Add a Comment

[...]

Articles criticing muslims faith are printed practically everyday and in every magazine across the world. If anything, almost every community in the world spends more time analyzing the muslims rather than themselves But muslims are not objecting to any of those articles.

This was a specific case of intentionally provoking muslims with racist and offensive stuff. It came at a time when Denmark right wing groups had grown rapidly with the newspaper that published the cartoons itself being a christian right wing supporter.

Note that this controversy cannot be compared to the toilet paper one as this was an intentional provocation, not accidental. A closer comparison to the toilet paper controversy was that of Nike using muslims scriptures on their shoes.

“Should there be laws preventing this sort of thing from happening in the future? I hope not, but a case could certainly be made for them.”

Please do tell what that case would be? To protect societies against the backlash of repressionists who would happily revoke the right of free expression?

I am an American. There are many elements of American culture which I personally find deeply offensive — Howard Stern, Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, and the Fox News Network come immediately to mind. But nonetheless, I would come to the immediate defense of each and every one of these offensive individuals’ (or corporation’s) right to free expression. I can’t stand any of them, and I don’t ever watch or listen to any of them except through second-hand accounts, but my personal freedom of expression is nonetheless inexorably bound to theirs.

This is a beautifully written piece, and you are a hero of freedom. Keep up the good work, and beware of the enemies of freedom who might try to thwart your efforts.

And for this reason above all others is the neocon notion of a Free Iraq fatally flawed. For Islam and freedom are diametrically opposed by their very natures, and Iraq is an Islamic society.

D’oh!

European nations routinely condemn the statements by the Mullahs, but I don’t see similar expressions of condemnation about that (particular) cartoon.

Drawing those cartoons isn’t illegal and the paper had all the rights to publish them. But doesn’t that one cartoon (or may be some others too) depict a rash generalization that all Muslims are terrorists. Doesn’t it perpetrate a stereotype that is probably accepted by many Europeans?

Defending the freedom of expression is fine. How about condemning hatred? You want to draw cartoons of Mohd. or Allah, fine! But is it OK if those cartoons spread hate too! By that logic Nazi literature and all other hateful works should be OK too.

The whole issue was set up for controversy. It is a naive editor who would not have expected death threats from the Mullahs. Those threats would have predictably caused other Europeans to scream ‘Look how backward those Mullahs are’ (they are) and by extension the rest of the Muslim world.
That was precisely the motive. There wasn’t any sacred ‘freedom of speech’ motive behind those cartoons.
There was no intention of having any rational debate on the issues on hand, it was just a shrill call for the crazies on both sides to crawl out of their woodwork.

Atanu Dey has a piece on his Deesha blog about a recent controversy brewing in Denmark regarding some journalists printing cartoons related to Muhammad . I like Atanu’s analysis on the piece and this leaves me wondering as well.

This…

This sort of reaction is certainly not restricted to the Muslim world. Sans the extremism, anything offending we find against the Hindus, we will certainly make a huge outcry about. Of course no death threats would be involved. We would sign petitions over petitions which is a democratic way of going about it. But the question is why do we get offended so easily?

Remember the incidents like certain offensive scenes in Eyes wide shut which had Sanskrit mantras in the background, Indian gods on toliet seats, and other much minor other incidents?

I have always wondered why we tend to take anything we see in the foreign media so offensive? Is it because we cannot ever see such things happening in India? Why is not the population in the western world not offended by some cartoons we print in our newspapers slandering Bush or even burning effigies or flags of public folks of the western world? Are westerners able to take criticism/humor much better than asians? Do Asians perceive freedom of speech differently than westerners? Is the western world too insensitized to the eastern world and vice versa? Is it religion?

wondering…
Mihir

One should be free to burn whatever — including the flag — provided that it is one’s property and if the burning does not impinge on the other person’s right to clean air.

[...]

Previous post: « The Freedom to be Offended

03. Feb ‘06 1:51 am [...]

Expressing oneself freely within the confines of the law and without duress is one of the cornerstones of liberal societies.

Agreed. The tough part is choosing where exactly to draw the line between legal and illegal.

Freedom of speech is not limitless. To use a cliched example, you can’t walk into a crowded movie theatre and shout ‘Fire!’. You can’t publicly defame another entity. The primary purpose of free speech (in democracy) is to allow balanced assessment of a government’s policies without fear of retribution, in order to allow people to make an informed decision.

The Muhammad cartoons are not slander. They don’t create stampedes in movie theatres. Frankly, I don’t even see what’s so offensive about them. However, there’s no denying that they have caused significant harm in Denmark and elsewhere. Should the cartoonists be punished? Of course not — they did nothing illegal. Should there be laws preventing this sort of thing from happening in the future? I hope not, but a case could certainly be made for them.

Atanu’s response: Yes, the swastika is sacred to Indians. And it is a symbol of Nazi oppression to Jews. Jews can lump it if they don’t like Hindus using the swastika as a symbol of good health and fortune.

That is what it is all about. Symbols and their interpretations depend on the people who imbue the symbols with meaning. Insisting that you don’t use a symbol that is offensive to me is at best silly. If I don’t like the symbol that you use, I am free to go find some other symbol that I want to use. My insistence that you stop using some symbol merely because I go ballistic when I see that symbol is imposing my will on you. My imposing my will on you is not consistent with your freedom.

There are certain things people are willing to kill for – to you it might be the right to freedom of expression, to the next person it might be his dedication to his religion.

A wife might be willing to give up her right to this freedom for the welfare and harmony of her family. Same goes to the world as a whole. At least where religion goes, people should know when and how to express their opinions.

Within the law of a society and right to freedom of expression – the combination of these two things itself is a joke. In which case make the law of a society such that such foolishness as in Denmark doesnt repeat itself or such dastardly breaking upof the Babri Masjid as an expression of the anguish of Hindus over not being able to have a proper full fledged temple for Sri Ram doesnt ever happen in any other country. Freedom of expression doesnt mean stupidity, or a hardened desensitized nature or such arrogant narrow mindedness as evinced by the journalist of the paper…