What is the limit of western freedom of expresion?

Remove all ads!

Wonder if you caught the drift...

It's irresponsible to draw silly cartoons offending people and it's retarted to vandalise property in retaliation. But what is strange is that not all potential cartoon subjects get the same protection or cause the same outrage. Just imagine if the target had been a Jewish religious figure or symbol or I don't know... something about black people or Asians? And then compare with the lack of reaction Christianity bashing gets. Then again, Christianity-bashing cartoons and other such are so boring, repetitive and tasteless they don't even amuse people who would normally like them. It looks like more bashing is okay if there's no violent reaction. I can imagine a magazine editor telling the cartoonist, "Muhammad is a no-no. Draw Jesus instead."

 

Some discouraging stories from a teeny weeny country...

Finnish newspapers haven't published the Mohammed cartoons (other than pictures of people reading newspapers that have). Tv News broadcasts have shown them, but there's been no outrage over it. Some rather peaceful protesting against the pictures in general, not the Finnish media.

Then, a Finnish nationalist organization called Suomen Sisu put the pictures on their website, and now there's a police investigation going on. In addition to the freedom of religion, Finland has a law against publically offending a person's faith. It's quite possible that nothing comes out of this investigation. It comes down to whether the pictures were posted with the intent to offend.

Apparently what this Suomen Sisu bunch did was a reaction to what happened in Sweden - the authorities shut down the website of a newspaper called SD-Kuriren that had published the pictures earlier.

Another thing that's been on the papers...a publisher was going to release a book about Mohammed with a drawing on the cover - a very respectful drawing of the man's face - but as soon as this cartoon frenzy started, they pulled out and replaced the picture with a text. They claimed it wasn't related to the cartoon thing, that they did it of their own volition and would have done so anyway. Then they issued an apology(!) to the muslim community. For the cover they didn't use!

Some time ago when the controversial "Virgin Cage" book by Ayaan Hirsi Ali was published in Finland, there was a passage mysteriously missing...a "technical error", they said. Conveniently this passage was the most controversial one - speaking of Mohammed having a child wife. The story is here.

Saber:

Sadly I'm inclined to agree. Especially the bomb cartoon seems very true of some of those places.

chevalier:

What is this assumption based on?

 

On the fact people get away with bashing Christianity the most easily of all bashing.

 

Aikanaro:

It's really simple, and occurs often, in my opinion. Imagine a newspaper says somebody is a terrorist, or that he has sexual relationships with kids. Or publishes a picture of somebody in a coma state before he dies. There's been plenty of cases in which this happens (meh, I studied it last year at college, borrring! and hard to understand lawyers' mumbo-jumbo).

Suisipaisti:

Exactly! This is what "real malice" is all about. It's a shield, kind of. Because the offended has to prove the offended had the intention to harm. This is very hard to prove, of course. But if you make a contest like this danish paper did... mmm I think their intentions are very clear. I'm not a judge, so let them decide.

PS: isn't Bush bashing the easiest of all bashing? Good question, philosophycal even.
PS: edited typos

 

Since when is offense equivalent to harm?

 

Only if you judge all muslims by the actions of a (loud, vocal, and sometimes violent) minority.

 

Nonsense, the only possible reaction you'd get would be a retaliatory mocking. Yes, there are probably militant atheists about, but I couldn't name one. The "big" atheist names probably wouldn't pay it any attention - that would give it too much credance. Over-the-top "bad" reactions tend to come from a group mentality. Atheism doesn't tend to be something that draws groups of people and I can't say I remember an "Atheist" rally.

Back on topic. I see a major difference between the two. One is mocking someones beliefs, the other is mocking someones traumatic experiences. In 100 years time I don't think it would be an issue, but there are still people alive who went through absolute hell in concentration camps, and for their sakes I think it is wrong. However, the best reaction is to ignore it completely. If you don't give a reaction, then your antagonists give up after a while. Shame the press hasn't learned it yet, but then it wouldn't sell papers otherwise.

 

To dmc- yes, you're right, I, like a bad student, forgot to mention that. But if you cry loud enough, you can get to have at least a public apology and some kind of warning for future viewers (which seems logical and fair). I think this is possible.
And AMaster, I don't really understand your question. I believe that a cartoon of Mahoma is an offense to those who believe M. should not be portrayed in any way. Add to that he has a bomb on his head-scarf (sorry, I don't know the word in english). And last, add the fact it was a western newspaper who ran a M. cartoon contest. It's mentally disturbing, if you believe in such things. Comparisons can be made, like when they burn some "private property" and we jump off our chairs. I think we "believe" in private property, otherwise I don't see why it pisses us to see that. It's something to think about for a while. I'm not sure.

