The Guardian is prompt with the “but we must guard against the understandable temptation to be provocative in the publication of these cartoons” crap. Defend free speech, it cries. But don’t be provocative about it.
Great advice, were it not for the fact that that’s exactly what these shooters are saying. Hugh Muir writes:
We are in perilous territory. Slaughter as political protest cannot be defended. Free speech as legal and moral pre-requisites in a free society must be defended. But there are also other obligations to be laid upon those who wish to live in peaceful, reasonably harmonious societies. Even after Paris, even after Denmark, we must guard against the understandable temptation to be provocative in the publication of these cartoons if the sole objective is to establish that we can do so. With rights to free speech come responsibilities.
Why? Why must we? It seems to me the very opposite is true. Publishing them because we can seems to me to be exactly what we should be doing. We should be doing that in solidarity with the people who can’t any more because they’ve been killed, and with the people who still can and do, while under threat – such as Lars Vilks and everyone at Charlie Hebdo and Kurt Westergaard and Author of Jesus and Mo and Tim Minchin and everyone. We should be doing that precisely to establish that we can. That’s a good reason to do it. We need to demonstrate that trying to silence people who make fun of religion fails to silence them because it prompts the rest of us to make fun of religion ALL THE MORE.
That seems to me the moral approach, but there is a practical issue here too. There is no negotiating with men with guns. If progress is to come, it will be via dialogue with the millions of faithful Muslims who would never think to murder but also abhor publication of these cartoons.
It hasn’t been shown that there are such millions. I don’t believe there are such millions. In any case, whether there are or not, people’s unreasonable abhorrences and taboos must not be imposed on all the world. Note I said unreasonable abhorrences and taboos. I don’t think newspapers should fill their pages with photos of shit and vomit and infected wounds and mangled corpses. But if any human institution needs to be wide open to criticism and mockery, it’s religion. Hugh Muir couldn’t be more wrong.
This is exactly the same mindset as the people who advocate blasphemy laws. We’re not supposed to say anything nasty about religion because it’ll upset the religious. If people are so sensitive that they become aggressive about cartoons or blog posts, then they’re the ones with the problem, not the cartoonists or bloggers.
Muir is a piece of work. He denied water is wet in the wake of the Rotherham scandal independent report, having the gall to deny racial politics had contributed to the issue.
And the Guardian’s overall hypocrisy could scarce be more incandescent. To condemn cartoons about Mohammed a religious figure with the tired canard of ‘racism’ they published cartoons with deliberate racist caricatures. Many leftists, Ta-Nehisi Coates comes to mind, praised the cartoon. Someone at boing bing called the cartoon “nuanced.”
Just to clarify, because in these times it is necessary, I totally support the publication of Sacco’s cartoon and this equally craven and idiotic one branding pictures of Mohammed as “probably racist.” Sacco is wrong in his analysis, but shows that even unmistakably racist caricatures can be valid content in context. In with no context, he would have a right to publish them without fear of violence.
The real story here is the pernicious victimhood hierarchy of contemporary leftist politics. Both Muir examples above show that the victimhood narrative around Muslims trumps even mass rape of women (talk ‘rape culture’). Sacco in turn shows Muslim claims of victimhood leapfrog even a depiction of a black person as a monkey or Nazi-esque depictions of Jews.
Al Dente, exactly. It’s almost funny how thoroughly he makes the murderers’ point for them, while pretending not to.
In September of 1939, there were ‘pacifists’ in Britain whose response was to say:
‘How could we have let the Poles bring it to this?’
There is a moral paralysis in the face of evil which cannot be excused or justified. It is like children thinking that they need to be ‘good’ so daddy won’t beat mummy.
There have been several UK child abuse scandals exactly like the Rotherham scandal where race did not play a part. The common link being abuse of children in care and the authorities covering up rather than admit their negligence.
Thatcher and Brittan covered up the fact that Peter Morrisson had been raping kids in childrens homes in North Wales but they did take steps to prevent further incidents. Pretty much every detail of the children’s home management had to be covered by ISO 9000. What they overlooked was that the kids are taken to and from school by taxi and the taxi drivers were not being vetted or monitored.
Muir is right that we should not feel obliged to go insult people for the sake of it. But there is all the difference in the world between insult for the sake of it and satirizing superstitions that people are using as justification for violence and hatred.
I don’t think newspapers should fill their pages with photos of shit and vomit and infected wounds and mangled corpses.
