There is a time for diplomacy and careful language and the avoidance of needless offense. God knows, that’s been pretty much my entire message to certain of my compatriots on the right when it comes to dealing with the Islamic world. And there’re a lot of smart things that could be said about the Danish cartoon that provoked the latest round of religious insanity. This reponse by the US State Department, however, ain’t one of them:
"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question.
"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."
Yup, what’s "not acceptable" about this whole mess is that someone published a cartoon that caused offense to someone else. I mean, what were they thinking? Quick, someone find me a rusty butterknife and get me Gerry Trudeau!
Look, these morons have every right to take to the streets and threaten violent jihad over a friggin’ cartoon. Heck, if I can live with a couple of throw-backs to the 1930s marching on Skokie and I can live with a bunch of throw-backs to the fifth century marching in London. But, make no mistake: These guys are the enemy. They are, to use the old word, evil. You can’t accommodate them. The moment they go from chanting cheap slogans to putting those slogans into action, it’s time to hit Chuck Norris’ number on the speeddial.
To hell with them. Publish that cartoon fifty times a day for the next thirty years. Let ’em scream. It’s the sound of freedom, baby.
UPDATE: Let’s be clear: I have no problem with folks being annoyed, angered, even righteously pissed-off when their religious figure of choice is insulted. I’ll defend that reaction as fervently as I’ll defend the speech that provoked it. But what we got here is a fundamentally different beast. The "morons" referenced above are the folks carrying placards like:
Europe you will pay. Your 9/11 is on it’s way.
Behead those who insult Islam[.]
Exterminate those who insult Islam!!!
As Muslims we unite & we are prepared to fight.
Be prepared for the real Holocaust.
I say again:
These guys are the enemy. They are, to use the old word, evil. You can’t accommodate them. The moment they go from chanting cheap slogans to putting those slogans into action, it’s time to hit Chuck Norris’ number on the speeddial.
UPDATE 2: Commentators point out that other Muslims (including senior religious leaders, such as Sistani) have not joined in the above protests, and have even condemned them. I’ve never argued otherwise and, frankly, such comments miss the point.
The fact that fifty people don’t advocate violence over these cartoons does not excuse the ten who do. The fact that Sistani is not a moron does not endow the folks marching in the UK with intelligence. There is a time to be polite and to sagaciously ignore a difference of opinion. This is not that time. No excuses; no retreat.
These folks are the enemy. It is not wrong to say it.
UPDATE 3: Shining Light in Dark Corners worries that I (and others) are playing into bin Laden’s hands:
Bin Laden hopes to stir up revolt by breaking through their complacency by inspiring a Western backlash that increases the suffering of the Islamic world. ….
[big snip]
Bin Laden hopes to stir up revolt by breaking through their complacency by inspiring a Western backlash that increases the suffering of the Islamic world.
I’m not impressed. Refusing to allow your opponent to define the battlefield (in this case, the ephemeral battlefield for hearts and minds) is one thing. Failing to confront evil in our midst is quite another. Indeed, when would SLIDC consider it ripe to speak up? When these folks have gone from telling us that they want to cut off our heads to actually doing it?
Like it or not, we are at war with a part of the Islamic world. A small part, yes. But it is still a war. The need to avoid playing into the enemies’ hands is not outweighed by the need to recognize — and fight — the enemy.
Paul Cella offers some related — although not identical — thoughts here at RedState.org.
1) Linking to Michele Malkin
2) The use of “these guys” Does that include Sistani? A rhetorical device that would perhaps violate posting rules if used here, and one I play with constantly.
3) I am going to absent myself a while, in order to come up with an “Aristocrats” type story involving baby Jesus, Mary, the three wise men, and the barnyard animals. I am sure you will have no objections.
Well, of course the press has the right to publish the cartoons. I can still say it was bad judgment. That doesn’t mean the threats of violent jihad are OK, mind you.
I was always taught not to go around offending people. Of course, if someone is super-sensitive, sometimes you can’t help it, and you shouldn’t let their problems control how you live your life. But really, for a paper to refrain from printing blasphemous images of Muhammad, that’s not a huge sacrifice for them to make. I agree that if you followed the slippery slope to say “you shouldn’t publish anything that could offend anyone, ever” then yeah, that’s going too far. But you shouldn’t use that as an excuse to needlessly antagonize.
I condemn the violence, as I’m sure we all do, but it disturbs me how the right-wing blogosphere has used these irrational acts as an excuse to become pro-antagonism, publishing and republishing the cartoons every chance they get. I don’t know about you, but if I see a crazy person on the subway, I don’t sit down next to them and start poking them with a stick.
From the article: “Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.
I take it, von, that you’ll next be denouncing the people who are denouncing the president of Iran for his various anti-Semitisms.
OT: This is one of three new National Journal articles on our mini-gulag. I can’t find a link to the Stuart Taylor piece that is in the same issue.
VVon, one of the cartoons depicted Muhammad with a missle coming out of his head, meaning that Islam is an evil religion and that all Muslims are violent. How would Christians feel if someone published a cartoon that showed Jesus shoving Jews into ovens or torturing people for the Inquisition? The only reason Christians wouldn’t scream for blood is that they don’t have too–they have power, they have respect, they have no basis for feeling persecuted. They’d do their best to get the editor fired and, in this country, they’d use it as a campaign issue against Democrats who had nothing to do with it for decades. No need for real rage, just the faux kind.
If I had been the publisher, I would not have published the cartoons, not out of fear, but because I dislike bigotry and the cartoons are bigoted.
The people screaming that they want to kill are no more or less evil than the people who screamed at the black teens who integrated the Little Rock high school or the Irish thugs who beat up a Pakistani immigrant in Dungarvan last week. There are lots of people who are as “evil” as the enraged protesters. Are all of them our enemy, or only the Muslim ones? What about the Red Staters who think it is ok to kill Iranian civilians with airstrikes? What about Ann Coutlter who thinks it is ok to joke about poisoning a Supreme Court Justice?
Are all people who threaten violence when they are mad evil, or only the ones that are Muslim?
One thing that’s being missed here, aside from the fact that you shouldn’t poke a crazy man with a stick: this argument that the cartoons are to be celebrated relies on an assumption that there are only two types of people in the world:
(1) Crazy fundamentalist Muslims, the sort who riot and issue fatwas over a cartoon; and
(2) Normal people, who see nothing offensive about these cartoons.
Nowhere in this equation will you find the possibility that there may be some ordinary, peaceful Muslims who aren’t out there in the street rioting, but still take offense at these cartoons. I don’t see how those people are any different than the ordinary, peaceful folks who thought that anti-Rumsfeld political cartoon was out of line the other day.
Of course, this isn’t surprising from folks like MM who don’t really believe there is such a thing as a peaceful Muslim, but I think Von is better than that.
I’m inclined, given that the cartoons in question weren’t intended to give offense but rather to explore the question of aniconism and free speech, to side with von here. For similar reasons I think the govt should stay the bleep away from criticizing Tom Toles.
