Blogger brought in for questioning over sex education criticism
Gong Jiao Way
The Fake Times
Friday, 03 February 2006A blogger, known as The Legal Janitor, has been brought in for questioning by the police after complaints were made over his posts criticising sexuality education provided by religious groups.
The National Council of Religious Overlords (NCRO) received complaints from Christians that the posts question the scientific validity of their belief that condoms do not prevent conception or the transmission of HIV.
Chief Indoctrinator Goh Toh Heow explains, “We believe as a matter of faith that all pre-marital sex will definitely lead to sexually-transmitted infections and eternal damnation in hell, and find it extremely offensive that the posts cite scientific research and logic to claim otherwise.”
“On top of that, the posts caricatured and made fun of our beliefs. We feel that the intention seems to be to incite Christian anger unnecessarily.”
Lord Inquisitor Ho Lee Seet states firmly that “no one is allowed to ridicule or cast aspersions on the faith of a person under the cloak of free expression”.
1. Illogical and unworkable
The critical problem over the rule enunciated by MUIS, “no one is allowed to ridicule or cast aspersions on the faith of a person under the cloak of free expression”, is how illogical and unworkable it would be in practice.
Each of the 3 Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are monotheistic, and demand exclusivity of faith. It is central to their teachings that each one professes to be the One True Faith.
This being the case, what happens when a Christian preaches that Christianity is the only way to salvation? Or when a Muslim preaches that Islam is the only way to God?
The unfortunate consequence of following the rule stated by MUIS is that every Jew, Christian and Muslim would immediately fall foul of that rule by simply preaching or trying to spread their faith. When one religion is preaching that it is the only true faith, it is also necessarily ‘casting aspersion’ on another which preaches the same.
Thus the statement put forth by MUIS cannot hold. It is precisely because Singapore is a multi-religious society that we must allow criticism and alternative opinions of any religion.
If this freedom is taken away, neither Jews, Christians nor Muslims would be allowed to preach the exclusivity of their religions any longer, so as to not ‘cast aspersions’ on the faith of others.
Is this the result that MUIS is looking for?
2. Hypocrisy and double standards
It must also be noted that the double standards practiced by those who criticise the caricatures is rather glaring, when the Arab press publish anti-Semitic and racist cartoons on a regular basis. Where was MUIS when these caricatures were published? Why did they not speak out against such ‘ridicule’ and ‘casting’ of ‘aspersions’?
To make things worse, the perception of ‘everyone else against Islam’ is one that has been actively cultivated by certain Muslims.
A delegation of fundamental muslims from Denmark have toured The Middle East with the material shown in these links (published today in a danish newspaper), in order to stir up the situation as they were not able to ignite the confrontation they wanted in Denmark. However, the most offensive pictures shown on page 35 and page 36 were never (before) published in any Danish paper or magazine. They were added to the original series of pictures by the delegation itself. The fundamental religious leaders in Denmark speaks with two tongues. They are talking about integration in Danish, and confrontation in arabic.
The question is, if you are right and your cause is just, why do you have to lie and deceive?
Tellingly, the mainstream press, and particularly the Islamic press, have conveniently neglected to report that there are Muslims who support freedom of speech:
For its part, the newspaper has found Muslim allies. When the controversy first broke, hundreds of Danish Muslims demonstrated in Copenhagen in support of the newspaper. Among them were refugees that right-wing, anti-immigration parties would like to see turned away at Denmark’s borders.
“People have a right to say what they want without being killed,” says Nasim Rahnama, the 20-year-old Iranian woman who started a petition in support of the newspaper. “These Islamic groups have to be stopped. I just can’t sit down and do nothing.”
So far Ms. Rahnama, who moved here from Tehran four years ago, has collected over 150 signatures from Danish Muslims who support the paper’s stance but says that she would have got many more if it weren’t for people’s fear that Islamic groups would find out.
“I am so happy here,” she says. “I have learnt the language. I have a lot of friends. I live in freedom; I love it.”
The clear fact is that this is not an issue of persecution of Muslims, but rather the prevalance of the use of physical violence by lunatics to silence the voice of moderate Muslims.
Would moderate Muslims criticising the use of violence be ‘casting aspersion’ on the faith of those who believe in using violence as a tool of oppression?
3. A Reflection on Yourself
The lesson is that if you want your religion not to be mocked, it helps to have a reputation for senseless violence. Is this the incentive structure we want?
And truly, this lies at the heart of the matter.
If your reaction to some people criticising you, or even making fun of something you believe in, is to plan and threaten to kill them, then who is the caricature now?
————————————————————————————————————————————-
The Volokh Conspiracy - Bush Cabinet Member Condemns Anti-Christian Blasphemy, and Points to Laws Restricting Incitement to Hateful Expressions
The Volokh Conspiracy - Suppressing Anti-Religious Speech — an Emerging International Law Norm?
The Y Files: Blasphemy in Denmark — and here
The Volokh Conspiracy - Who’s to Blame for the Caricatures of Mohammed?
