Danish embassy.
Cool, cool. Probably has more to do with the New World culture where violent demonstrations just aren't de rigeur. In North America, it's difficult for even the most devout Muslims to make Islam the focus of their entire life the way they can in the Arab world, or in places like France, where their cordoned away into their own communities. When you must depend on bevies of other faiths in order to live, thenit becomes much less a matter of jihad against the infedels and more about demanding respect and your proper place in society.
I might be completely off about all that.
Fist off, Bookie, you mean indonesian muslims, not arabs. Arab is an ethnic designation, muslim is a religious one. Probably a typo.
I think we've all pretty much agreed at this point that A)the danish paper had a right to publish the cartoons, and B)the violent protests, and diplomatic and economic retribution are completely unjustified, irrational, and antithetical to western liberalism as we understand it. So lets move on to another question, namely, assuming that the west's ultimate aim is to bring the entire world into a global system of liberalism, which strategies work, and which do not? How does the liberal world at first coexist with and eventually absorb the illiberal world? What is a better short term goal, a democractic society, or a liberal(izing) one? Are the mutually dependant?
Fire away!
I'm glad we've got some more discussion on the Arab-Muslim issue. I had a late night last night, so I didn't get to comment on Prometheus's original comment on it.
But I agree with the subsequent comments by both Pascal's and Boudicca that this issue transcends Arab cultural angst: the Iranian regime, for one, has made great hay out of the cartoon.
No, the issue is - and always will be - extremism versus liberalism, as Socratic said. But is it the goal of the West to spread liberalism? I agree that we should create a liberal international order, but is that the same thing as making every country's internal affairs "liberal"? Does the one necessarily require or lead to the other?
Pardon my waggishness, but isn't the concept of "let's make them all like us" just a wee bit illiberal?
No. We only want others to think like us at the level of getting everyone to agree to a liberal system. We don't have an interest in forcing the Germans to adopt US laws. We DO have an interest in getting countries in the Middle East to form societies and governments where minority dissent can be tolerated and in which it is not considered okay to burn down buildings because you don't like someone's art. A world in which everyone buys into liberalism does NOT mean that all countries agree with each other on issues are instantly become best buddies. It does mean that they are all playing by the same rules. The Red Sox still hate the Yankees, but they both agree that they don't want rabid, Pimms crazed cricket fans running disrupting the World Series.
Well, not a Red Sox World Series, anyway.
In all seriousness, I still think the idea of domestic/internal liberalism that we have in our heads is too embedded in our own experience.
Is the dhimmi concept of Islamic governance liberal? It allows minority involvement and dissent to a degree, and certainly does not condone house-burning.
But it's based on a religious ideal that places 'believers' at a different social and legal stratum from 'non-believers.' Is absolute legal equality of all citizens a bench-mark for liberalism?
Perhaps using the term "liberalism" as the catch-all for the sort of government I would like to see around the world is misleading. Certainly the my criteria for good government contain a large degree of liberty in many areas. But I also include a requirement of equal legal status for all citizens, and some form of representative government.
Post a Comment
<< Home