I agree.
Given the uproar about the Muslim cartoons, I wanted to invite you to see “Ugly” Jesus… he’s not “Pretty” or “GQ”… http://www.uglyjesus.com Does Jesus care how he was depicted, or even that he was depicted in art?
Sincerely,
Ray Charles Istre
http://www.uglyjesus.com
Steve: Nowhere in this equation will you find the possibility that there may be some ordinary, peaceful Muslims who aren’t out there in the street rioting, but still take offense at these cartoons.
Or, you know, ordinary, peaceful non-Muslims who aren’t out in the street rioting, but who still feel there’s something wrong with publishing a cartoon deliberately to be that offensive and then complaining that the people whom you intended to offend are, indeed, taking offense.
Let’s be clear about this: this was not some random cartoonist being funny. This was intentional, deliberate, how-offensive-can-we-be cartooning. And while I support the right of Jyllands-Posten, or indeed anyone else, to be as offensive as they like in a non-violent manner, it is surely arrogant and stupid then to protest that you don’t like how the people you deliberately tried to offend are taking offense.
Eh. I feel more or less the way I do when someone asks me whether the fact that I support free speech means that I don’t have a problem with — well, pick your own favorite example of appalling speech you’d be willing to defend. I don’t much like either the would-be censors or the people who insist on becoming the censors’ stereotypical opponents.
The moment someone actually engages in violence is the moment I start entertaining words like ‘evil’, let alone ‘enemy’. Someone who is marching in anger, without engaging in violence, is not my enemy. (Not on those grounds, at least.)
Rilke: given that the cartoons in question weren’t intended to give offense
You mean, not to real people? Only to Muslims?
Of course the cartoons were intended to give offense. They were commissioned in the sure knowledge that they would be offensive.
Shall we discuss how the US Senate as a body vehemently defended Piss Christ?
I’m all for not being gratuitously offensive, but still, people: threats of kidnapping, violence, and murder? Are these people we should be defending?
Message to protesting Muslims: Not everyone shares your religion. And when you go batsh*t over some stupid infidel’s stupid drawings, you’re not making any converts.
That said, concur with Steve about the wingnuts’ glee at these events, not least in the increasingly repulsive David Bernstein’s last little hate-screed.
The problem is that people like MM seem to think they are actually participating in a war from behind their computer screens (“America go to hell!” “No, YOU go to hell!”), where their ammunition consists of republishing these cartoons as many times as possible, just so they can drive the extremists into as much of a rage as possible, which of course will establish that MM and friends were right all along to act as they did. And after poking the crazy person with a stick 100 times, they’ll say “well, we can’t stop NOW just because he’s really enraged, that would be appeasement!” And on with the poking.
I totally agree that anyone who would riot over a cartoon is not rational. Why can’t we be content to just let them put on an ugly face, without putting on an ugly face of our own? This is how we lose the battle for hearts and minds – normal Muslims look at this kind of rioting, or violence like 9/11, and they are disgusted, but then they look at our reaction and decide, rightly or wrongly, that we’re even worse. It’s not smart.
Hilzoy: The moment someone actually engages in violence is the moment I start entertaining words like ‘evil’, let alone ‘enemy’. Someone who is marching in anger, without engaging in violence, is not my enemy.
FWIW: According to Wiki, no one has (yet) engaged in violence, though reportedly several death threats have been made. (I am not on the side of anyone issuing death threats, not for anything: but as Steve observes, this is not a you’re-with-us-or-you’re-against-us situation.) All other response from Islamic nations and individual Muslims would appear to be legitimate protest: the cartoons were deliberately offensive, and Muslims and Islamic countries have taken offense.
Still working on it:
Baby Jesus is giggling over the transformation of various fluids into other fluids, Mary is upside down on an X-shaped crucifix with a donkey and two wise men. In a sly allusion to popular culture, Mary keeps saying:”But I’m a virgin!” Joseph is selling tickets.
I am calling it:”Rangier in the Manger” Any one offended is the enemy and evil.
Jes: “You mean, not to real people? Only to Muslims?”
No playing the race-card, please.
Steve, interesting that you bring up the Anti-Rumsfeld cartoon, as the same people who seem to be most voiceferously defending the rights of the Mohammed cartoonist tossed a nutty about that comic without even acknowledging the contradiction.
Anderson, I’ve almost stopped going to Volokh because of Bernstein, and especially the fact that all his posts are commentless drive-buys.
Well, actually, MM said it’s a false equivalency because writing a letter to the WaPo is not the same as rioting in the streets. However, as to that, see my comment above.
I quit Volokh because of Zywicki (I think his Kennedy = McCarthy post was the last straw) but Bernstein is no prize either. Would you believe, I gave him some great free legal advice for an NASD arbitration, and barely got a thank-you.
I don’t think most of the crowds protesting are evil so much as I think they’re acting like complete suckers.
I resent being forced to be even partially on Michelle Malkin’s side about anything.
Steve,
Oh man, I forgot about that Kennedy-McCarthy post. That was a joy. (And I also made the mistake of trying to defend Bill Maher. I’m not sure I actually got threatened, but I was told that that ‘firebombing my house might be going too far’, or something along those lines)
“I totally agree that anyone who would riot over a cartoon is not rational.”
Chris on a popsicle stick, after five years of war do I have to explain the Islamic prohibition against depictions of Muhammed? It is not fashion, the anti-idolotry goes to the very core of their monotheism. It is a very well-reasoned, historically rich theological and philosophical position. I ain’t exactly new, and it is not directly based on antagonism to the West or modernism.
Part 1:The Arrival
It was a dark and stormy night as the Holy Family arrived at Bethelehem. But it was a Holy Day, and They arrived so late there was no longer any room at the inn.
“Damn tourists”, the donkey told Joseph. I hungry and horny and this cow on my back weighs a ton.”
Joseph:”Shut up, ass. Herod has promised me a talent for the little bastard, and as soon as the trollope drops it she is all yours. I wouldn’t touch her with Caesar’s ****.”
Mary:”But Joseph, I keep telling you, I was always faithful. It was the tricky pidgeon. I am a virgin!”
Most telling is this image, where Human Events Online (apparently) annotated one of the offending cartoons thus:
Lars Refn’s drawing did not feature “the Prophet” but a Danish schoolboy, Mohammad, who wrote on the blackboard in Persian: “Jyllands-Posten’s journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs.”
We think Lars Refn is a coward, who does not understand the seriousness of the Muslim threat to free speech.
See, this is what I am talking about. Are the only two choices (1) poke the crazy man with a stick, or (2) be a coward? If you know you can get someone to behave irrationally by commiting an innocuous act, are you really a coward if you say “no, I’d rather not start something”?
I sort of fear that MM’s goal is to draw “those people” out so they may be extinguished in holy fire. I don’t know why anyone would choose to pick this fight.
bob, should the aniconic Jews have rioted over the Sistine chapel? Should the aniconic Muslims riot over pictures of it? Should you be banned for writing out G*d’s name?