Althouse: “Yes, we have the right to caricature God.”
History News Network - BRITISH JIHADISTS: “KILL ALL THOSE WHO INSULT MUHAMMAD”
History News Network - DANISH MUSLIMS STARTED THE FRACAS
Crisis in Denmark: Alienated Danish Muslims Sought Help from Arabs - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News
Religious News Online - Danish editor tests right to violate Muslim taboos
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | France enters Muslim cartoon row
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Anger as papers reprint cartoons of Muhammad
Global Voices Online » Blog Archive » Malaysia, Denmark: Clash of Civilities?
Michelle Malkin: FIGHT THE BULLIES OF ISLAM
Balderdash
Singapore Ink. » The cartoon war
Singapore Ink. » The cartoon war: necessary provocation?
SomethingStickyThisWayComes: Sticky Issues: The Problem With Prophets
AsiaOne - A Europe in caricature
Channelnewsasia.com - MUIS unhappy with caricatures of Prophet Mohammad in European papers
TODAYonline - In Europe, it’s not a laughing matter
66 Comments
No my favourite part is they criticised Islam for being violent and what happened? They got death threats!
http://www.crankyprofessor.com/archives/000492.html
Apparently all these historical Muslim artists and the patrons who commissioned their paintings of Mohammed (PBUH) didn’t read the memo.
Do not be misguided as those (1st para of point 2) are not racist cartoons.
The media had educated the masses about muslim segregation on being moderate and extreme. Actual fact no such thing.
Let’s just judge them (provoking violence) as human beings and not muslims. Our country still as ‘peaceful’ as ever with only contempt to express what had been portrayed; both the ridicule of the comic and the reaction from certain Islamic nations.
It’s just a matter of belief and being protective to what is certainly dear.
I have no complains with freedom of publishing/ speech and it works both ways too, meaning, I can express my disgust on this matter and you can be receptive to it (the matter).
Contradictions you pointed out are common in media and politics and in us humans and it is pointless pointing out the facts to counter current emotions.
MUIS’ unhappiness is just like another rule SGPreans have to follow… and it’s not as if it’s the first and only ruling that ever helps here in SG, does it?
Not every aspect in liberalism is universal to each and every single culture and religon. Although every human are brothers and sisters, not everyone is hardwired the same way. Being Asians and having a history of predominantly authoritarian control (under our colonial masters, by Emperors, etc…), it would still take a fair amount of time before we can laugh at own culture, race or religon.
Although we can boast that we are a multi-racial society, we are not prepared accept criticisms and alternative opinions concerning race, religon or . It is part of our Asian psychic to uphold our own beliefs and never condone any second opinion. That’s how religious rites survive to this day.
In the first place, since we understand that undertaking such an act would provoke our neighbour, why do we have to do it in the first place?
I wonder how sufis respond to such provocations
Brennan:
This has nothing to do with ‘liberalism’, whatever that means. This is a simple matter of logic. I have pointed out easily how the rule stated by MUIS is simply unworkable in practice. Read what I’ve written again.
If you simply keep silent out of fear of retribution, then where do you draw the line?
Speak at the right time, with the right company.
Please tell Kofi Annan, George Bush etc that they should not condemn the Iranian president for reinterpreting the holocaust. Do you really believe that the UN Security Council should condemn the Iranian President for criticizing Jews but everyone else can criticize Muslims???
anonymous:
Fact - the holocaust happened to Jews
Fact - as of now, there are Muslims rampaging across Arab countries destroying embassies and hurting people
So what’s your problem?
If the people upset with the publication of the cartoons want to protest by sending letters demanding an apology, or write to the press demanding a right to explain why the cartoons were wrong or offensive, I think that is a mature response. Anyone, including the Danish press, who wants to make his writings or drawings public should be prepared to be criticised. But does criticism extend to death threats and senseless, indiscriminate violence against an entire country that had nothing to do with what its press said ?
Note that neither Kofi Annan nor George Bush threatened to behead Mahmoud, or nuke Iran, or incited their countrymen to burn Iranian flags or effigies of Iranian leaders. They simply criticised him, and warned that if he should try to attack another country without reason, they would rise to its defence.
In any case, you have wrongly identified the issue as being one about the right to criticise Jews or Muslims. It was not for criticism per se that the Iranian President was chastised. If he had simply criticised the Israelis for violating the human rights of the Palestinians I doubt much of the world would have taken issue with that.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was rightly criticised because he was attempting to rewrite history by denying that the Holocust even took place. It is tantamount to saying that no Muslims were killed in the Crusades. Would you agree with that ? The Holocust is as much a historical fact as the Crusades.
Even worse, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tried to incite the world to destroy an entire race. That is genocide - an international crime. For this, he was also rightly condemned.
