Sunday, February 05, 2006

Cartoon violence

It started with twelve editorial cartoons in a Danish newspaper called Jyllands-Posten. Twelve cartoons which violated holy Islamic law that stated that no images of the Prophet Muhammad could be made, good or bad, for fear that it would lead to idolatry.

All of the cartoons were offensive, the worst being an image of the prophet wearing a turban that resembled a bomb.

The result was violence, which erupted in countries with high Muslim populations. Yesterday, the Embassy of Denmark was set ablaze in Syria, and today the same occurred in Beirut. People have taken to the streets in protest, burning Danish flags and hurling stones. Arab diplomats told the Danish government, as well as those of other European states which printed the images, that all it would have taken to quell the uprisings were apologies; however, Denmark's Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen "insisted he cannot apologize on behalf of his country's independent press".

Unsurprisingly, the editor of Jyllands-Posten is also unapologetic. Why did he request the cartoons? Because he believed that the press was practicing "self-censorship" in regards to Muslim issues.

There are good reasons for the so-called "self-censorship" for the time being -- the most obvious is that this topic is extremely sensitive. The second reason, and most blatant in this case, is pure ignorance of the culture. It is clear that all of these cartoonists, and the editor themselves, know nothing of Islam, publishing a superficial perception, which is inexcusable. They are journalists, and they have a duty and responsibility to investigate and research before they go to print, and yes, practise "self-censorship" when what they are presenting is needlessly offensive.

Even the Vatican has spoken out, saying that religious intolerance is unacceptable and that there must be mutual respect for all cultures.

Several other European newspapers picked up and printed these images, even though they knew these cartoons were controversial and insulting. This is indicative of a larger issue at hand: racial tension and discrimination, especially towards the Muslim community. In France, there was a vote to ban headscarves in classrooms and workplaces, which eventually passed -- a law very pointedly aimed at Muslim women, who wear the scarves for religious reasons. Most recently (and famously), there were race riots which began in Paris and spread across the rest of the country.

So far, France has made no effort to accommodate or open a dialogue with these groups. Instead, the authorities have deported those who were involved. Instead of effectively dealing with the root cause, they're sweeping everything under the rug, and looking at this in a very shallow manner.


There is terrible xenophobia and a culture of intolerance which is quickly rising to the surface. It looks as though Europe's dirty laundry is being now being aired in public.

Bookmark and Share

16 Comments:

  • a free press means just that. You seem to accusing the Danish newspaper of intolerance...sorry, but you got it exactly backwards!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:42 PM  

  • There's an extremely fine line between "freedom press" and being offensive.

    The Danish newspaper crossed the line by stepping on what was considered, by Muslims, as holy law, not just by creating an image of Muhammad, but 12 of them, all of which were tasteless and disrespectful.

    For more, take a look at the Toronto Star's commentary on the situation, especially the mention of the al-Quds' response.

    The history of discrimination and the on-going cultural tensions are there, and the cartoons just added fuel to the fire.

    By Blogger Grace, at 3:59 PM  

  • Islam may tell Muslims that they can't illustrate Muhamed but thay can't dictate that to anyone else. No more than they can tell any women other than Muslim women that they have to be covered up head to toe.
    They don't like the cartoons? They're offended? So what? Making women walk around in portable jails with a slit to look through offends me. But I don't burn embassies and kill people because I'm offended.
    No more excuses for them.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:40 PM  

  • Those are precisely the kinds of generalizations that has gotten the Danish newspaper into such trouble.

    Not ALL Muslims resort to violence, not ALL Muslims force women to wear burquas. In fact, few of them do. You will find extremism in every religion, and while they're a small faction, they're usually the most vocal, so they get more attention.

    I agree that the embassies should not have been attacked, but the major violent demonstrations were limited to Syria and Lebanon. Most Muslims around the world are organizing a peaceful boycott of European goods.

    Painting every person belonging to that religion with the same brush is unfair.

    There was no excuse for those cartoons.

    By Blogger Grace, at 6:20 PM  

  • Well, Grace, I don't know whether you've ever imagined what it would be like to have a portable jail. I don't know if you've read any novels or seen any films about women living under those conditions. But I have and it is every bit as bad as anything you've ever read about the conditions of African slaves in US 1700.

    Furthermore, that subjugation is the norm in the Muslim world. Muslim communities in the Western world don't enforce the veil, but they maintain the same subjugation of women within their communities.

    It may be true that not all Muslims resort to violence, but it is also true that there isn't a single Muslim leader in the entire world that has called for an end to violence.

    In fact, all of the violence over the cartoons has been engineered and promoted by Muslim leaders in their Friday night sermons.

    You say that not all Muslims resort to violence. Why should I take your word for that? If there are all these wonderful peaceful Muslims around who don't support violence, why haven't I ever heard from them?

    Sorry, but they're going to have to convince me. I see no reason why I should give them or you the benefit of the doubt when all of the evidence suggests the opposite.

    Finally, there was a good reason for the cartoons. They illustrate the hypocrisy of the people who object to them.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:55 PM  

  • In your first paragraph you state that a Danish newspaper violated holy Islamic law. They are not bound by that law. How much freedom would I have if I had to obey the holy laws of every religion on the planet?

    Then you state that all the cartoons were offensive. That's blatantly false. One was a picture of a child at a blackboard, and one was a picture of Muhammed with a staff leading a pack animal. And my favorite was a self portrait of the cartoonist, nervously looking over his shoulder while drawing the image. Very appropriate and accurate considering the current climate.

    Finally, you seem to be painting the Europeans with the same broad brush that you criticize them for painting the Muslims. You've equated free speech and the refusal to apologize with anti muslim bigotry, and then called that Europe's dirty laundry, instead of the dirty laundry of some Europeans.