Bob, good point, but if they riot about non-muslims doing something aren’t they engaging in just the sort of cultural imperialism that they constantly accuse us of?
I quit Volokh because of Zywicki
In case you didn’t know, you can add an argument to the url to screen out certain Volokh posters:
http://volokh.com/?exclude=davidb,todd
In case it’s the principle of the thing that keeps you away, nevermind.
as the same people who seem to be most voiceferously defending the rights of the Mohammed cartoonist tossed a nutty about that comic without even acknowledging the contradiction.
Yes, but I’ve seen plenty of the reverse contradiction as well.
Rilke: No playing the race-card, please.
No quoting from HOCB on ObWing. The meta gets too much for me.
The Jewish commandment against writing the name of G*d is one among many.
The Islamic opposition to idolatry and representations is the origin (Muhammed’s first acts in Mecca) and very meaning of the religion. “Piss Christ” or my manger-porn nowhere near approaches in offensiveness to these deliberately provocative cartoons.
Islamic monotheism goes so far, is so profound and total, as to be a committed anti-idealism. “Freedom” and “Patriotism” are possibly idols. The “Law” is dynamically interpreted because any fixed reading of the Koran is idolatry. The Koran may not be translated because that would be an image. These cartoons, make no mistake, is an attack and attempt at the destruction of Islam itself. It will not survive imagism anymore than Christianity could survive the loss of the Resurrection.
Von’s disrespect and contempt for other pious people’s beliefs is astonishing. What did he find so objectionable in the WH statement? The verbal overreaction of a few justifies the total genocide of a culture? Who are “These people”?
The tone was as horrible, more horrible, than my manger-porn. For I do not wish harm to all Christians, and everyone knows my blasphemy offends myself as much as it might offend believers, tho perhaps for different reasons. The lack of empathy displayed in the worst post I have ever seen on Obsidian wings…
So let’s see if I’ve got the reasoning right, here:
1. Deliberately stick hand into nest that you know is full of hornets, many of which are likely to get quite upset.
2. Get stung by a bunch of the hornets, who reacted exactly as you predicted they would to having a hand thrust in their nest.
3. Smugly sit back, and in your best Homer Simpson voice, say, “Heh heh heh! Stupid hornets! I’m smarter than you! Sting away!”
Brilliant.
I don’t think most of the crowds protesting are evil so much as I think they’re acting like complete suckers.
Bingo. And this provides cover for the imams and the ayatollahs to stir them up even more. It’s the Muslim equivalent of a Dr. James Dobson screen about Nip/Tuck or some crap.
Message to protesting Muslims: Not everyone shares your religion. And when you go batsh*t over some stupid infidel’s stupid drawings, you’re not making any converts.
Oh, but they will make some converts, see, because some of the, as Steve puts it, “ordinary, peaceful Muslims who aren’t out there in the street rioting,” will read something much like von’s post here, or that loathesome piece of Bernstein garbage, and decide that if that’s how they’re going to be treated, they’ll just become the other kind.
“These cartoons, make no mistake, is an attack and attempt at the destruction of Islam itself.”
Whenever I see someone write “make no mistake” (usually in a right-wing screed, but maybe the phrase has metastasized), it’s likely I’m reading someone wildly mistaken.
When you go spray-paint these images, I’ll take you seriously.
Von, just a question.
Let’s suppose that I walk into your local Catholic church, just as the priest is breaking the bread. While the parishioners are lining up to receive communion, I go up to the altar, grab the consecrated bread and wine, fling both to the floor, and pour a flask of urine over them.
Then I walk out and write up my actions in a thousand-word column which is syndicated across the US, asserting that what I did was simply the assertion of the right to freedom of expression. My column is repeated, reprinted, and linked to all kinds of anti-Catholic material: the general expression in the US is of praise for freedom of expression and condemnation of the Catholic church for standing against freedom of expression.
This is the question: Would you then define and refer to protesting Catholics as:
If not, why not?
I do no harm to anyone by my act, no more than these Danish cartooners have harmed anyone. All I did was take some bread and some wine, spill it on the floor, and spill some urine over the mess – as an act of free expression. I even sent a check to the church to pay for cleaning up the mess. Clearly, any Catholic objection to this is just not acceptable. To hell with them. Let people do the same thing fifty times a day in Catholic churches round the world for the next thirty years. Let the Catholics scream. It’s the sound of freedom, baby.
Right, Von?
Lots to possibly comment on here, but I’m feeling exhausted, and won’t for now. A couple: Observation on Malkin’s opinion about offensive cartoons here. Further comment from me in comments there.
As is often the case, I’m baffled as to whether you are trying to do some kind of irony, or kidding, or what. You’re not seriously suggesting that there’s a Muslim “race,” I assume, so what this means beats me. Perhaps that’s just me, and it’s clear to everyone else.
Well, I hope no one ever discovers my copy of “Cartoon History of the Universe Part III.”
As far as the “sound of freedom”, I would like to call the following excerpts from the National Journal articles Charley posted to everyone’s attention. I know I really shouldn’t be either doing a blatant threadjack or posting something this long. But, well, read:
“It will not survive imagism anymore than Christianity could survive the loss of the Resurrection.”
That’s what the Church said about the sacrements, and the Tr*n*t*, and married priests.
And I guess you’re on the side of the Scientologists trying to keep the deep tenets of their faith private, and the 7th-Day Adventists’ right to prevent their children from receiving blood transfusions, and …
Also note that there have been reactions in the Islamic world to the effect of, “Chill.”
Von’s post is deeply problematic, and one of the least thought-out I’ve seen him make. I suspect Updates will be coming, but we’ll see.
“Heck, if I can live with a couple of throw-backs to the 1930s marching on Skokie and I can live with a bunch of throw-backs to the fifth century marching in London. But, make no mistake: These guys are the enemy. They are, to use the old word, evil. You can’t accommodate them.”
What, all Muslims who are upset or protest? I doubt you mean that, but this is deeply careless writing. I expect you actually want to draw a line and only would really mean this of those who actually either commit violence or threaten it, but not drawing a careful line between those who “take to the streets” and those who “threaten violent jihad over a friggin’ cartoon” is not a great approach, I suggest.
More later.
“I don’t know about you, but if I see a crazy person on the subway, I don’t sit down next to them and start poking them with a stick.”
This, on the other hand, is a just terrible analogy. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are critically important values, and the Muslim world, like the rest of the world, has to learn to deal with the need for these freedoms (how different countries should approach them is a complicated subject I have opinions about, but will leave elaboration upon for another time when I’m not so tired).
Yet, somehow, these values, which are the root of the controversy, manage to not show up in the above analogy, which is why it utterly and completely fails.
Gary, let’s just say I was speaking metaphorically – I intended to convey that the remark I was responding to was an appeal to prejudice. I couldn’t come up with a direct reply consistent with the posting rules. (Other indirect responses I considered would have been more obscure and likely to lead to a fight.)