” The critical problem over the rule enunciated by MUIS, “no one is allowed to ridicule or cast aspersions on the faith of a person under the cloak of free expression”, is how illogical and unworkable it would be in practice. ”
it might be practically workable if u draw a distinction between public expression and private. for instance, a church pastor might get away with critisizing islam as long as it’s within his church - and such things are happening (legal or not i do not know).
and practically speaking, it may not always help to legalise public religious criticism. it may be perfectly legal for me to speak publicly against your religion, but that won’t stop you from sending me death threats if you’re sensitive enough.
tt:
yes, I agree that the only way to resolve the problem is to make it such that only private expressions of faith would be allowed.
But then such a situation is inherently unstable. It would depend entirely on whether religious people behave themselves. And as you can tell, I don’t put much stock on trusting people purely on faith.
Ah, remind us again why the play Talaq was banned some years ago?
…… and you can’t expect what you have stated with regards to the MUIS rule to be easily be accepted by others without judgement.
and speaking of logic, i have a long list of illogical rules made by SG for SG. So if you can’t see what most see as illogical, you don’t expect yours to be understood by many when you determined that MUIS’ rule is not logical.
I suggest you either ramble on aimlessly or give your feedback to MUIS which I think you should work on the latter since you already excelled in the former.
Well, we don’t have to follow the rules, do we?
Aridewa:
I agree with you that there is much that is illogical in many of the policies implemented in Singapore. This does not mean however that because some rules are already illogical, we must therefore make MORE illogical ones.
I hope you understand that the reason why I disagree with the MUIS rule is precisely because Singapore is a multi-religious society. You must also realise that this conflict arises primarily between the 3 Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).
As I do not belong to any of those faiths, I have no vested interest in what happens between them. The only reason then, that I am speaking up, is because the conflict between the three threatens to infringe on the freedoms of those who have nothing to do with those religions.
When you look at it in this context, is it fair to us who just want to be left alone?
…definitely not fair and that is why those who found the unfairness left.
Me, like you, also found many illogical policies and rules being implemented and no matter how much we’d try to feedback, nothing much is being changed.
So much for regardless of race, language or religion (if any) if there is a garmemen, that garmemen rule and not the people.
Your position is similar to certain policies that I choose not to mention which has nothing to do with certain people but the certain people must adhere to it nonetheless. You should know what I am talking about and why only complain about things that only affect you? (i meant, all of us in general)
As I also mentioned, nothing done, nothing gained and if you are unhappy with it voice it out through proper channel. At least they’ll know and it could be a start to us citizens being heard.
It’s entirely possible for there to be mutual respect since we are after all “children of the book”. I think the potential problem you have raised is a moot one.
As for religious violence or shall I say “religious-inspired” violence, it’s really about the failure of what Ian McEwan calls the “moral imagination”. I don’t think any of this really about religion. According to Professor Hallaq who teaches Islamic law at McGill early Islam emphasised the separation of religion and politics. Do read his books because they are extremely insightful.
Of course religion shouldn”t be forced on anybody
Han > Dietrich Bonhoeffer drew the line. He deserves our admiration
Debby > early islam has little in common with the modern form of Islam. I’d say the same applies to christianity too
Debby:
Your assertion: Possible for there to be mutual respect.
Your reason: we are after all “children of the book”
I donno about you, but there’s nothing there thats convincing at all. What kind of reason is ‘we are “children of the book”‘? That’s just an empty statement with no meaning.
Hello, check out this link from Huicheih’s coda in his post about this issue:
http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/
A spectrum of Muslim views (albeit only blog-based) can be seen here. At the very least it shows that it’s silly to regard the Muslim viewpoint as monolithically reactionary (what about joining in the ‘offended’ chorus.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/globalvoices/2006/02/05/burning-butter/
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/globalvoices/2006/02/06/arab-bloggers-take-on-danish-cartoons/
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/globalvoices/2006/02/06/pakistan-blog-o-reaction/
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/globalvoices/2006/02/06/bahrain-more-cartoons-and-animated-conversations/
It’s as though a newspaper printed a caricature of Jesus and Moses as abortion clinic bombers, prompting real life abortion clinic bombers to actually bomb clinics, which lead government officials and intellectuals to lecture the press on the “responsibilities of free speech”. Singapore’s ministers and religious authorities join in, of course.
If you want to be free to insult then make sure you are prepared for the consequences.
With the freedom comes responsibilities.
What is this obession with freedom of speech anyway.
Every tom dick and harry wants to have a voice but not all have the wisdom to choose what is best.
How has it really helped the situation if people insist that they should be allowed to publish materials insulting other’s religion. And they indeed are allowed to do so. I just don’t know how it is going to help the world become a better place.
Do you really think that you would be better of without freedom of speech to voice your views about beliefs, structures and acts that affect you (and yes, this includes many religiouly-derived rules, norms and taboos)? Would you prefer then that somebody else makes the decision as to what you should say and even think?