If not for the photos of mangled corpses – and the reactions they created – the US might still be spraying napalm on the Vietnamese.
Good afternoon all,
The only correct response to truthful, objectionable speech must be more speech. Censorship in a free and open society must not be tolerated.
Jeff Hess
Have Coffee Will Write
What I don’t understand is the assumption that we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. Like, if we are critical of Islam and its imams then we can’t also be critical of the racism and prejudice that “muslims”* face. Are some of the cartoons racist? Honestly, yes; that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be published, or that the general idea is bad. We can combat theocratic ideas and racism at the same time, it’s not an either/or proposition.
*I’m lumping together the prejudices that “muslim-looking” people face for looking like they come from predominantly muslim regions and some of the bigotry actual believers face, like the ground zero mosque controversy.
Speaking only for myself, I have so little interest in the historical figure that is Mohammad that I’m diminishingly unlikely to bother depicting him for any reason other than to assert my free speech rights. So of course, to do so could be considered provocation, as well as a response to the provocation inherent in Islam’s contestation of my right to draw whatever I want. As a response to provocation, drawing Mohammad sure beats killing people but I simply can’t bring myself to give him more attention than I think he deserves, attention I would never dream of giving, say, Zarathustra (he’s an alleged prophet, right?), even in the cause of free speech. Although I must confess to a slight temptation to start writing M****d by way of taking the mick.
I’m really more likely to express my free speech rights with criticism of those aspects of Islam that actually concern me, first and foremost, of course, the fact that Allah does not exist and that the contents of the Quran are a moral disgrace in a variety of ways which I can state. That’s still blasphemy from the Muslim point of view, but it’s much harder to counteract, at least in the west, and it has the added advantage of promoting something I actually believe is important.
Well I don’t really agree with you, themann – I don’t agree that racist cartoons should be published. I think morally speaking they shouldn’t be. That’s not the same as thinking they don’t have a legal right to be.
Which cartoons do you mean when you say that honestly, yes, some of them are racist?
Sort of relevant to several comments on this thread, there’s drawing Mohammad as a historical figure or as a pure expression of free speech rights, but it’s pretty clear that Charlie Hebdo and others (Jesus & Mo?) are using him as a symbol of Islam and a kind of representation of EveryMuslim. Granted, Muslims hate that by default so it’s hard to get rational complaints out of them. Where it gets racist in my view is when cartoonists are clearly referencing all Islam and Muslims in the 21st century, and at the same time feel able to get away with those obvious camel-herding, curly-slipper wearing, tent dwelling stereotypes because of Mohammad’s historicity.
Ophelia,
I wasn’t referring to the Danish set, as I don’t really remember them, so much as many of the Draw Mohammed Day private submissions, which often relied on the big teeth and big ears stereotypes that areally common in racist portrayals of The Other. I shouldn’t have conflated the two.
And you’re right, there’s no obligation to publish each and every cartoon or op-ed or what have you. I was trying to make a general point about combating racism without pulling your punches elsewhere and expressed it poorly.
Anne Fenwisk: “I have so little interest in the historical figure that is Mohammad that I’m diminishingly unlikely to bother depicting him for any reason other than to assert my free speech rights.”
Mohammed was once chosen in a broad survey of historians as the most important person who ever lived. Lack of interest in Mohammed is lack of evidence-based engagement of the person whose example informs the morality of a large chunk of humanity. For example, Mohammed had at least two people for merely insulting him. Do I need to connect the dots?
“it’s pretty clear that Charlie Hebdo and others (Jesus & Mo?) are using him as a symbol of Islam”
And where would people ever get such a random notion that Mohammed is a symbol of Islam?!? Next thing you know Buddha will be being used as a symbol of Buddhism.
Still, the important thing is you showed us all what a bien pensant you are by branding something as “racist.” My white leftist betters have made that crystal clear that is priority numero uno.
@Katherine Woo No. 14…
Citation and methodology please…
Bless their socks, Katherine, but unfortunately once I’ve said ‘Allah doesn’t exist’ I’m personally pretty much done with Mohammad as any kind of contributor to humanity and ready to move on to something else. On a more purely academic level, for those who specialize in the history of Islam, I suspect what the thinkers of various periods made of Islam may be as important as what Mohammad himself said. Like Jesus, he is mostly a focal symbol and authority figure in practice.