“For similar reasons I think the govt should stay the bleep away from criticizing Tom Toles.”
I think that free speech includes that of government officials, and that the Joint Chiefs are as entitled to have opinions and to express them as anyone else. An official statement from the DoD would be a different matter; perhaps you see no distinction there (probably so), but I do.
I also don’t find writing letters to the editor over the line for anyone, or threatening in the least, but I’m sure that perception depends upon one’s either level of paranoia or sensitivity, depending upon how you look at it. I don’t think it’s a start on a downhill slope to surrounding the Washington Post building with troops, but YMMV and likely does.
“What, all Muslims who are upset or protest?”
Gary, note the first sentence of the paragraph, traditionally the most important one. The one you snipped.
The statement was under an official letterhead, unless I’m mistaken.
Beyond that, I think I’m willing to accept some restrictions on statements by officials of the govt, esp concerning the press, esp when the latter is criticizing the former.
http://muttawa.blogspot.com/
Some of you might be interested in this web site. Start from the post of 27 January. These cartoon were first printed in Sept 2005. Why did it take so long for the Muslim powers that be (mptb) to follow this up. I am inclined to think that Alhamedi has it right that it is an excuse by said authorities to control the millions. I think that we are reacting in just the way the mptb expected, and that we are furthering their agenda for them. Especially when our govts get involved.
Freedom of speech is extremely important to our way of life(i hate that phrase, cant’ think of better though), but offending others just for the sake of it does seem a tad childish.
I have been waiting for you guys to post on this issue. I admire the opinions, posts and comments, on this site and have been hoping to see you cover it. It is a topic that is certainly mixing it up among the blogospere.
Well, Gary, I’m sorry you don’t like my analogy, but I see it as pure baiting. Baiting that people have a right to engage in, but still baiting.
Sometimes conflicts between values like free speech and beliefs like the Muslim proscription against idolatry are unavoidable. But that doesn’t mean we should praise people who go around manufacturing such conflicts when they’re completely avoidable.
“Let’s suppose that I walk into your local Catholic church, just as the priest is breaking the bread. While the parishioners are lining up to receive communion, I go up to the altar, grab the consecrated bread and wine, fling both to the floor, and pour a flask of urine over them.”
Jes won’t respond to me, but I’ll nonetheless point out the vital distinction between speech and violent action. One, it turns out, is not at all like the other.
Proper and reasonable and acceptable response to being offended by speech: more speech, protest, boycott, march. All appropriate. Threats of violence is not, actual violence is not.
These are, certainly, Western values. And if people want to live in countries that don’t accept those values, I think they have the right to do so, and to make their own laws based upon other values, as long as every individual in that society, women and men alike, under any circumstance save being imprisoned for criminal acts (this can get tricky if they make speech offenses a criminal offense, of course), is free to leave that country.
That’s the very short nutshell version of my opinion.
I think that free speech includes that of government officials, and that the Joint Chiefs are as entitled to have opinions and to express them as anyone else.
Now see, that’s just wrong. You might as well argue that Judge Roy Moore has freedom of religion and therefore gets to hang the Ten Commandments in his courtroom if he wants to. The Joint Chiefs didn’t make a statement as private citizens, they made it as official government actors. That said, I think the WaPo can take it.
“Gary, let’s just say I was speaking metaphorically – I intended to convey that the remark I was responding to was an appeal to prejudice.”
Okay. I suspect I still am vague on your precise meaning, but that at least gives me a general idea of your intent, which is a vast step forward from complete bafflement. Thanks.
Jes won’t respond to me, but I’ll nonetheless point out the vital distinction between speech and violent action. One, it turns out, is not at all like the other.
Yes, with the understanding that the speech that was engaged in in this particular case is considered by the parties on the receiving end, to a certain degree, to be “violent action” insofar as the very act of making it is blasphemous in a very key and core way. It’s less like Jes’s example and more like . . . I don’t know, wearing a t-shirt that says GOD in big block letters to Shabbos.
Mark LeVine, quoted by the Toronto Star:
Actual violence against property (no one hurt so far) in Indonesia.
For an example of the cartoons printed in Arabic newspapers
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/cat_international.html#005061
I find myself, as usual, focussing on Von’s title. ‘No Retreat’ suggests to me that someone picked a fight with someone else and because we don’t like the other side, we can’t back down. Not sure about the intelligence of that.
I am also left to wonder why we must (though I don’t know if Von has not stated this sentiment, so this shouldn’t be considered a dig at him) consider the religious sentiments of the people who oppose all abortion, but cannot respect the feelings of those who feel that portraying their god in a blasphemous manner is a sin.
As for my personal reaction to all this, it is that other people who I have no control over and whose views got themselves into a fight, and they should come up with a solution that works. Not that I have ever been an isolationist, but I don’t think that the US can step into these debates anymore.
Von:
I’m with you on this one. And if you look at appropriate Kos threads, so are a lot of Kossacks. And the backstory is pretty interesting: these were published as some sort of contest/protest about Islamic threats to illustrators.
Gary F:
There is perhaps a difference between a newspaper picture and pissing in the communion? And perpahs there’s a right way and a wrong way to protest it? The EU is not responsible for what some newspaper in Denmark publishes. They have no business regulating to that degree. The right people to complain to are the newspaper.
The reponse by the US State Department, however, ain’t one of them:
“These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims,” State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question.
“We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.”
Sure why not, it’s not like the State Department is trying to get favors from any Muslim government, like donating troops for Iraq. Let’s go Chuck Norris on them all, because they’re all the enemy. Bring it on.
“Gary F:
There is perhaps a difference between a newspaper picture and pissing in the communion? And perpahs there’s a right way and a wrong way to protest it?”
You seem to be confusing me with Jesurgislac.
To clarify, perhaps, what von *might* be trying to say (please do correct me if I’m mistaken here):
The violent/nonviolent distinction, while important, is something of a side issue in the instant case. What is objectionable about even the peaceful anti-cartoon protesters and boycotters isn’t the means of their protest, but the scope of their target. They’re not simply blaming the newspaper in question for publishing a stupid and offensive caricature of their prophet. They’re blaming *Denmark as a whole* for being a country where such caricatures are *legally publishable*. They’re marching against institutions and boycotting companies that had nothing to do with the cartoons at all, because they hold those institutions and companies collectively responsible for the allowability of the caricatures in the West.
They are, in short, expressing hatred of us for our freedoms. And I say this as someone who generally believes that the whole “they hate us for our freedoms” thing is a self-serving, jingoistic bunch of BS. But in this very particular instance that’s what we have.
Peaceful protesters may often be the subject of rightful opprobrium. When Fred Phelps and his crew go around with their “God Hates Fags” signs, they’re engaging in nonviolent protest of something they find offensive, and they have every right to do so. But they’re still a disgusting bunch of scumbags and should be condemned as such by all civilized people.
Just like these cartoons were so great?
I mean, if you don’t support the [original context] publication of things like this, you’re hypocritical.