And why does a newspaper suffer a fate that seems to miss out the vast volume of religious tracts (and sermons) distributed amongst and by various monotheistic, fundamentalist faiths that proclaim the divine exclusivity of their message (and by definition the notion that all non-believers are destined to burn, or are fit for earthly discrmination and retaliation)?
anon:
If you want to be free to tell people what they can or cannot say then make sure you are prepared for the consequences.
With the freedom comes responsibilities.
What is this obession with religion anyway.
Every tom dick and harry wants to tell other people what they can or cannot say but still say whatever they want themselves anyway.
How has it really helped the situation if people insist that they should be allowed to force their own religion’s rules on to others. And they indeed are allowed to do so. I just don’t know how it is going to help the world become a better place.
I don’t think this is about freedom of speech, but about respect. For 2 things: Other religions and the right of people to live peacefully without fear of harm.
People who destroy embassies and refuse to heed calls to behave in a dignified and non-violent manner vs people who publish cartoons when they know full well that it violates a very important belief of one of the main religions in the world.
I think both parties are not behaving well.
me:
Just so that you know, Catholics disrespect Islam on a daily basis because they’ve got a depiction of Jesus (Essa) on the crucifix.
So what you have to say about that?
respect has to be earned. so far, I find it hard to respect the wishes of any religion that wants to impose itself on others through the sword. that said, it could well be that G-d doesnt approve of the religion that endorses Him
-
“Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?” Ecc 7:16, Old Testament
Han:
I’m sorry, but I don’t get your point. I’m talking about this particular type of image that has incurred immense wrath recently. I am aware that certain religions have been feuding since time immemorial, and as an outsider I don’t know what the fuss is about. But I do know that everytime they feud, the whole world suffers. So if I belonged to any one of these religions, I would get it into my thick skull that it’s no point rehashing old arguments about the rights and wrongs about religion. Just LET IT BE in the words of Paul McCartney.
There have been many analyses about terrorism and criticism of Islam, but they haven’t invoked an outburst such as this. Clearly it is very important to Muslims that mocking cartoons should not be made,and who are we to say that this is unreasonable? I can think of rules in every religion that seemingly defy logic to those who do not practise the religion, but mean the world to believers.
We can criticise the manner of reaction to the cartoons, as many have done, but I don’t think that the right to print inflammatory cartoons is a right worth preserving. “Insulting” and “Debating and criticising” are subsets of “Speech”. Write scathing criticism or deliver incisive speeches if you will. That is worth protecting. But mocking via cartoons is hardly admirable.
me:
My point about the crucifix is this: Muslims claim that ALL material depictions of ANY of the prophets, including Jesus (Essa is the Arabic transliteration, and the Muslims treat Jesus as a prophet), are blasphemy. If that is so, then would not every single crucifix be an affront to Islam?
So you’re saying that scathing criticism or incisive speeches are different in quality from mocking cartoons? You’re basically saying that a cartoon cannot be ’scathing criticism’.
I don’t know if you know this, but there’s these two things called ‘parody’ and ’satire’, which have been used since time immemorial to criticise ideas, while mocking them at the same time. A caricature would be a subset of ‘parody’ and ’satire’.
And please don’t forget the death penalty fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie, who’s book was all TEXT, and no mocking cartoons.
According to this Wikipedia write-up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_versus_blasphemy),
“In June 2002, Iranian academic Hashem Aghajari gave a speech that challenged Muslims to refrain from blindly following their clergy. His speech provoked international outcry, and, in November 2002, he was sentenced to death for “blasphemy against Muhammad.”
If simply questioning contemporary clerics is already regarded as blasphemy punishable by death, it seems to indicate that Muslims who are moderate or reformist have little room for manoerve. With such a broad and seemingly arbitrary definition of blasphemy (that claims authority even over non-believers), it’s perhaps inevitable that a clash like this will occur, for better or worse.
When the Danish newspaper first published the cartoons on grounds of parody, it was less clear cut that they were all out to be provocative. Bad taste and lousy judgement certainly as it could be draw a crazy Mullah week and the effect would just be as great for satire. The newspaper were thinking controversy is wonderful for sales and branding anyway.
However, in recent weeks when newspapers here and there started carrying the cartoon, the issue of deliberate and planned provocation is probably harder to deny. This is not to say that the violent Muslim reactions in countries that are usually not on good terms with “the West” is justified. Anyway, the riots in parts of the Middle East were probably opportunistic actions by extremist factions to send a signal to their governments to be more hardline or actually encouraged by the governments themselves. Can we imagine spontaneous riots in Damascus without the Syrian government’s tacit approval?
What it means is that a case of bad local gimmick to create controversy was seized by everyone interested in deepening the supposedly global political confrontation between “the West” and the ummah. Such trouble-maker minorities in “the West” and the “Muslim world” should be denounced continuously and publicly.
Han
The Salman Rushdie fatwa is an interesting parallel. I am not an Islamic scholar but I find it amazing that a fatwa by a Shia cleric conveniently became a fatwa for all Muslims. Again what was a local small affair became a sensational confrontational global one. The book was actually a window into the existing political tension between “the West” and “the Middle East”. It was the pretext for renewed mutual attacks. The West used freedom of speech and barbarism in the Muslim world as the flag while the Muslims shouted Western-Satan denigration of Islam from the minarets.
