Of Cartoons and Firestorms
Last year, a series of cartoons depicting Mohammed, the central prophet of Islam, were published in a newspaper in Denmark. Some Danish Muslims took umbrage to the representations and hopped over to the Middle East with the offending drawings, including some (considerably more offensive) pieces of their own concoction. A world-wide Muslim boycott of Danish products was decided on, but what has transpired has gone beyond a mere rejection of imported herring and pastries. Violent protests have erupted in Middle East and Europe. Newspaper editors who decided to print the cartoons have received death threats, while many more are being dissuaded from printing them lest they anger their Muslim readership. Danish flags and embassies alike are being torched and vandalised.
One recalls the Salman Rushdie incident of the late 1980s. Rushdie’s apparent lampooning of Mohammed and Islam in his novel The Satanic Verses was enough to ignite a firestorm of indignation across the Muslim world, and the Ayatollah Khomeini called for his death. The conflagration spread to the West. Canada banned the book for a period, out of fear of offending local Muslims. Some American publishing companies momentarily dropped The Satanic Verse from their catalogues and bookstores in California were firebombed. People – protestors, prominent Muslims against the fatwa, translators – were killed, all because of a single book. As for the cartoons issue, we have not yet witnessed such disorder in the wider world, though a protest outside the Danish embassy in London gave air to some worrying sentiments:
Some of the cartoons were bound to incite people, while others are of a distinctly milder tone. Many in the media have puzzled at the idea that “any” depiction of Mohammed would be considered blasphemous when they have been done for centuries. As well as having reproduced the offending cartoons (those printed in the Danish paper as well as the bogus images) on his site, Zombie has also documented the history of images of the Prophet, and many have been made.
Still, the issues of blasphemy and freedom of speech hang over this affair.
Artists may well overstep the boundaries of cultural etiquette. Many whose works have caused offence have received censure (whether justified or not is a matter of personal opinion) but such people should not have to fear for their lives if they fall out of step. One of my favourite commentators, Mark Steyn points out that artists have been taking shots at Christianity for years and have often been championed for snubbing their noses at what are seen as stuffy conventions. In “'Sensitivity' can have brutal consequences”, he juxtaposes the differing responses of Western liberals to two cases of blasphemy:
He also illustrates how the British public and politicians in particular have bent over backwards to not offend their Muslim compatriots – even going so far as to compromise their national, or indeed democratic, values. They seem cowed under pressure from radical sectors of the Muslim community who threaten drastic measures unless society accommodates their ideological demands. Steyn continues:
Once upon a time, Europe was not the tolerant, multicultural place it is today. In the Middle Ages, blasphemy was a crime punishable by death. The difference is, that while Christianity has undergone a reformation and even the once-mighty Catholic Church has conceded that burning at the stake is hardly the right way to deal with heretics in this day and age, there are many Muslims who believe no punishment short of execution will suffice for those who blaspheme Islam. We Kiwis remember the “Virgin in a Condom” exhibit, and while it sparked off sufficient controversy to keep Talkback radio hosts busy for an age, none of us recall the artist being assassinated in broad daylight by a Christian fundamentalist. Similarly, in 2003 Malcolm Evans published some lurid anti-Israel cartoons in the New Zealand Herald and lost his job, but the offence to Jews and Israelis wasn’t so great as to have the Mossad dispatch a hit-squad to finish him off.
Several have already paid the price for openly criticising Islam, the most famous recent example being the Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh, whose short film about the treatment of women under Islam and inflammatory public statements eventually cost him his life. (Steyn makes mention of another director in Holland who has elected not to begin work on a “multicultural comedy” because he does not want to suffer a dagger through the chest). Though van Gogh was infamous as a churlish provocateur, nothing he did warranted the fate that he met at the hand of a crazed assassin, who over a year later remains unrepentant. As others incidences, such as the London Bombings of 7 July 2005, make clear, there are a growing number of radicalised Muslims in Europe, whose anger cannot simply be attributed to their outcast status within their adopted countries. What we are witnessing is ideologically-motivated hatred and violence, based on a fundamentalist reading of Islam and antithetical to Western values.