“I mean, if you don’t support….”
“Support” as in “defend the content of” or as in “defend the right not to be firebombed because of” or as in “defend the right to publish”?
BAGnewsNotes has the cartoons.
rilkefan: hope you don’t become a target for your “these images” link in your 8:07 post (bravo for that link, by the way).
And we think we’ve got wingnuts!
The more I think about it, the more I disagree with two parts of von’s post:
(1): “But, make no mistake: These guys are the enemy. They are, to use the old word, evil.” As used in the post above, about people who are marching: that is, exercising the same right to free speech that we’re supposedly defending.
I have, in my time, protested against published things that I found objectionable. I wasn’t advocating that publishing those things be banned; just expressing my vehement disapproval using the same freedom that I would defend for them, and will defend both for the cartoonists and for those who are protesting. (I did try to make this clear at the time.)
(2): “To hell with them. Publish that cartoon fifty times a day for the next thirty years. Let ’em scream. It’s the sound of freedom, baby.”
Let’s be clear: this is a completely predictable fight that has, so far, followed completely predictable lines. Cartoons get published. Muslims get offended, and are whipped up into a lather. Michelle Malkin et al get all offended by the offense, and start protesting by putting the cartoons up all over their websites.
And on and on it goes; and all the while all of us are living up to the others’ worst stereotyped views, and very few people are saying: wait. It’s wrong to needlessly and pointlessly offend other people. This is rude when you do it to, say, your hosts at a party, and it doesn’t somehow become right when you do it to an entire religion. It’s also one of those wrong things, like being a jerk or abusing a friendship, that should never be made illegal, since the “cure” would be vastly worse than the disease. We support freedom of speech, and we support tact and politeness, and we wish only the best to Muslims, and so much the worse for those on both sides who want to have cardboard cutout views of anyone.
“Publish that cartoon fifty times a day for the next thirty years. Let ’em scream” is just participating in this ugly game. I have been sticking up for freedom of speech for decades, and so far I have managed to do so without feeling the slightest temptation to reproduce and make available to others speech I dislike, like (say) Larry Flynt’s famous Hustler cover with the woman being fed through the meat grinder, or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or neo-Nazi garbage.
Besides, they aren’t even very good cartoons. The only one that comes close to being funny if the one about the virgin shortage, and even it wasn’t all that close. (Though it would have been if ‘virgins’ had been crossed out, and ‘grapes’ written over it. Or possibly if there were some suicide bombers holding a plate of grapes and looking perplexed and disappointed.)
To hell with them. Publish that cartoon fifty times a day for the next thirty years. Let ’em scream. It’s the sound of freedom, baby.
you know what… this is pretty close to how i feel every time some idiot fundie gets upset about the latest Will and Grace episode, or the latest Spongebob outrage, or the latest rap single, or the latest Michael Moore appearance, or the latest Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding movie.
and ya know what else? what i think about it doesn’t matter, because people who enjoy exploiting it know that stuff like that can be used to inflame even to expand The Base, and that’s a valuable political tool. and that’s the problem with politics….
et no, les pédants, i’m not equating Muslim and Xtian fundies. so you can preemptively stuff that particular response.
hilzoy: surely you’re not saying that, in your opinion, the satire of political cartoons “needlessly and pointlessly offend(s) other people…”
or are you?
Nah. Couldn’t be. Must be my misunderstanding.
Anybody know for sure whether NBC’s new series “The Book of Daniel” has really been cancelled? Just asking.
xanax: the cartoons wouldn’t be needless if they made an actual point. But, like I said, they aren’t even funny.
(1): “But, make no mistake: These guys are the enemy. They are, to use the old word, evil.” As used in the post above, about people who are marching: that is, exercising the same right to free speech that we’re supposedly defending.
It’s not the demonstrations (which remind me of reaction to the fake flushing Korans down the toilet story). Or even the demand that the Govwrnment of Denmark stop the newspapers from printing what they please (which reveals a difference in attitude about free speech between the protesting nations and free countries like Denmark). But it is the threat or urging by Hizbollah to enact suicide bombing in Denmark and Norway, the taking of hostages by Hamas (I believe that they are freed now), that is the problem.
You see, even the most conservative American or European basically believes in certain liberal ideals that cranks and oddballs and offensive ideas should be tolerated, if only to test whether the common ideals make sense. Yes, publishing the cartoons was a stunt to see if Muslims could adapt to Danish society. Perhaps it was not so gentle a challenge. But I’m with Von here. If you believe in Western liberal values, it is plainly incompatible to allow extremist Islamic groups to dictate the laws and customs of your country. Look, some of the most extremist Muslim religious leaders in UK, Norway and elsewhere, cannot be deported because they have supported terrorist acts in the countries of their origin. How crazy is that?
I speak for myself, and not at all for Hilzoy, but I’d say that certainly some cartoons might and many others wouldn’t.
How could it possibly be otherwise? Is there some rule that it’s impossible to draw&write a cartoon that “needlessly and pointlessly offend(s) other people…”?
Obviously not. People are able to create witty satire, and people are able to create pointlessly stupid and offensive satire. And views on which are which are subjective.
Someone who isn’t offended by a satire of Islam, or offended by a drawing that simply depicts the Prophet Muhummad, might, perhaps, be offended by a cartoon from Ted Rall.
Not that that has ever happened.
Or they might be offended by a drawing of an American soldier with no limbs. You never know. Well, okay, mostly you do, actually.
DaveC: “But it is the threat or urging by Hizbollah to enact suicide bombing in Denmark and Norway, the taking of hostages by Hamas (I believe that they are freed now), that is the problem.”
I could be wrong, but I don’t actually think you’ll get much argument here on that point.
I don’t know, hil. I expect, as a base line standard, that political cartoons be at least thought-provoking. If they are, in my opinion they’ve succeeded and hence are are not “needless”. If they happen also to be funny, that’s a bonus. I find most of the cartoons in this “series” at least minimally thought-provoking. So I guess we just disagree on this one (had to happen eventually, I suppose).
xanax: “had to happen eventually”? were you, perhaps, under the impression that it had never happened before?
(ducks)
hilzoy: “they aren’t even funny”
Was just arguing with John Cole on exactly the same point in the Toles context. I can’t see how that’s relevant. Their needfulness arose from the children’s lit controversy and the question of how liberty and religion can coexist. I see the cartoons as art (if perhaps not very good art) in response to that. I would guess Edward‘s agreement above comes from the same reasoning. Here‘s his excellent post on the subject, incidentally.
Well, now that you mention it, I did think you were a bit soft on your pal with her pods and miscellany strewn about your yard. But other than that I’m pretty much just one – among the alarming and ever expanding legions – of hilzoy fanatics out here in blog-o-space… and I tend to break pretty much right down the hilzoy party line. Of course, (though I’ve given you precious little to disagree with me about – on this blog, at least), YMMV.
Um. Never looked at Edward’s artblog comments before. I have a personal block about some of his formatting choices that make it extremely difficult to get past that to get to the content. Ugh. This is my problem, not his, of course.