Did I attempt to defend the habit of issuing fatwas? No. What I did say that for this particular episode, it’s not really clear to me that either side can come away with clean hands. Scathing criticism I can defend. Mocking pictures I cannot.
Everyone is getting worked up about the newspapers insulting Islam but let’s get this straight. The cartoons were published months ago. It’s only when certain Muslim extremists began circulating the cartoons in the Middle East, together with some cartoons that they themselves added - one of Muhammad with a pig snout, one with a praying Muslim having sex with a dog - and did not distinguish between their own additions and the original cartoons, which were far less offensive - it was only then that this latest uproar really kicked off.
It should be clear to anyone who knows this that the latest burst of outrage is really mostly a manufactured stunt by certain elements within the Islamic world, who can make political capital out of it. It’s rather the same way politicians encourage the fear of crime so that they can make themselves look good by then having ‘tough’ policies (which don’t actually help to reduce crime at all). The Muslims on behalf of whom everyone is getting so offended are really being made use of by their own spiritual and political leaders. The same way that Americans are fooled into believing there is the big bad terrorist enemy necessitating wars against other countries. This is not really about a spontaneous anger of ‘irrational’ or ’sensitive’ or ‘decent’ Muslims against an ‘irresponsible’ or ‘excessive’ or ‘disrespectful’ press. It’s about certain powerful people who find it in their interests to stir up anti-West feeling and distract Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere from the real domestic problems afflicting them. This is not to say the West never behaves badly (see aforementioned Iraq war). It’s to say that this conflict needs to be understood in a wider perspective.
Dear Budak
>Do you really think that you would be better of without >freedom of speech to voice your views about beliefs, >structures and acts that affect you (and yes, this >includes many religiouly-derived rules, norms and taboos)?
No I think certain degree of freedom is neccessary. The problem is not everyone can hold a conversation in a mature manner. It is human nature. You can say what you want but you need to know the consequences and must be prepared for it. Sometimes not saying or saying it in another way might produce better results.
>Would you prefer then that somebody else makes the >decision as to what you should say and even think?
Actually yes, I would like other people make decisions for me if they can convince me that they can make a better judgment in areas that I have no idea. No man is an island. You may have an opinion on everything but it doesn’t mean that you have the best course of action.
>And why does a newspaper suffer a fate that seems to miss >out the vast volume of religious tracts (and sermons) >distributed amongst and by various monotheistic, >fundamentalist faiths that proclaim the divine >exclusivity of their message (and by definition the >notion that all non-believers are destined to burn, or >are fit for earthly discrmination and retaliation)?
Pardon me but I am not sure what is the point you are making here.
>If you want to be free to tell people what they can or >cannot say then make sure you are prepared for the >consequences.
Actually I am not telling people what they should or should not say. I am saying to use a bit of common sense and think of the consequences before publishing something. Is insult a form of constructive criticism?
>What is this obession with religion anyway.
I think it would be better if you get to the point instead of mimicking my reply. You are not making any sense here. The topic is about islam what do you expect me to talk about?
>Every tom dick and harry wants to tell other people what >they can or cannot say but still say whatever they want >themselves anyway.
If you read again I say freedom comes with responsiblity and you can be free to do what you want but there are consequences. Apparently you are more emotional then logical. I am responsible for what I post here. You happy with that?
will reply the rest later
anon:
I don’t know if you realise this, but the mimicry is meant to illustrate a point to you. Whatever reaction you had to my reply is the exact reaction that I had to yours: you’re just being emotional.
Since you emphasize that ‘constructive criticism’ is ok, pray tell me then, what the difference between constructive criticism and ‘insult’ is.
Btw, I find it insulting that you say that I am ‘more emotional then logical’. I shall now proceed to burn down your house and threaten to kill your family.
Yay for me!
Han, of course there’s a difference between constructive criticism and insulting something/someone. I’m no English major, but surely the difference lies in the tone and the intent.
The first time I heard about this issue was back in Jan 20 through an IHT article. As Jol said, the flareup didn’t occur till some Dutch Imans decided to send it in together with 9 other cartoons which were actually not published by the newspaper.
With regards to the intent, the original authorial intent was in fact to give vent to his frustration that not a single illustrator was willing to illustrate the Prophet Muhammad because of the exact sort of violence and violent reprisal we see now.
But here’s where the true irony lies for what else would you call a situation whereby the self same laws that allow for the publication of a (technically) blasphemous cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, also allows for the operation of Hizb ut-Tahrir, or the Party of Liberation, which preaches its ideology of the creation of an Islamic caliphate and the unification of all muslim countries under one leader who would then implement the Sharia? This is a group that is banned in most of the Muslim world as well as Russia and Germany. But it is allowed to operate in Denmark and Britain).
me:
hmmm… I didn’t know you could read people’s minds to divine their intent on why they do what they do.