Other voices have weighed in on the meshugas. In addition to Steyn and Melanie Phillips, our own Mr Political Incorrectness Lindsay Perigo has left a message on his website concerning the cartoons issue. Not afraid of making himself some more enemies, Linz nevertheless has a few smart things to say. He also cites the editor of Wellington’s Dominion Post, who thus defends the newspaper's decision to publish the cartoons:
At the risk of sounding cliché, freedom of speech is a foundation stone of Democracy, and with freedom comes responsibility. One should not offend for the sake of being needlessly provocative – and I know a few artists in particular who should take heed.
However, criticism of religions, ideologies, public figures and establishments, though offensive to some is indicative of free expression, which is in turn indicative of a functioning democracy, and should not be ruled out. Nor should “dissenting” voices be silenced. In Auckland yesterday, hundreds of Muslims gathered to voice their opposition to the Danish cartoons, and good for them: they are merely acting on their right to speak up and exercise their passions against something they find distasteful. Such things are just not possible in totalitarian regimes, including those in the Muslim world. In fact the state-controlled media in many Islamic countries do not themselves have spotless records, as this cartoon makes clear...
[From Filibuster Cartoons]
One recalls the Salman Rushdie incident of the late 1980s. Rushdie’s apparent lampooning of Mohammed and Islam in his novel The Satanic Verses was enough to ignite a firestorm of indignation across the Muslim world, and the Ayatollah Khomeini called for his death. The conflagration spread to the West. Canada banned the book for a period, out of fear of offending local Muslims. Some American publishing companies momentarily dropped The Satanic Verse from their catalogues and bookstores in California were firebombed. People – protestors, prominent Muslims against the fatwa, translators – were killed, all because of a single book. As for the cartoons issue, we have not yet witnessed such disorder in the wider world, though a protest outside the Danish embassy in London gave air to some worrying sentiments:
Some of the cartoons were bound to incite people, while others are of a distinctly milder tone. Many in the media have puzzled at the idea that “any” depiction of Mohammed would be considered blasphemous when they have been done for centuries. As well as having reproduced the offending cartoons (those printed in the Danish paper as well as the bogus images) on his site, Zombie has also documented the history of images of the Prophet, and many have been made. Still, the issues of blasphemy and freedom of speech hang over this affair.
Artists may well overstep the boundaries of cultural etiquette. Many whose works have caused offence have received censure (whether justified or not is a matter of personal opinion) but such people should not have to fear for their lives if they fall out of step. One of my favourite commentators, Mark Steyn points out that artists have been taking shots at Christianity for years and have often been championed for snubbing their noses at what are seen as stuffy conventions. In “'Sensitivity' can have brutal consequences”, he juxtaposes the differing responses of Western liberals to two cases of blasphemy:
“The cartoons aren't particularly good and they were intended to be provocative. But they had a serious point. Before coming to that, we should note that in the Western world "artists" "provoke" with the same numbing regularity as young Muslim men light up other countries' flags. When Tony-winning author Terence McNally writes a Broadway play in which Jesus has gay sex with Judas, the New York Times and Co. rush to garland him with praise for how "brave" and "challenging" he is. The rule for "brave" "transgressive" "artists" is a simple one: If you're going to be provocative, it's best to do it with people who can't be provoked.
Thus, NBC is celebrating Easter this year with a special edition of the gay sitcom "Will & Grace," in which a Christian conservative cooking-show host, played by the popular singing slattern Britney Spears, offers seasonal recipes -- "Cruci-fixin's." On the other hand, the same network, in its coverage of the global riots over the Danish cartoons, has declined to show any of the offending artwork out of "respect" for the Muslim faith. Which means out of respect for their ability to locate the executive vice president's home in the suburbs and firebomb his garage.