    I support free speech, including the Muslim's right to peaceful counter protest. Burning embassies and kidnapping people is not protected speech.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:16 PM  

  • I really like what the learned and considered Mr. Andrew Sullivan wrote:

    "Muslim leaders say the cartoons are not just offensive. They're blasphemy--the mother of all offenses. That's because Islam forbids any visual depiction of the Prophet, even benign ones. Should non-Muslims respect this taboo? I see no reason why. You can respect a religion without honoring its taboos. I eat pork, and I'm not an anti-Semite. As a Catholic, I don't expect atheists to genuflect before an altar. If violating a taboo is necessary to illustrate a political point, then the call is an easy one. Freedom means learning to deal with being offended."

    By Blogger cakreiz, at 4:37 PM  

  • I've heard that the cartoons were intended as a protest. The author wanted to publish a children's book about Muhammed (presumably not an offensive one), but couldn't because publishers were worried about pissing off Muslims over the idolatry issue. So, he created these cartoons which depicted a range of images from non-offensive (Muhammed leading a pack animal) to offensive (Muhammed with a turban made out of a bomb). Virtually none of the Western criticisms of the cartoons mention what the cartoons actually say.

    By Blogger Erika, at 6:25 PM  

  • Ah, how exactly are you generalizing about Euoropeans any less han you claim they are generalizing about Muslims? The Muslims commiting violent acts and threatening further violence you assure us (on what evidence?) are irrelevant extremists. But the "Europeans" you refer to are assumed to repesent all Europe. You suggest that "Europeans" actions are taken to reflect on all Europe; but it's supposedly racist to ask how Muslims actions reflect on Muslims.

    And check out this editorial from The Guardian:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1702932,00.html

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:19 PM  

  • I never advocated violence. I never said that the extremists Muslims were right in burning down the embassies, or needlessly hurting people.

    I have presented my case as to how some European states have discriminated against Islam in various bans, and race riots. In fact, even look at Shakespeare ("Merchant of Venice", "Othello") - there is a European culture of discrimination towards other races and religions. The history is there. It's undeniable. It may not exist in various individuals, but it does in the society.

    The cartoon's implication is that Islam is a religion of violence, and that all Muslims are violent. That the reality is that it is a peaceful religion, perverted by extremists. It was a symptom of ignorance of Islam, and it was irresponsible to publish it.

    Considering what the atmosphere is like, the least one can say is that the cartoon was done in extremely poor taste, and the editor exercised very poor judgement in sending it to print. There are better forums for such issues.

    Pat Robertson suggested that we "take out" Hugo Chavez. It doesn't reflect on all Christians. But he's vocal, and people pay attention to that. Yet, no one ever generalizes that Christians are violent.

    It's not just about violating a taboo. It's stepping on what others would call sacred, and disrespecting another's religion. I'm not a Buddhist, but I would certainly remove my shoes before stepping into a temple.

    If you want to talk about freedom of the press, I suggest you take a look at my friend, Will's blog (Whispering into the Mirror). He's a writer at Mount Allison University's student paper, and he's an ardent defender of freedom of the press and speech. Yet, he cannot defend this cartoon.

    Otherwise, I think I've said all I can about this.

    By Blogger Grace, at 12:57 AM  

  • There is a tangible distinction, Grace. When Pat Robertson posited killing Chavez, he was greeted (properly) by a sea of derision from Christians. In contrast, there was no such sea in Islam. Had there been, your "religion of peace" statement wouldn't be challenged.

    By Blogger cakreiz, at 9:51 AM  

  • I followed a link here and read this interesting debate.

    Grace, nice try, but you lose. Your opponents have arguments that seem unassailable to me.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:14 AM  

  • There's some great stuff out there. This from Wired Opinion- in refutation to the statement that Europe's culture is 'intolerant'.

    "Upset with Rick Santorum for opposing gay marriage? Sodomy is a capital offense in Iran. Just plain pissed because of family-values opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment? Women aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia. This is the world radical Islamism seeks to expand. Why the reluctance to frankly criticize this backward worldview as bad, all bad, only bad, and worthy of contempt and categorical opposition?"

    By Blogger cakreiz, at 3:34 PM  

  • Hmmm. You seem to be saying that there is an inherent thread of hatred for outside races/religions in Europe, and use the cartoons, and Shakespeare to support the contention that a literary work demonstrates endemic societal hatred.

    You then claim that wordlwide violence that has continued for centuries, perpetrated by a few "extremist" Muslims is merely an anamoly.

    I'm sorry, but when the heads of state, namely Iran, Syria Afghanistand, Pakistan, and the Muslim religious leaders in dozens of countries demand death and blood for some cartoons, it is not the work of a few extremists.

    This incident has simply shown that the large majority of Muslims actually promote and participate in violence and acts of vengeance for even the slightest perceived aggrievance, which is exactly the fact that some of these cartoons portray.

    Life imitating art, or art imitating life...either way, it is clear that for most, Islam=violence

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:17 PM  

  • I'm Muslim. I love and respect my parents, my teatchers. Our prophet Muhammed for us is above parents. I think any one of you will be angry when I criticize (circasm) him. So what about Our prophet Muhamed, for us he is the ideal model to follow, He ordered us to make peace all over the world, He ordered us to love others. So, such cartoons depicting Muhammed hurt us, and I think the freedom of press issues should not hurt others, do you understand this message. and what happened in Iraq(Abu Ghrib). Afghanistan, And the refuse of Hamas in Palastin are very enough, So please leave us alone

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:39 PM  

  • ^^ nice blog!! ^@^

    徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

    徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

    徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,

    徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home