cartoon violence
I haven't posted for a while, partly because there is so much interesting stuff out there to discuss that I couldn't decide what to write! Classic 21st Century problem of too much choice. Anyway, it's about 8.30 am on a Thursday and I'm supposed to be preparing for an advocacy course which starts in about half an hour but I thought I'd do this instead. Damn! I just remembered I told my boss about the blog so will just hope that he hasn't been bothered to read it.
The major news story is the cartoons, of course... what can I say that hasn't already been said? Not much I guess, except that Shadi and I had an intense discussion about them last weekend which was extremely instructive. Shadi is Iranian, but definitely not a muslim. Having said that, we had an islamic wedding and obviously she feels a certain affinity for mueslis around the world - as do I. But what we/she concluded was that there was no point in publishing the cartoons especially in the current era of suspicion, violence and misunderstanding between certain people in the "west" (This description has always bothered me - aren't there muslims in the west? What about Australia/New Zealand?) and "muslims". Freedom of speech is powerful but does not mean that insensitive and offensive material should be published. Now approaching it from a moral point of view, this is not particularly controversial - but it doesn't answer the question of whether the papers should be permitted to publish them. Ah, but it was all a question of context says Shadi. If the people who published the cartoons only meant to demean islam then they shouldn't have been published - what was the paper doing anyway asking people to send in cartoons of Mohammed (peace be on his name...)?
I think that's true to a point but then I realised that we had just had an intense one hour discussion about this topic and had read and seen many many news reports about it without actually having seen the cartoons themselves - so the next question - what if a newspaper or channel, in an interest to put the debate into context, published the cartoons and said "this is the subject of the debate across the world" - to my mind that would be fair and the context would be appropriate. But that just illustrates the problem with this approach - who is the arbiter of the correct context? Certainly not me, and certainly not Shadi. So, my view is between the choice of freedom of speech for everyone or freedom of speech for none I would rather have the former. Anyone who takes advantage of the freedom of speech should expect criticism but not punishment.
I have to admit, also, that the argument about cartoons leaves me a bit cold, as diverting as it is. Surely it is less important than (in no particular order); the war in Iraq; the fact that in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries people are regularly oppressed for their beliefs (or lack of belief); corruption in most countries around the world; Israel v Palestine... and countless other things.
It also strikes me that when countries protest against Denmark or, in fact, all Europeans for the publication of the cartoons in a newspaper, they are following the same thought processes that a European follows when he thinks "if one muslim is a suicide bomber, they all are". Painting the many with the tar of the few is one of those human impulses that we just can't seem to get away from....
Anyway, I have seen the cartoons and (having known artists and once been pretentious enough to ascribe motive and meaning to apparently meaningless pieces of art, music, cinema etc) think I could argue fairly convincingly that the picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban was a post-modern ironic take on how islam is a stereotyped religion associated with violence, as opposed to a piece of propoganda - again it comes down to motive and how do you police that?
The major news story is the cartoons, of course... what can I say that hasn't already been said? Not much I guess, except that Shadi and I had an intense discussion about them last weekend which was extremely instructive. Shadi is Iranian, but definitely not a muslim. Having said that, we had an islamic wedding and obviously she feels a certain affinity for mueslis around the world - as do I. But what we/she concluded was that there was no point in publishing the cartoons especially in the current era of suspicion, violence and misunderstanding between certain people in the "west" (This description has always bothered me - aren't there muslims in the west? What about Australia/New Zealand?) and "muslims". Freedom of speech is powerful but does not mean that insensitive and offensive material should be published. Now approaching it from a moral point of view, this is not particularly controversial - but it doesn't answer the question of whether the papers should be permitted to publish them. Ah, but it was all a question of context says Shadi. If the people who published the cartoons only meant to demean islam then they shouldn't have been published - what was the paper doing anyway asking people to send in cartoons of Mohammed (peace be on his name...)?
I think that's true to a point but then I realised that we had just had an intense one hour discussion about this topic and had read and seen many many news reports about it without actually having seen the cartoons themselves - so the next question - what if a newspaper or channel, in an interest to put the debate into context, published the cartoons and said "this is the subject of the debate across the world" - to my mind that would be fair and the context would be appropriate. But that just illustrates the problem with this approach - who is the arbiter of the correct context? Certainly not me, and certainly not Shadi. So, my view is between the choice of freedom of speech for everyone or freedom of speech for none I would rather have the former. Anyone who takes advantage of the freedom of speech should expect criticism but not punishment.
I have to admit, also, that the argument about cartoons leaves me a bit cold, as diverting as it is. Surely it is less important than (in no particular order); the war in Iraq; the fact that in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries people are regularly oppressed for their beliefs (or lack of belief); corruption in most countries around the world; Israel v Palestine... and countless other things.
It also strikes me that when countries protest against Denmark or, in fact, all Europeans for the publication of the cartoons in a newspaper, they are following the same thought processes that a European follows when he thinks "if one muslim is a suicide bomber, they all are". Painting the many with the tar of the few is one of those human impulses that we just can't seem to get away from....
Anyway, I have seen the cartoons and (having known artists and once been pretentious enough to ascribe motive and meaning to apparently meaningless pieces of art, music, cinema etc) think I could argue fairly convincingly that the picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban was a post-modern ironic take on how islam is a stereotyped religion associated with violence, as opposed to a piece of propoganda - again it comes down to motive and how do you police that?
posted by Akash at 8:20 AM
1 Comments:
Indeed, the cartoon debate is only interesting becasue it illustrates just how fragile things are currently.
You may want to read this weeks leader in the Economist on the cartoons and free speech. They side with free speech, relying on public ridicule to shame those who intentially seek to incite and offend, a kind of self-regulation if you will.
That all seems fine to me, although if there are voices in the 'west' critical of those who incite, and likewise in the Middle East, then they remain unheard.
As such, i agree with Shadi. What was the point of publsishing the cartoons, and what sort of reaction did people really expect?
It seems to me that the foundations of the current world order are based on a judeo-christain morality. Whatever people think of that, the wests response since 9/11 has been based on the premise that 'we' are better than 'them'. However, theory and practice have proved to be sadly different.
Also, without knowing the specific details, how on earth did Nick Griffin of the BNP walk free from charges of incitement???
Post a Comment
<< Home