PS: so, I’m a bien pensant for
brandingstating that in my opinion something is racist, am I? Can I keep it up and extend the same opinion to the KKK and Stormfront or is there someone I should check with first? Or, in other words, what is your point? Surely it isn’t that I should refrain from having opinions on whether something is racist or not as a matter of political expediency?I’ll copy this comment from under the article:-
“There is no negotiating with men with guns. If progress is to come, it will be via dialogue with the millions of faithful Muslims who would never think to murder but also abhor publication of these cartoons.”
Mmmm. Makes no sense. If a) it’s the men with guns who seem to be the main problem here, and there’s no negotiating with them, and also b) there are “millions of faithful Muslims who would never think to murder”, why would “dialogue” with these millions of peaceful Muslims create “progress” on the problem of this violence and consequent fear?
What “dialogue”? What about? Hugh has already said these Muslims that need to be dialogued with “would never” even think of murdering anyone…what difference then, would such a “dialogue” make? Unless Hugh thinks that actually there’s some connection between them and the “men with guns”, such that they could somehow influence the latter….But that’s heresy isn’t it Hugh? …when apparently these peaceful Muslims are just as shocked and horrified at the violence as the rest of us, and it doesn’t look yet as if their shock and horror has made a difference…so clearly they are no more to do with the men with guns than we are….
I’m afraid this is the usual wilfully muddled piece that exposes its real assumptions by apparent denial of them. I.e. apparently in order to deal with the threat of the “men with guns”, who cannot be negotiated with, we must “dialogue” with the millions of men with no guns and absolutely no aggressive views of any kind, and…er…give them what they so peace-lovingly want, – in other words don’t provoke them in any way, in case they…ahem..what? Turn into men with guns? Support men with guns? But no, Hugh, you already said they would by definition never ever do a thing like that….
I’m confused, but rather wish I were more confused. Anyway Hugh, it’s tactless to ask a nice chap like you, but while I admit we can reduce violence specifically against cartoonists or writers, or those openly discussing issues of free speech and graphics in relation to Islam by “dialogue” with Muslims aka not doing what they don’t seem to like, what on earth can we do about these unfortunate anti-Jewish attacks? Perhaps sensitive “dialogue” on this one although analogical, should take a different form… viz, the exchange of platitudes with peaceloving Muslims for the length of time it takes for most of West Europe’s Jews to quietly pack their bags and leave…Voila! Problem eventually harmoniously solved…”
@17 – hmm, you’ve got him there alright!
@Katherine Woo No. 14…
A group of Vatican scholars would undoubtedly come to a different conclusion. The odd thing about the founders of all the worlds major religions is that there isn’t good historical evidence for any of them.
The idea that there is a most important person in history is complete nonsense in any case. The outcome will be determined by the selection criteria.
hyphenman @15,
I think Woo is probably referring to a 1978 ranking by a guy named Michael H. Hart. From what I can tell, he simply chose Muhammad for the most-influential spot. The 1992 edition also put Edward deVere in the place of William Shakespeare, and Hart has some other odd ideas, so I don’t think you can rely on him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100:_A_Ranking_of_the_Most_Influential_Persons_in_History
In 2013, some other authors used a more data-driven approach and put Mo third. His pal Jesus had the top rank on that list. http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/11/29/the-most-important-people-who-ever-lived/b7iNJWdLpWPG13aZnB3lzM/story.html
@Phillip Hallam-Baker
“A group of Vatican scholars would undoubtedly come to a different conclusion. ”
First of all “Vatican scholar” is a bit of an oxymoron. There are Catholic partisans who engage their intellect until it conflicts with their faith. Secondly even Catholic historians would rank Mohammed of great importance in human history. Dante put him in the penultimate circle of hell for that very reason.
“The idea that there is a most important person in history is complete nonsense in any case.”
The real point, which apparently goes over your head, is that Mohammed is a critically important historical figure, regardless of whether he is literally the “most important” or not, and thus informed people should not be proudly ignorant of him, especially if they wade into a discussion involving Islam.
@Scr… Archivist
I am stunned honestly that people are so caught up in responding to the utterly trivial matter of whether Mohammed is literally and truly the “most important person in history” rather than the actual point about having foundational knowledge of subjects on which one opines.
Citation needed.