(Utterly inappropriate use of ellipses makes it literally mentally painful for me; having them introduce each comment feels like repeatedly having claws raked across my face with each comment; the lack of identification by either e-mail or URL of anyone commenting also bugs me; as I said, my problem, not his; it’s, however, a purely subjective reaction, and not one it would be useful for anyone to attempt to argue me out of.)
I’m a little sad he wouldn’t cross-post a post like that here, though. It’s not as if it’s about some esoteric art point not of general interest.
Josh Marshall has an interesting take on this. He also points to a Talk of the Town column in the New Yorker that is worth reading.
Those cartoons don’t seem so offensive to me, but then I thought the Satanic Verses wasn’t particularly insulting (it’s a fantasy, for goodness sake). There is one scene in it that is clearly a dig at Ayatollah Khomeini. I seem to recall that Khomeini issued the fatwa against Salman Rushdie without having read the book. I wonder whether all these protesters have seen the cartoons.
Cartoon #2 (two women in abayas, a man with a sword and his eyes blacked out as if by the eye strip cut from an abaya) is interesting, but like Michael Shaw I don’t know quite what to make of it.
It’s true that elementary manners mean not offending for the sake of offending.
But my reaction to this story is a lot like my reaction to the fatwah issued against Salman Rushdie: anger, disgust, and scorn – this time, for the fools burning flags and calling for mass murder.
I can certainly sympathize with the newspapers’ impulse to publish a spate of cartoons. Yes, it’s a raspberry to the Muslim world. But it’s also a defiant gesture that they will not be intimidated.
Remembering Rushie again, I was outraged when American bookstores pulled The Satanic Verses from their shelves (I’ve boycotted B Dalton and Waldenbooks ever since; though admittedly that’s not much of a sacrifice, since they’re lousy bookstores anyway) and very proud of the bookstores that not only didn’t pull the books but put them in special displays, right in the window.
It’s the same impulse: ‘Threaten me? Hah! Threaten this, baby!”
I feel the same way about bookstores that make a point of proudly displaying whichever books the American Taliban decides to attack, and about schools that make a special point of defending evolution in science classes against the fundies peddling their ID/Creationism crap.
I’m just plain sick of people using their religion as an excuse to go berzerk, and of people demanding that their theology take precedence over secular laws.
Actually, full disclosure, I’m just plain sick of organized religion.
Two bits of background to my comments on this.
First, I’m thinking less of the protesters in e.g. the UK than of those in the Middle East. And there, you have to factor in the fact that a lot of people have not travelled a lot, and thus have no sense of the west — of how we actually live, and what our countries are like — beyond what they get from the media, local and western, both in different ways distorted.
I recall trying to convince one of my exes, a Turkish Kurd who had never left Turkey (though he wasn’t sure whether some of the markets he had herded sheep to were across the Iraqi border — but that scarcely counts), that I did, in fact, know something about Marx, and had in fact taught Marx. He would not believe this, not because he distrusted me, but because the idea that Marx would be available in a non-Marxist country was unimaginable to him. “But it was the American Marx!”, he kept saying. No, I kept replying: I had in fact read and taught the actual writings of the actual Marx, which were all widely available for purchase at lots of bookstores. I don’t think he ever did believe this.
(I asked him and his friends what they thought Marx stood for, once, after it became obvious that none of them had ever read him, for the good reason that all his works were highly illegal in Turkey. “He is for rights”, they said. Ah. Indeed. I tried, briefly, to explain that actually Marx had thought rights were a bourgeois concept that would be tossed aside come the revolution, but gave up fairly quickly.)
(He was dumbstruck when he discovered the song “Talking ‘Bout a Revolution” on one of my Tracy Chapman tapes. He thought it must have somehow slipped by the (US) censors. He played it over and over in disbelief.)
In that world, the idea of blaming the Danish government is a lot less ludicrous than it might seem. I am not for a moment defending this; just noting how I understood it.
Second: Like CaseyL, I understand the impulse: Threaten me? Hah! Threaten this, baby!” I understand it perfectly. I just don’t think it’s particularly useful. It’s the same impulse that had annoying college students publishing racist articles in conservative newspapers back in the 90s, in reaction to PC etc., and that led one of my old advisees, who (by his account) had had an annoyingly PC teacher in high school, to write for that teacher a defense of the killing of the Native Americans in the latter half of the 19th century. When he told me this story, he still thought it was cute. Oddly enough, I disagreed, but not because I didn’t understand the impulse.
— It’s the utterly predictable course of this, and (what I see as) its complete unlikelihood of leading to any good result at all, on any side, that makes me ask: why do I have to play?
About the black rectangle over the Prophet’s eyes in one of the cartoons: it’s the piece of fabric cut from the abaya that the women wear, a little bit of visual symmetry.
It equates the obliteration of the sight of women with the reciprocal blindness of men, I think; who’s to say what a drawing means?
A) Quite a bit of the furor is being whipped up by three fake pictures which were not even part of the Danish publication. See for example here.
B) Have you people who are comparing the cartoons to “Jesus shoving Jews into ovens” or grabbing the Sacrament from a priest and pouring urine on it seen the cartoons? Frankly they really aren’t very shocking. They can be found in total here (scroll to the bottom of the page).
C) Is there any Muslim anywhere who really believes that these pictures are likely to cause people to worship the image of Mohammed? Somehow I doubt it.
So what’s the deal?
It seems to me that this actually is an important issue for two reasons.
1) It shows that some large segment of the Muslim world isn’t really interested in dealing with multicultural Western societies with tolerance. Arguably we already knew that (see the Rushdie affair) but a reminder can be helpful.
2) It reminds us that the Middle East works from a very tribal way of looking at the world. This is why it makes sense to boycott everything Danish if a small Danish paper publishes something offensive. If one Danish newspaper is disrespectful to Mohammed, clearly all Danish people should be punished. And any Danish people (even those who might have been annoyed by the cartoons) are subject to death threats, kidnapping and murder becuase of their mere national association with the cartoon makers.
I’m going to quote a post by Jason Kuznicki because it perfectly captures what I think:
That reminds me of something. The one excuse for Middle Eastern misbehaviour on this subject I am willing to offer is this: Is it possible that people whose major exposure to newspapers involves government-run propaganda newspapers just don’t get the idea of a freeish press? That would explain the ridiculous demands put on the Danish government.
“Is it possible that people whose major exposure to newspapers involves government-run propaganda newspapers just don’t get the idea of a freeish press?”
I think it’s quite clear that for many, the answer is “yes.” As Hilzoy related. (You may be commenting without having yet read the comments, I realize.)
I more or less agree with your quoted material, Sebastian, which I’ve more or less at least implied, I think, in recent, shorter, comments here.
With you I think through 13, but:
“Passing laws that forbid racial or religious hatred”
Wow, I never heard of a law against any sort of hatred.
Hilzoy I think anecdotally confirms your freeish press conjecture above.
