This cartoon stuff is grumbling on still. I notice that over at Talk Politics there’s been an interesting discourse on the matter; here, here, here here and most recently here. It’s a long read, but I recommend it and do have some empathy with the underlying points being made. I can certainly acknowledge Unity’s point that there should be some boundary; good taste, if you like; that stops people going too far. Speech that is beyond the pale if you will. One example offered for discussion was “Auschwitz, the Musical”; that support for such a project would be so far beyond what is acceptable that it shouldn’t happen, that free speech just doesn’t extend that far.
I beg to differ. I believe people should be free to put on such a musical if they want to. After all, if anyone was daft enough to stage “Auschwitz, the Musical” they would, likely as not, lose their shirt. Quite apart from pretty much universal condemnation, it would be a career killer and would flop as no one would want to see it (well, almost no one). Free speech on both sides of the discussion creates its own level and that’s fine. We don’t need to ridicule some subjects because our common decency tells us that a line has been crossed if we go there. We don’t need boundaries because our own sensibilities create them for us; we instinctively know where the line is. That line may alter depending on context, of course. Would I, in the company of family who are predominantly Christian, make a point of my atheism? No, I keep quiet out of sensitivity to their feelings. That’s what we do in civilized society. I do, however, vigorously challenge religious thinking here where debate is sought and encouraged. Context matters.
This brings me to an underlying theme in the discussions with which I vehemently disagree; that those of us who fall on the absolute freedom of speech side of the debate are closet racists. Indeed, one of the comments went so far as to openly state it. Someone called janinsanfran said:
“Of course the folks defending the publication of the cartoons are indulging their racism. The very vehemence of their enthusiasm for their right to offend betrays them. Why does it seem so important to cause hurt?”
This is offensive. It is offensive because it indulges in pigeon-holing and ignores the nuances of the argument. It is offensive because it is ill-informed generalisation. It is offensive because it is stupid – but as yet, there is no law against stupidity (give it time). It is offensive because it isn’t true. However, I am consistent. Janinsanfran is free to come out with whatever stupid, ill-informed cack that takes her fancy; with my blessing. That’s what free speech means.
If I have to take a stance, then I believe that free speech is more important than sensibilities; it is what enables us to examine contra-arguments and ideas; to examine ideologies to which we might not otherwise be exposed and, having seen what people think and have to say, we can draw our conclusions.
“By my words, you will know me.”
And, I would much rather repugnant ideologies are examined in the harsh critical light of day, than allow them to fester and flourish unexamined in the shadows. If this makes me a racist, then my accuser needs to go out and buy a dictionary. I could be offended by janinsanfran’s comment, but – and this is an important point – I choose not to take offence because it isn’t true and I defend absolutely, her right to say it.
Update: If “those” cartoons are blasphemous and offensive to Muslims, why, exactly, did an Egyptian newspaper see fit to publish them last October without a squeak of protest?
I certainly don’t disagree with you on any of this – my point throughout has been very much that of ‘If you’re going to defend free speech then please do it intelligently and understand what you’re defending ahd why’.
You’re right ‘Auschwitz: The Musical’ would die on its arse right from the off; there would be a public outcry, most people wouldn’t touch it with a bargepole and yes, there would be a few who would pop up and demand that it should be banned. That’s precisely why I threw it in as a example – to try and puch people to think about what they’re doing and understand their own reasoning.
That’s why my posts on this subject have been quite sharp, taken quite a polemical tone and been couching in quite general terms – I’ve attacked the artificiality of the issue, the underlying racism that is there amongst some bandwagon jumpers, the stupidity of people who can’t see the wider picture and, yes, the macho posturing that’s appeared in the debate; and all in general terms and without specifically identifying who it is I’m talking about.
Why? Because what I wanted, and what has happened successfully in the case of the majority of those who’ve commented, if for people to read those pieces and say to themselves ‘does he mean me?’. Just ask the question, that’s all.
If people go away having read those pieces and think about their own position, then they’ve been successful. If, as with yourself and one or two otheres, they provoke a solid, reasoned response, then they’ve been wildly successful because out of writing them someone has thought things through and examined their motives – and if they decide their motives were sound and can argue their case intelligently then so much the better – they’ve added to the quality and tone of the debate and that can only be a good thing.
If I’ve targetted anything in those articles its, first, the blind unthinking hypocrisy of those who’ve jumped on the bandwagon for no better reason than to vent their personal prjudices or progress their personal and political agendas. My second target has been the zealotry of some commentators, particularly those pushing the ‘evils of self-censorship line’ and making accusations that failing to join their little tirade is an act of cowardice or political correctness.
As I’ve said several times, I looked at the cartoons and a made a moral and ethical judgement as to what stance I would take on their publication – I decided for myself that the offence they would and have caused to a lot of Muslims who are nothing more than decent, devout and peaceful individuals outweighed the arguments for publication.
That’s my decision and it has nothing to do with political correctness or cowardice, I’ve simply taken the view that I’d rather engage the Islamic world in a more intelligent and respectful manner and in a way that supports dialogue and rational debate. Accepting a religious convention on their part which in way impinges on my life – after all I’ve never yet found a reason to publish an image of Mohammed – is to my mind a small price to pay in order to maintain a reasoned and peaceful dialogue, much as on those occasions I’ve visited Mosques, as occasionally happens in my line of work, I respect their conventions and social mores on entering the premises, even though those premises are situated in Britain and there is no law which says I have to respect their conventions.
”’Longrider replies: Can’t argue with that.”’
Longrider,
Unity’s articles are a good read – I have not had time to study them properly beginning to end and may have jumped in with a comment in the heat of the moment.
But his very last point seems to me to be irrelevant:
“Accepting a religious convention on their part which in way impinges on my life – after all I’ve never yet found a reason to publish an image of Mohammed – is to my mind a small price to pay in order to maintain a reasoned and peaceful dialogue”
If you are able to hold and reasoned and peaceful dialogue, then offence only ever weakens your argument. The problem is that there is the feeling that there is a small section of Muslim society that is not up for reasoned and peaceful dialogue, to the detriment of everyone, particularly other Muslims.
That is where the debate hangs. Unity seems to mention only in passing the book. The original problem with illustrators declining to work on the book prompted an article about the fear of criticising islam on 17th Sept and sparked a two week long debate in Denmark, which then led a) to more stories of self-censorship coming out and b) to the JP request for and subsequent publication of the cartoons.
As regards seeing both sides and dialogue, I am afraid that again I think Unity is unfair. There is acres of newsprint on how sacred Mohammed is to Islam and Muslims, but next to jack shit reciprocation. Yes, we know that depicting Mohammed is offensive to Muslims, but next to nothing discussing the issues in contemporary (and especially militant) Islam raised by the cartoons.
But he is absolutely right that this is a gift to any nutcase from any extreme corner of the political compass – other than mine of course 😉
”’Longrider replies: Hello, P-G and welcome. Yes, I discussed the origins of this debacle in an earlier post. I noted at that point the one sided nature of the self-censorship. If people feel that they do not want to cause offence to someone and self-censor, that’s fine by me; I do it myself on occasion. Equally, no faith should expect to put itself above reasonable criticism. I have the distinct impression of another agenda at work here. Not only are images of Mohammed existent in Islamic art; the Egyptians published these cartoons with no backlash. Indeed, it would seem those most offended are those who have not seen the offending cartoons. Therefore, I declare shenanigans.”’