And tone! I really can’t remember when was the last time I read a piece of parody or satire that was respectful.
I hope you do realise that if the world operated according to your rules, we’d still be in the Middle Ages, and the Inquisition would still be on.
Oh wait, it still is!
Jol
“It’s to say that this conflict needs to be understood in a wider perspective.”
This view is unfortunately not shared by many. Simplifying the incident into one of freedom of speech (hawkish Western-ish view) and Crusaders riding towards Mecca! (extremist Muslim view) is just so much easier to write about in the media and understood by the masses. “Freedom of speech” and religion are geopoliticised to a large extent in this “manufactured stunt”. Both sides counted on each other to fire up the masses everywhere, including us watching on the sidelines.
Noself
Very true. Some of the Dutch Imans were the instigators of the incident in the extremist Muslim camp. They were not entirely clueless victims as they wanted the world to believe.
Jenevas Devan has a pretty good article today which slams everyone. I’m not entirely sure what his stance was but the examples were good.
Bar one. I’m not sure how lampooning suicide bombers thinking they get 72 virgins when they go to heaven is offensive. I mean, it’s offensive to me to think that murderers go to ‘heaven’ not ‘hell’, but to Muslims in general?
I approach this from the point that its the greater Muslim community who can only resolve such biasness against them and they should reflect upon themselves if they have been fair in treating all forms of insults including those coming from so-called muslims themselves. But then, when anger forms such a huge part of your daily lives, can you even think?
Anyway, I wrote my piece about this in saltwetfish…
http://www.saltwetfish.net/journal/?p=122
“Keep your rosaries out of my ovaries”
- Protester at a Melb march against fundies
Han
“I don’t know if you realise this, but the mimicry is meant to illustrate a point to you. Whatever reaction you had to my reply is the exact reaction that I had to yours: you’re just being emotional.”
Me being emotional??? You did not even attempt to address the point that I’ve brought up. I think you are just too lazy to think of a reply.
Further more your mimicry is not even representative of my post.
First of all please point out which statement of mine has implied that I can trying to control what people can say or cannot say? If you miss my point I repeat it again. If you want to say something be prepared for the consequences.
Secondly show me where is my obsession with religion? Your mimicry is not even accurate. Or does it only contain falsehood to make the other party flabbergasted and forget about the original point that they were making?
Thirdly where did I tell you what you can say or cannot say?
Fourthly people do not need to follow Muslims laws if they are not Muslims.
If Muslim does not allow people to mock their religion it is their right. If a racist comes up to you and starts taunting you would you not retaliate? What about the racial riots in Sydney? Use a bit of common sense. It is might be true that some Muslims provoked the issue by sending the cartoon with other damning photos but you don’t want to give them a reason to start all this nonsense.
If people treat each other with more respect I say the world would definitely be a better place.
I am not insisting you bow to Muslims laws. I am asking for respect for other’s religion.
“Since you emphasize that ‘constructive criticism’ is ok, pray tell me then, what the difference between constructive criticism and ‘insult’ is.”
Even if I didn’t emphasize constructive criticism is ok I didn’t state that there should be no constructive criticism. To come to that conclusion is your error. That is part of your emotions colouring my character.
You just need a bit of common sense to tell the difference between constructive criticism and insult. Maybe your profession requires you to blur the lines so you can win a defamation suit.
“Btw, I find it insulting that you say that I am ‘more emotional then logical’. I shall now proceed to burn down your house and threaten to kill your family.”
Then I say you are too egoistic. I stand by my words. You can come threaten me and kill my family. It would be my mistake to have insulted a psychopath. I will be responsible for my words here.
Apply a bit of wisdom and you will know what to say and what not to say. The person/party you insult is very important too
That is the reality of life.
Maybe you can also tell me how you think the caricature can also be a constructive criticism? To me I think it cause more division then help by painting Muslims as terrorist.
anon:
I think if one had any common sense one would just walk away if someone starts taunting you. Or taunt them back. Threatening them with bombs and death hardly seems commonsensical.
So basically what you’re saying is that we should hold off on criticising people when they’re violent lunatics, right? Doesn’t that mean you’re trying to say that the best way to stop people from saying things you don’t like to hear is just to be a violent lunatic and threaten to bomb and kill anyone who tries?
I think it is easy to say ‘common sense’ in theory, but hard to do in practice. The fact is that the feeling of being offended or insulted is subjective. That basically means that whether something is offensive or insulting or not varies highly depending on each individual’s sensitivities, temperament and cultural context.
Ah yes, finally you see my point.
Insult is subjective you know. Anyone can find anything subjective, depending on individual sensitivities. Bowing down to SOME people’s sensitivities means a slippery slope to fascist restrictions on free speech. Any psychopath, as you say, can just find anything offensive and start threatening bombs and deaths. Is that not what many of the protesters wdid?