But of course you should consider anger being manufactured for political gain too.
I took that to mean “that forbid expression of racial or religious hatred,” and being in reference to recent/current debate over the proposed British law that’s been going on the last six months or so.
“But of course you should consider anger being manufactured for political gain too.”
Sure, the fake pictures really are nasty and offensive.
BTW, on the hatred issue: I’m not a fan of “hate crime” legislation.
DaveC: (which remind me of reaction to the fake flushing Korans down the toilet story).
Which turned out not to be a fake at all, of course, in the important sense: American guards at Guantanamo Bay and other prisons were, both intentionally and accidentally, desecrating the Koran. (Even the Pentagon acknowledged that this had happened.)
The distinction I feel between Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses and these cartoons is that Rushdie did not decide to write the Satanic Verses just so he could be offensive to Muslims. These cartoons were commissioned and published in order to be offensive to Muslims.
When you decide to be deliberately offensive, it’s kind of stupid to then complain that the people whom you intended to offend took offense.
As my mom used to say, when her kids got into a fight, “Who started it?”
mac: There is perhaps a difference between a newspaper picture and pissing in the communion?
Certainly there’s a difference. One is an ugly, provocative blasphemy to Catholics. The other is an ugly, provocative blasphemy to Muslims.
And perpahs there’s a right way and a wrong way to protest it?
But Von is arguing that people demonstrating peaceably and legally in the public street are “the enemy. They are, to use the old word, evil. You can’t accommodate them.” My question to him is whether he would regard Catholics protesting an ugly, provocative blasphemy (that received wide support and sympathy in the media, especially anti-Catholic media) with such anger and hatred.
Jesurgislac fails to deal with the reality of the situation once again. Jesurgislac can you provide some photos of Catholics promoting to chop off peoples heads, Holocaust deniers? Catholics expressing their desire to exterminate, murder, slay or exterminate those who disagree?
Those are people are the enemy who you would support.
Windle: Jesurgislac can you provide some photos of Catholics promoting to chop off peoples heads, Holocaust deniers? Catholics expressing their desire to exterminate, murder, slay or exterminate those who disagree?
Is this a joke, or are you genuinely unaware of the history of the Catholic church?
Hate crime laws are just sentence enhancements for people who, when they commit acts that are already crimes, do so for particularly nasty and destructive motives. This is a very old and well accepted concept in criminal law. We make committing murder for “pecuniary gain” an aggravating factor that makes one eligible for the death penalty in many states, for instance.
Hate speech laws are a completely different thing.
I think hil’s right on press freedom, though there are now non-government controlled parts of the media in the Islamic world. (Al Jazeera).
The cartoons may have been motivated by the intimidation of Danish illustrators, but that political art is motivated by a legitimate grievances doesn’t make it any good. People may have legitimate grievances about Ariel Sharon, and yet I don’t think much of cartoons that show him eating babies.
The only cartoon that actually makes the point is Arne Sorensen’s, which I liked fine. I also liked
oops. I also liked Lars Refn’s just fine.
I think freedom of speech (“voicing opinion”) is important. I also feel that the right to express you opinion comes with a responsibility. To be honest I think American defenders of the right to express yourself always all the time have a lot of work to do closer to home.
The cartoons were a reaction to an author who said that he could not find an illustrator for his book about the life of mohammed. The book is published now and he seems to have found an illustrator after all.
As such, I think that the cartoons are not very good or very provocative and I think that quite a lot of the protesters have not seen them, or seen the fake ones. Protests have mainly been in moslim countries, not with muslims in western countries.
I think they protest the perceived intend behind the pictures more than the pictures themselves. A country that wants to make flagburning punishable should have some understanding methinks.
I do believe that the Danish paper had a right to publish the cartoons since they obviously illustrate opinions. And IMHO they are not that provocative. I would have a problem with the ones picturing mohammed as a terrorist, since that is (like the statement that islam is inherently violent) inciting hate. We have stricter laws about that since our last war and feel justified in that.
Boycott I have no problem with. Conservatives that condemn it make me giggle, coming from the group that invented the freedom fries. Violence against people is no proper answer. Also not smart, seeing how much EU money is sent to many of the protesting regions.
Ironcally we are in the last stages of the process against the murderer of Theo van Gogh and he made a long speech in which he stated that mohammed clearly believed in violence and everybody who denied that was not a proper moslim.
More irony: I had allready read the piece rilkefan linked too and was suprised to learn from it that the only one convicted for drawing an anti-mohammed cartoon was an Israeli Jew in Israel. Maybe we should tell all the shops in the ME that boycott Danish products that they should stack them up with israeli ones…
Once again: one is speech. The other is not. Do you really not understand that difference?
Gary, if it were speech there would not be a problem with pictures of mohammed…
I’m a little sad he wouldn’t cross-post a post like that here, though. It’s not as if it’s about some esoteric art point not of general interest.
I had thought about it Gary, but by the time I found time to get to it, Von had covered the topic already and I agree with his take, I think.
I’ve never seen an issue with as many subtle nooks and crannies as this one, though. It’s reall staggeringly complicated.
For example, I’m disappointed in the US’s official response, but the more I think about what supporting the cartoons might do to put our troops in Iraq in even greater danger, the more I have a hard time condemning the Administration for it. But then I start to wonder what the hell it is we’re fighting for over there if not this very issue.
I have a visceral reaction so strong it makes me want to kick puppies when I think about the papers caving in to these outrageous demands, however. Abso-f*cking-lutely NEVER. This is the line for me. I will NOT have someone else’s religious beliefs dictate what I can or cannot say or do in my own country. Full stop.
If I visit their country, then I’ll respect their customs and values, but the gall of the suggestion that in my country I have to observe some modern interpretation of a “law” they’ve not even been consistent on themselves over the centuries is so epically offensive it makes me want to hurt someone. I don’t know why exactly either, it just does.
“We make committing murder for ‘pecuniary gain’ an aggravating factor that makes one eligible for the death penalty in many states, for instance.”
And, of course, what people are thinking — what their motive or intent are or are not — is crucial to determining the difference between all sorts of charges.
Your sister is hit and killed by a car. Was that plotted in cold blood in advance? First degree murder. Was it done in a fit of rage? Second degree murder. Was it done because the driver was simply enraged about something utterly unrelated to your sister, and the driver was simply irresponsibly reckless? Manslaughter. Was it completely accidental, because your sister had, in fact, laid down under the car and the driver had no reasonable way of knowing she was down there? Might get off as completely innocent.
What the perpetrator was thinking has always been crucial to determining a charge and sentence. Always.
CharlieCarp, Lily, et al.:
Please see the update.
Again, I agree with von’s update. It’s not just that I won’t have others dictate my behavior based on arbitrary religious laws, but the notion that it’s a threat of violence that might make the papers back down is wholly unacceptable. A victory on this point would embolden the radicals, regardless of whether you feel it would rightly calm the merely faithful. I say no way. Print the damn things every day in every paper for 20 years until they’re grown weary of protesting and see for themselves how irrational they’re being.
