Mental Meanderings

I wholeheartedly disagree: it is still about freedom of expression and the right of Danish citizens and Danish media not to be dictated to according to the tenets of a religion that they don't subscribe to.

And the article that originally accompanied the cartoons was about the issue of self-censorship in the media and the fact that journalists, cartoonists, documentary makers and so on living in a democratic country whose constitution guarantees freedom of speech are afraid to criticise Islam for fear of reprisals. The irony of this whole situation is that they have been shown to be right.

I would also totally disagree.

If the newspaper was run by muslims then fair enoughm but why should non-muslims live their lives according to Islam's rules?

ya i have to disagree. We have to live by our rules not there. Would you say that religious views have to be respected if it was Christian.?

The problem i have with this is the republishing. When it was obvious that it would offend papers still republished just to say F**k you .

I also disagree. Fence hit the nail on the head. Why should the rest of us have to live by Islamic laws?

The Israelis are regularly mocked but it seems while they can dish it, out they cannot take it.

Well that's just too bad for them.

It isn't about living your life according the the rules of any religion. It's about respecting the right of people to choose their faith and having the common decency not to go out of your way to offend them.

This does not excuse the reaction of what appears to be the entire Islamic world in general.

Have to disagree Fiona. That there laws are stricter than you first thought doesn't mean they should be respected any further. Should the fac that Islam also forbids images of any human being cause us to reconsider our drawings or pictures of Arabs or other human beings? Certainly not, I'm not a member of the Muslim faith, so I won't adhere to their laws.

It's not about "living by their laws" - its about (a) knowing people's cutlural sensibilities, (b) predicting reactions to things contrary to those sensibilities and (c) then making a balanced decision. I think they came down on the wrong side in that decision.

People should know that much of the Islamic world feels under the cush of neo-colonial forces; people should also know that for many people faith in a central issue in their lives. Given that, and given a basic understanding of Islam, people should have been able to predict that such publication would do more harm than good. That is why it should have been enough to stop them publishing the cartoons

You can make a point about self-censorship without accompanying it with images such as they did, surely?

And by the way don't we think that using phrases like "their laws" really opens up the kernal of this whole debate: who are "we" and who are "they" and why are we at loggerheads with one another?? Surely we're all bright enough to realise that those actually protesting about these images are the minority of Muslims in these countries?? Most people are too busy trying to figure out how their going to feed their children, medicate their ill and avoid bullets and bombs to give a damn about these cartoons. It is the extreme fringes that always react - another reason why the reaction should have been predictable and therefore avoided.

Also, depictions of the Prophet Muhammad are not necessarily forbidden in Islam.

I also feel my first comment needs to be clarified regarding the reaction. The boycotting of Danish goods I feel is an over-reaction. As is the act by a State that normally is the one step before a declaration of war

I think it's fair to say that death threats and attacking embassies are the actions of a minority.

Fiona do you not agee that back in the 60s the majority of people in Ireland would have been against divorce contraception, homosexuality, sex outside marriage, blasphomy.

Now back then some people in newspapers.
(a) knowing people's cutlural sensibilities, (b) predicting reactions to things contrary to those sensibilities and (c) then making a balanced decision.

some said sod it and published support of divorce etc. Would you condemn them for this as they did not respect people curtural sensibilities.

Or would you say there is some ideals greater then sensibilities

The proper thing to do when you offend someone is to apologies. That said, the Muslim response has been way out of whack. Even if offense was meant, violence and threats are not justified. Boycott? sure. Cancel subscriptions? why not?

Threaten, murder, and burn embassies? These are acts of war.

the saint,

Excellent point.

Saint - yeah I do but I think that the difference is the circumstances which dictate what the response would be like. There were no analogous circumstances in the 1960s Ireland to those extant in the contemporary Middle East and Muslim Asia. Therefore it was not irresponsible to publish things of that nature. I think it was irresponsible to publish these cartoons in this case and continues to be exceptionally irresponsible for papers to republish them.

The point about freedom of expression could have been effectively made without baiting people through the publication of images of this kind, don't you think?

Rinceor - true there is no 'blanket ban' however very many of the strains of Islam believe that representations of the prophet in human form are blasphemous. That, combined with the ever rising power of the Mullahs throughout the middle east and Muslim Asia and their inevitable project to incite people against this blasphemy should have been taken into account.

Godwhacker - I agree the response has been completely disproportionate however I do believe it was predictable.

BTW Rinceor - is it not the case that in almost all Persian and Ottoman art that represents the Prophet he is veiled or ina avery young form, which makes the representation acceptable?

Causing offence is what satire does. That is how it works, sometimes it goes to far, as in this case.

But I don't think that the newspaper that originally published the cartoon thought things would go this far, and part of the problem is that I don't think that many non-muslim europeans would ever have foreseen it either.

Let's not forget that it was a fundamental muslim group who took copies of these 12 cartoons, and an extra three that were a lot worse and brought them to Saudi Arabia (I think) in an effort to stir up more trouble.