This deserves to be linked just by virtue of its name:
Blogosphere to Muslim world: “Eat my shorts”
Side point on the so-called cultural defence for provocation in murder cases, bear with me for it has some relevance on this issue.
Assume that (as in way too many unfortunate cases) you have a case of honour killing i.e. the male relations of a female kill her for allegedly besmearching the familiy honour (and we further assume that it can be defined on a sociological basis), should we allow this a a partial mitigatory plea to what is normally premeditated culpable homicide?
The relevant to this issue is how much weight should we give to the violence tendancies of these extremist? Recalling that the demonstrations in New Zealand and Indonesia were peaceful and no Danes have fled fearing for their lives.
Once the Catholic Church was deemed blasphemous (or was it heretical?) to claim the earth revolves around the sun. I wonder if Islam has a similar tenet?
“HINDUS CONSIDER it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage. India recalled its ambassador to Copenhagen, and Danish flags were burned in Calcutta, Bombay, and Delhi. A Hindu mob in Sri Lanka severely beat two employees of a Danish-owned firm, and demonstrators in Nepal chanted: ”War on Denmark! Death to Denmark!”In many places, shops selling Dansk china or Lego toys were attacked by rioters, and two Danish embassies were firebombed.”
I think we need to start using the following equation:
Fundamentalist Muslims is to Islam as KKK is to Christianity.
Hopefully that would put it into perspective.
Han:
Let me help you out with what is constructive, and what is insulting and makes people feel like boiling mad.”
Constructive: “Perhaps you could improve your personal relationships by putting yourself in the shoes of your peers.”
Insulting: “You’re a dick.”
Get it?
“If Muslim does not allow people to mock their religion it is their right. If a racist comes up to you and starts taunting you would you not retaliate? What about the racial riots in Sydney? Use a bit of common sense. It is might be true that some Muslims provoked the issue by sending the cartoon with other damning photos but you don’t want to give them a reason to start all this nonsense.”
I don’t know how much this anon knows about anything but he/she apparently doesn’t know much about the supposedly racial riots in Sydney. Behaviour counts alot too before any drunkard white aussie set upon any aussie dude of middle eastern background. The point here is not to defend anyone from that unfortunate incident but to indicate that it is not a simple matter of racial taunts between two different groups and escalating into something wrong wildly. It’s so unbelievable that someone can take to the local nation building press so willingly.
It’s so unbelievable that someone can take to the local nation building press so willingly.
Why not? Half of the students in schools I know seem to think that writing a summary of opinions expressed in ST articles is equivalent to writing a commentary on these articles.
“I think if one had any common sense one would just walk away if someone starts taunting you. Or taunt them back. Threatening them with bombs and death hardly seems commonsensical.”
It depends on who you are taunting.
“So basically what you’re saying is that we should hold off on criticising people when they’re violent lunatics, right? ”
No I am saying you should be aware of the possible backlash if you want to criticise. Critcism can come in many forms and can be worded differently. I do question the wisdom of publishing mocking cartoons. What do you think they are trying to acheive with the cartoons? What do think they are trying to communicate with those cartoons?
“Doesn’t that mean you’re trying to say that the best way to stop people from saying things you don’t like to hear is just to be a violent lunatic and threaten to bomb and kill anyone who tries?”
Some people will do that and it is the reality of life. You can’t control them but you can control what you say to them. If I want to effect a positive change I wouldn’t want to antagonise them. I would want to understand, respect and hopefully be able to communicate their errors to them. Some might have even died trying but if it is a cause worthy of pursuing people will speak even if it means death.
“I think it is easy to say ‘common sense’ in theory, but hard to do in practice. The fact is that the feeling of being offended or insulted is subjective. That basically means that whether something is offensive or insulting or not varies highly depending on each individual’s sensitivities, temperament and cultural context.”
I think it is not difficult to differentiate an insult from a constructive criticism. Yes there are some grey areas but there are also definitely some clear cut ones. I think ME has given you an example. If you know the other party is a psychopath would you still choose to provoke that guy by publishing incedendary remarks, which could be avoided by gentle criticisms?
“Ah yes, finally you see my point.
Insult is subjective you know. Anyone can find anything subjective, depending on individual sensitivities. Bowing down to SOME people’s sensitivities means a slippery slope to fascist restrictions on free speech. Any psychopath, as you say, can just find anything offensive and start threatening bombs and deaths. Is that not what many of the protesters wdid?”
Again I would just like to say that there are clear cut cases of insult. I ask how can the cartoon be a constructive criticism. So far no one has answered. It looks to me, it is more an insult then a criticism. The cartoon can easily misconstrued as implying that all muslims are terrorist. I think that serves to divide and polarise the community with the us vs them mentality. It would be sad to see peace loving muslim be generalised under the same umbrella. Shouldn’t people criticise the fundementalist muslim instead of taking it out on the religion. It is after all the people using the religion for their agenda.
In the quest of rallying for the freedom of speech have people lose sight of what it is originally intended for. I think there is too much individualism in wanting to express views without considering the impact of the speech.