I have seen him ranked at #1 and #3, respectively, in two books. There’s The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. Wikipedia describes it as “a 1978 book by Michael H. Hart, a self-described white separatist.” A lot of Muslims apparently picked up on it for propaganda purposes, due to him ranking their guy #1–
and
Who’s Bigger: Where Historical Figures Really Rank, “a 2013 book by computer scientist Steven Skiena and Google engineer Charles Ward[1] ranking historical figures in order of significance.”
Skiena and Ward ranked Muhammad #3. Their methodology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100:_A_Ranking_of_the_Most_Influential_Persons_in_History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_Bigger%3F
“Like Jesus, he is mostly a focal symbol and authority figure in practice.”
Given that you are, by your own admission, wilfully ignorant of Mohammed, how is it you feel in a position to draw comparisons and conclusions regarding him? If that is someone else’s opinion, how do you ascertain its reasonableness without independent knowledge of your own?
“Surely it isn’t that I should refrain from having opinions on whether something is racist or not as a matter of political expediency?”
Worrying about whether the cartoons have elements of racism in the wake of a brutal mass murder, has the feel of worrying whether a woman who is raped and murdered was in fact a bit of a manipulative tease. I
@Lady Mondegreen
Here is a citation for you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/can't+see+the+forest+for+the+trees
It is truly boggles my mind that you dig deep enough to recount this Hart guy’s apparently bigoted views on race (which I guess did not stop him from ranking Mohammed higher than a white European), yet are blind to the actual epistemological issue at hand.
Like that. Stop doing that. Stop telling people off in every single comment you make. It’s monotonous, it’s rude, it’s unpleasant.
I’m surprised to see you defend free speech Ophelia. I would have thought you would be in favor of the no-platforming of comedian Kate Smurthwaite.
“Like that. Stop doing that. Stop telling people off in every single comment you make. It’s monotonous, it’s rude, it’s unpleasant.”
Notice how you never actually say I am in the wrong. In fact all you do is level a tone argument against me, which we both know is a common means to shut up a woman who is saying something you don’t like.
Really shameful from a person who co-wrote “Why Truth Matters”.
I’m late to this, Ophelia, but it seems to me that you’re trying to ride two horses here – and you should only be riding one of them.
The second is the claim that religion is the proper object of scrutiny, and if that means mockery, then so be it: it shouldn’t be immune, and we might even have good reasons in respect of religion that we don’t in respect of other things. I think that that’s correct.
But it follows another claim, which is a defence of the idea that we should publish things because, and to establish that, we can. That seems to be very different, and I’m not sure it’s defensible. Freedom may involve the freedom to be abhorrent, bit it is not a reason to be abhorrent. (That’s how Spiked thinks, and noone wants that!) But given the scrutiny claim, there’s no need to make this much bigger one.
/twocents
Wilfully disinterested. You don’t know anything about my level of knowledge.
I’m not worrying particularly. However, whether art is racist or not happens to be something I am interested in and the subject came up.
You’ve actually said very little, except to strongly suggest that everyone should share your interests and priorities if they don’t want to be on the receiving end of your insults.
@ Anne Fenwick – that’s not my comment, sadly. It’s from a commenter called “sarka” who is always excellent – sharp, funny.
Katherine @ 28 –
We’ve had this discussion before. Whether you’re wrong or not is not what I’m addressing in these particular replies to you. I’m addressing the way you talk to all of us. I need to do that because this is my blog and I refuse to let it turn into a sewer. I moderate comments here, because it’s my blog.
I might ignore your rudeness if it were more intermittent, but you were bombing us with comments yesterday and being grotesquely rude and peremptory in all of them. I could just block you but I find your point of view interesting…when you can share it without all the telling off and mind-reading and ridiculous misinterpretation.
Your choice. Talk to people here as equals not as obvious inferiors, or go away.
Enzyme – No, I’m actually not arguing “that we should publish things because, and to establish that, we can.” I’m arguing that we should publish things that should be published because, and to establish that, we can. That was the point of the bit about piles of shit etc. I wouldn’t be arguing that we should to establish that we can if the issue were racist cartoons for instance.
I made that clearer in the column I wrote for the Freethinker yesterday. This post was hastier.
http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/02/16/no-cringing/
.
.
If I get ‘provoked’, it is I who must deal with it, not the ‘provoker’. As it happens, I find the sight of someone wearing a pink top hat extremely enraging. But with counselling and a lot of encouragement from friends, I am gradually coming to terms with my problem.
😉