Listen I completely understand that - this whole issue is being hugely manipulated on all sides. Fundamentalist Mullahs are using the cartoons to lead people to believe the EU hates the Prophet (and I'm sure they arranged lots of Danish flags available for burning as well). Islamaphobes are using this as a reason to further mark the Muslim world as barbaric, uncivilised and a threat to freedom everywhere. Moderates are kind of stuck in the middle wondering what the hell is going on.

Don't you think it would have been advisable for the newspaper to maybe check what potential effects there might be from the publication of the cartoons?

Fiona
I'm not an expert on ancient Persian and Ottoman art so I don't know. If you can point to sources I'll take your word for it upon investigation of those sources.

My original link while not an expert on the subject would seem to know more than the two of us.

My point is that depictions of the Prophet are not expressly forbidden in the whole of Islam. It's fair to say that blasphemous and insulting caricatures are forbidden.

Please remember I'm agreeing with you Fiona. I seem to be one of the few. :-)

The source is a friend in Pakistan as opposed to anything else!!!
(And we're agree with each other!)

Talkback radio here in New Zealand has described this whole issue as the 'Right to offend'. Two local NZ newspapers decided they would like to offend the NZ muslim community by replicating this cartoon. They made it clear in their editorial that they had no other objective in mind but to annoy a group of people who are world famous for going off the deep end when they are offended. It is all too much like teenagers who like to stir up trouble in the playground, then step back and see others get hurt. Nothing good can come from such meanspiritedness.

David C

Fiona
Not sure where that leaves us... :-)

I'll watch developments over the next few days.

fiona Really considering all the books that were baned for being blasfamous in Ireland i think their is a lot of simularities. I think people are again saying that there should be different laws for muslim then christians and that is just wrong.

i agree with you about the republishing of the images was wrong but the initial publification was right. We can't have our values dictated to. Whats next have women dressed in vails so not to offend muslims in our own country. Come seriously.

Also to think the paper knew that publishing the cartoons would result in buring of embassys is riducules.

I don't accept the 'book banning' point for the simple reason that the situation in Ireland in the 1960s and the contemporary situation in the Muslim world (a phrase I hate) are not comparable. WHy? Because Islam is under sustained ideological attack and a number of countries are under physical attack, which is commonly perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a war on Islam.

Secondly about having our values dictated to, dictated to by who?? Let's not get all uppity about this - absolute freedom of expression really isn't one of our values. With the exception of the United States pretty much every singly jurisdiction in 'the West' recognises that we should not exercise our freedom of expression in a manner that would jeopardise public order, for example. In fact, the right of freedom of expression has generally been characterised more by its limitations than its freedoms, reflecting the power of speech.

The newspaper didn't have to know there would be burning of embassies to know their actions were irresponsible. Surely they knew that there would be an extreme reaction.

Anyone with half a brain would know that extremist Muslim leaders who retain power by stoking anti-western feeling would manipulate this situation. Publishing the cartoons was a ridiculous decision.

and in Ireland in the 60s was religion not under attack from many sources. Ireland was not under attack (the north)

So should we bring freedom of speech down to its most watered down form.

You do realise that the fact that your picture has you with out a head dress is offensive to some people. Do you think you are acting irresponsible?

I am really surprise that you of all people are defending lack of freedom of speech. I mean seriously this blog would have been baned 15 years ago. That was not right. Either is limiting freedom of speech because someone will kill some one.

Anyone with half a brain would know that extremist Muslim leaders who retain power by stoking anti-western feeling would manipulate this situation. Publishing the cartoons was a ridiculous decision.
Maybe we should not publish anything because someone (catholic church, Sinn Fein, Fianna Fail, IFA, Labour, SIPTU etc etc) will manipulate the situation.

I do realise that me without a headscarf is offensive to some however it is not blasphemy and it is not deliberately provocative. Indeed when I was in Pakistan I didn’t wear a head scarf because it was not required nor was it disrespectful not to do so, however I would have worn a scarf in a Mosque and I wore appropriate clothing that was loose, didn’t highlight the female form and included a scarf that I could put on my head at any time. So you see I found the balance between my freedom of expression through my dress and respect for the culture. That same balance could be found by publishing the article without the cartoons.

Secondly on the “defending the lack of freedom of speech”. Firstly there was no lack thereof – the paper was allowed to publish the pictures without any legal repercussions. Secondly is this really about free speech or is it about religiously insensitive (and, arguably, racist) images being passed off as freedom of speech? You can’t dress racism or cultural stereotypes up as ‘satire’ and claim absolute rights to publish – you must strike a balance and you must be responsible. I think certainly the republishing has nothing to do with free speech which is just being hijaked as an excuse to demonise Islam.

we are not going to argee one this. So I'll do something more usefull with my time like make irish blog awards election posters

I think you might be right!!!!