 

Just a note: intention doesn't have to be direct. Let's say you burn your neighbour's house when he's inside and you know he's there but you still burn it. That's dolus directus, let's say direct intent. Directly intended murder, in this case. Or you can burn it without caring if anyone's inside and people burn inside. One can't say you specifically intended to burn people, but you weren't giving a damn, so you accepted the possibility. This is dolus eventualis, or let's call it hypothetical intent. And mind you that there are crimes you can commit by negligence, although offending people doesn't normally fall under this category.

In case of cartoons, offending people is incalculated risk. The directly intended act is at least ridiculing something (or presenting it in a specific, usually exaggerated light), which may well normally lead to causing offence but the author doesn't care. In that he still intends to offend people.

 

I don't care how offended a person is, that offense does not give them the right to start blowing things up or killing people.

I get offended on a frequent basis -- things that I hold sacred are regularly being slagged in the media, by my acquaintences, by my friends even. But starting a violent riot? If these Muslims (the minority, BTW, as I know plenty of Muslims who would not start a violent riot) seek to extort our respect by threatening us with violence every time something is said that irks them, they are sadly misguided -- you cannot force respect and sensitivity by killing someone . . . .

I agree that the cartoons were in bad taste, but I am also of the firm opinion that if we buckle to threats made by extremists of any type, we'll lose freedoms faster than it takes to burn the Constitutions (and other such documents enshrining human rights) those freedoms are written on.

 

It does look like you're getting your head chopped for saying the chopper's religion isn't one of peace, sort of.

 

No, comparisons cannot be made between the burning of private property and a cartoon caricaturing Mohammed, unless the comparisons are to the effect of, "wow, those're completely different"

Unless someone has a rather serious mental defect, viewing a caricature of a religious figure will not cause them any measurable harm. Burning someone's private property, however, quite clearly does cause measurable harm.

 

Erm...no, not really, we just let it happen. We sit back and watch how what was first a minority in Europe, slowly turns into an entity that gets more and more control of the way we express ourselves, or the way we DARE to express ourselves.

Personally, i already know where this is going to eventually, and it's almost inevitable. Maybe not in our lifetime, but we can't avoid it.

 

@Tal: Don't forget that Muslim dissenters fear retaliation from extremists themselves. They face negative repercussions whether they stay silent or dissent publicly. The difference, though, is that when they keep their mouths shut the western world won't react violently. Dissent loudly enough and certain extremist groups are likely to "silence" you. Basically, non-militant muslims are screwed either way.

 

So Drew, the best way to get them to apologise is with threats? Not saying this is your opinion but it does seem like the only solution, something Pac Man is hinting at.

In theory, if these Islamist militants are a 'minority' that are 'shunned' by the Muslim community, then wouldn't the best way of eradiction be to offend them as much as possible, bring them out into the open then exterminate them? I mean, a pre-emptive strike against a people nobody likes, who would care? They're shunned by their own religion and they are threatening western lives, why not kill them all?

 

Y'know, I don't particularly like the KKK, but if, say, a bunch of Syrian specops troops came to America and proceeded to exterminate them, I'd be more than a little unsettled.

 

First of all, Moderate Muslims are condemning the rioting (they needn't apologize since they aren't actually doing the rioting) and writing editorials. They just don't get mainstream coverage outside of written media. There's no way to be sure if it's because they are afraid to come out and speak or if it is because the press isn't interested in interviewing them. It is likely a combination of the two.

I will say one thing, though. Threatening Muslims is really bad idea. This will alienate moderate Muslims (to the point that they may even stop being, uh, moderate) and will cause the entire situation to escalate. The way we solve the problem is by not causing it in the first place. Denmark snubbed 10 Islamic ambassadors by refusing to talk to them after the cartoons were first released. The Danish government ws warned by several of its own diplomats as well as the EU that it needed to engage the Islamic community in a dialogue. The EU even described Denmark's treatment of the muslims living within its borders as "discriminatory". Everyone saw the writing on the wall, and nobody did anything about it. This problem never should have happened. All that was needed was a little dialogue. The Muslim world would have felt listened to and would not have had any reason to riot, boycott, etc. The cartoons weren't the problem. The problem was the way the government handled the situation. When dealing with an alien culture it is very important to keep an open dialogue for the sole purpose of heading off exactly these types of problems. Boycotts and protests didn't start on a large scale until 2 months after the cartoon's release. The problem could have been easily headed off.