He also illustrates how the British public and politicians in particular have bent over backwards to not offend their Muslim compatriots – even going so far as to compromise their national, or indeed democratic, values. They seem cowed under pressure from radical sectors of the Muslim community who threaten drastic measures unless society accommodates their ideological demands. Steyn continues:
"Jyllands-Posten wasn't being offensive for the sake of it. They had a serious point -- or, at any rate, a more serious one than Britney Spears or Terence McNally. The cartoons accompanied a piece about the dangers of "self-censorship" -- i.e., a climate in which there's no explicit law forbidding you from addressing the more, er, lively aspects of Islam but nonetheless everyone feels it's better not to.
That's the question the Danish newspaper was testing: the weakness of free societies in the face of intimidation by militant Islam.”
Once upon a time, Europe was not the tolerant, multicultural place it is today. In the Middle Ages, blasphemy was a crime punishable by death. The difference is, that while Christianity has undergone a reformation and even the once-mighty Catholic Church has conceded that burning at the stake is hardly the right way to deal with heretics in this day and age, there are many Muslims who believe no punishment short of execution will suffice for those who blaspheme Islam. We Kiwis remember the “Virgin in a Condom” exhibit, and while it sparked off sufficient controversy to keep Talkback radio hosts busy for an age, none of us recall the artist being assassinated in broad daylight by a Christian fundamentalist. Similarly, in 2003 Malcolm Evans published some lurid anti-Israel cartoons in the New Zealand Herald and lost his job, but the offence to Jews and Israelis wasn’t so great as to have the Mossad dispatch a hit-squad to finish him off.
Several have already paid the price for openly criticising Islam, the most famous recent example being the Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh, whose short film about the treatment of women under Islam and inflammatory public statements eventually cost him his life. (Steyn makes mention of another director in Holland who has elected not to begin work on a “multicultural comedy” because he does not want to suffer a dagger through the chest). Though van Gogh was infamous as a churlish provocateur, nothing he did warranted the fate that he met at the hand of a crazed assassin, who over a year later remains unrepentant. As others incidences, such as the London Bombings of 7 July 2005, make clear, there are a growing number of radicalised Muslims in Europe, whose anger cannot simply be attributed to their outcast status within their adopted countries. What we are witnessing is ideologically-motivated hatred and violence, based on a fundamentalist reading of Islam and antithetical to Western values.
Other voices have weighed in on the meshugas. In addition to Steyn and Melanie Phillips, our own Mr Political Incorrectness Lindsay Perigo has left a message on his website concerning the cartoons issue. Not afraid of making himself some more enemies, Linz nevertheless has a few smart things to say. He also cites the editor of Wellington’s Dominion Post, who thus defends the newspaper's decision to publish the cartoons:
“Modern society rests on the contest of ideas, the ability to question perceived wisdom and to challenge authority. Without that contest, and without the right to free speech that makes it possible, societies stultify and become entrenched in their beliefs. That freedom to question and to challenge must include the right to be offensive, to affront people’s most heartfelt beliefs, even to disparage that which they hold sacred. Otherwise it is an empty freedom. … There have been earlier cultural confrontations between the West and a resurgent Islam, beginning with the death sentence pronounced in 1989 on author Salmon Rushdie for The Satanic Verses, and including the murder in 2004 of Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh after he made a film dealing with violence against Islamic women. They are confrontations the West cannot afford to lose. The right to freedom of speech is a precious one that must be defended.”
At the risk of sounding cliché, freedom of speech is a foundation stone of Democracy, and with freedom comes responsibility. One should not offend for the sake of being needlessly provocative – and I know a few artists in particular who should take heed.
However, criticism of religions, ideologies, public figures and establishments, though offensive to some is indicative of free expression, which is in turn indicative of a functioning democracy, and should not be ruled out. Nor should “dissenting” voices be silenced. In Auckland yesterday, hundreds of Muslims gathered to voice their opposition to the Danish cartoons, and good for them: they are merely acting on their right to speak up and exercise their passions against something they find distasteful. Such things are just not possible in totalitarian regimes, including those in the Muslim world. In fact the state-controlled media in many Islamic countries do not themselves have spotless records, as this cartoon makes clear...
[From Filibuster Cartoons]
posted by Evan at
8:50 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home