Do you see deathtreats as a loss of freedom of speech? If so, how does it help by insisting that people should have the right to comment and even make fun of other’s religious beliefs. Do you think the death treats will not come because of your protest? Where do you draw the line of freedom? Should people be free to rally against certain race? Is is just some ego trip about no one should control what I can say or want to say? If chaos happens with the freedom, I rather give up a bit of freedom for peace and harmony.
I guess I’ve taken much of your space. I apologise for sounding harsh. That is all I want to say. Thank you for letting me express my views.
ted
My mistake it is a bad idea to include sydney. I stand corrected. However, I hope you didn’t miss my point about not insulting.
BTW I am just a simpleton not well read.
anon:
There is no need to apologise. The space does not cost me extra, so comment as much as you like.
My stance on freedom of speech is based on principles, and not expediency, so even though I might not agree with you completely, rest assured that your right to comment here is secure.
Awesome points man. With religious groups challenging scientists and others but refusing to be challenged themselves, they have pretty much adopted the “i’m rubber, you’re glue” technique that some but not all people abandon at the age of 9.
So essentially you have dissagrement and no room for debate. If war could be baked into a pot pie then those would definitely be two key ingredients. So now religions become war machines? As a rapper might say, “they need to check themselves.”
Nice side stepping of the key issues.
1) If you want to taunt someone, you have to be responsible for the backlash.
2) You can’t really NOT expect a measured backlash when you clearly mean to degrade, and not to criticise objectively.
3) We only have one Earth. Those who wish to stir up shit and link it all to freedom of speech should do so on Mars or something.
me:
surely you don’t expect to be taken seriously when you say that its justified for someone to bomb you and threaten to kill you when you satirise/parody/make fun of their beliefs?
Have you even seen the cartoons firstly? And secondly, you failed to acknowledge that much of the resultant anger derived from inflammatory ‘cartoons’ inserted by the Danish imams themselves.
And lastly, I strongly object to your assertion that just because we all live on Earth therefore we must bow down to those most oppressive to us.
This fact is clear: there are Muslims who want freedom and Muslims who don’t, and seek to extend their oppression to others, regardless of Muslim or not. If we do not stand up against these oppressors, then there would be no ‘moderate Islam’ to speak of, having been entirely taken over by these mad lunatics.
han :
I do not see “me” asserting that we must “bow down” to anyone, least of all people “most oppressive”.
Yes, some reactions after the cartoons have been violent and wrongful. However, the question we debate here is : Whether critical/insulting cartoons should have been published/republished in the name of free speech - the subsequent reactions help form the context but are not directly relevant to the question.
I think “me” and “anon” relay the idea that there is a difference between expression of critical thought, and mere insult/provocation. i.e. Critical expression = “good”, but mere “insult” = bad.
There are situations with no clear line between where critical expression ends and insult begins. We can all agree that there is subjectivity in insult - there is a spectrum of sensitive issues/people. That is not to say that most statements cannot be grouped with some measure of “common sense”, as to which group it belongs to. It is not impossible to have a fairly objective view of whether something is meant to insult/annoy/provoke - for example, to ask after someone’s mom in not a nice way.
Whether this involves a religious/racial issue or not, whether it involves critical analysis or not - most statements can be clearly seen to annoy/insult/provoke, regardless of subjective intent of the sayer or the receiver. Discussions over certain issues tend to get more volatile - be it race/religion/family - we all know that and exercise common sense and restraint in our everyday lives. It is not impossible to identify these areas. Take the religious aspect out of this discussion, and it boils down to something akin to asking after one’s mom - it is wise to refrain from doing so, whatever the justification, (least of all on the justification of free speech).
Where an issue falls within a grey or a sensitive area, the point i (and i think some others) wish to make simply is, that we should exercise some maturity and self-restraint. Approach it in a respectful and restrained manner. And Don’t ask after people’s mom in a not nice way in the name of freedom of speech.
If other people get worked up/misunderstand you, say sorry you didn’t mean that, that you didn’t mean to get them worked up. Not “STFU i have freedom of speech I will say what I want and I will say some more”.
This is not bowing to oppression. This is basic manners (and what keeps you from getting bashed up when you go out onto the streets!).
To reiterate, the context of wrongful and violent reactions, does not mean that we should therefore purposely speak out to show that we are not scared and are not bowing to oppression. We are not chao ahbengs defending our turf (no disrespect meant to ahbengs ;P). If anything, we should be more careful and restrained, to protect ourselves if nothing else. In the context of States, they should be even more careful of their very public stances - even the United States government knows that.
Just to round up, my personal view of the context is : to republish incendiary cartoons (within the context of violent reactions), i think, falls clearly within the unacceptable group of actions. It is provocation and it is insulting. It falls clearly within a sensitive area. It simply should not be done.
It is not wise to react to violent reactions, by further provoking violent reactions, in the name of freedom of speech.
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] (From The Legal Janitor.) [...]