The alternative is to let them change our values to placate them. I’m sorry, I don’t wish them any offense, and as I noted on the art blog, I think the original “test” was sophmoric, but it’s morphed into a bigger issue and there’s no way I can support a retreat on it at this point. It’s simply not in me to do so. I’d lose faith in the only thing I still have faith in if I did.
Offending all Muslims worldwide by repeatedly publishing these cartoons, to send a message to the minority of violent Muslims that “it’s freedom, baby”: Also betrays a tribalist mentality. One all too often displayed by our own right wing, which doesn’t seem to believe there is any such thing as a non-violent Muslim or that we should care what they think.
I remember the “Koran down the toilet” story, and for some reason, I remember people like MM being focused a lot more on the bad behavior of Newsweek than on how awful the Muslims were for rioting. Heck, but for the fact the right wing wanted to make a political point against Newsweek, they probably would have responded by organizing mass flushings of the Koran nationwide. Cause, you know, it’s the sound of freedom.
Von,
this is not to specifically disagree with your update, but I believe that those placards that you pull from Malkin’s site are from the first protest, with the second one more concentrated on ‘freedom from villification’
The first London protest was perhaps here
and it is possible that other pictures were from the Gaza protest but the second one, organized by Hizb ut-Tahrir, was apparently more restrained. So I have to ask (and I don’t know the answer so this isn’t trying to put you on the spot), why do the second group of protestors have to answer for the first groups signs?
I’d also point out Sistani’s response given here
The most senior Shia Muslim cleric, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, condemned publication of the cartoons but deplored the way in which militant Islamists had help distort the image of Islam.
Offending all Muslims worldwide by repeatedly publishing these cartoons, to send a message to the minority of violent Muslims that “it’s freedom, baby”: Also betrays a tribalist mentality.
This wasn’t addressed to me, but I really disagree with this read.
It’s more like “Offending all Muslims worldwide by repeatedly publishing these cartoons to send a message to the vast majority of Muslims who are not radical or violent that this is an issue we feel so strongly about we’re willing to risk the violence some nutjobs might inflict in order to demonstrate why it’s important to us.”
I don’t see it as a rightwing POV. I see it as the POV of anyone dedicated to freedom of speech/expression. I’ve reacted just as strongly against those who would ban the exhibition of “Piss Christ” or Offili’s painting of the Madonna that included elephant dung. Being offended is part of being exposed to different cultures/ideas is part of rejecting isolationsim is part of being a thinking human being. One need not accept the ideas expressed, but one cannot force the other to change those opinions, especially not through force. There’s no one in the world who believes it’s wrong to draw Mohammed more than I believe in that.
So it’s a clash of cultures. One in which it’s probably better to let both sides “win” (i.e., first, have the protesters lower the heat of their rhetoric, and then have the papers acknowledge that such “tests” are not the best way to begin a dialog). This is obviously not the right time to insist on more from either side.
I agree with the list Seb posted, with a few caveats. About 7: I already noted that people in the Muslim ME might not get freedom of speech. (And I somehow suspect that most of the stories about it that get to them do not involve e.g. speech offensive to Roman catholics, but speech offensive to Muslims, for obvious local interest reasons.) I would add: in most such countries, government and business are in bed with one another to a degree that we would find unimaginable, even after the K street project, and thus the idea of blaming the government and/or businesses for what a newspaper publishes isn’t so farfetched either. In a lot of these countries there just isn’t a lot of distance between the press, business, and the government.
I completely agree that the papers should not fire anyone, or anything like that.
As I said, I would also accept Steve’s additional entry (“Offending all Muslims worldwide by repeatedly publishing these cartoons, to send a message to the minority of violent Muslims that “it’s freedom, baby”: Also betrays a tribalist mentality.”)
And Edward: I wouldn’t publish the cartoons over and over, though I would also never back down from freedom of expression. (I mean, I support the right of Nazis to march through Skokie; having swallowed that elephant, I am hardly going to strain at these gnats.) But that, to me, is completely distinct from wanting to publish them myself. Just as supporting the right of the cartoonists to draw them is completely distinct from wanting to draw them myself.
There are lots of ways of sending a signal about how much we care about free speech other than this one.
(Possibly it matters that I am thinking about this in terms of stuff I’ve previously defended people’s right to say and publish, if for some reason they want. In my case, it has involved mostly people with odious political opinions and porn that I, personally, find repellent. In either case, the idea of having to republish these things myself, or of thinking that that’s part of what I signed on for when I decided to support free speech, is bizarre.)
If you are going to say “these guys are the enemy” and “these guys are evil” you ought to specify your antecedent–the first time you write it. Really.
But that, to me, is completely distinct from wanting to publish them myself. Just as supporting the right of the cartoonists to draw them is completely distinct from wanting to draw them myself.
I see that. In fact when I posted one on the art blog, I chose the one I thought was best at explaining why the issue was offensive to the Europeans and had no desire at all the post the more transgressive ones because, well, they don’t reflect my personal opinion.
But I think by republishing them the other European papers were making a point that couldn’t be made any other way: we believe you can NOT dictate what the press can publish. And it’s a message I support.
I think Hilzoy has the right idea here.
By “these guys are the enemy” I assume Von is referring to the people who react to free speech with violence or threats of violence. That’s fine. But I think what he’s missing is that when you act like MM and the other right-wing bloggers who republish the cartoons over and over to taunt “the enemy,” you can’t just pretend that “We’re only doing this to send a message to the rioters. Everyone else, close your eyes.”
I missed that you linked to the same signs in the first post–sorry. I didn’t click on a Malkin link at first (such an ardent defender of free speech and individual liberty, she is) and then forgot that there was a link I’d deliberately not clicked on.)
Here’s an excellent and balanced analysis on the BBC by Magdi Abdelhadi. This bit nails why this is bigger than just bad manners:
Redefining the boundaries is what’s at stake here, quite frankly. As the Danish newspaper noted, essentially the Muslim activists have already won, because it’s very unlikely that another Danish paper will publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed again in our lifetimes. They’ll publish cartoons depicting Christ or Buddah and all sorts of things that will be highly offensive to this or that group, but no images of Mohammed.
That is why the European papers are republishing the cartoons. It’s an attempt to save their values from such redefinition efforts. It’s a clash…something has to give…the side the blinks first loses something valuable to them. I don’t want the European papers to lose this one.
Call it a draw and let’s move on.
I’ve read back over the thread & Von’s comments, & I’ve never seen Von quite so right before.
(And somehow I got what “the enemy” meant the 1st time, w/out updates.)
Christianity’s been practiced in lots of wicked ways, which we are right to condemn.
I don’t see giving Islam a pass.
“Being offended is part of being exposed to different cultures/ideas is part of rejecting isolationsim is part of being a thinking human being. One need not accept the ideas expressed, but one cannot force the other to change those opinions, especially not through force.”
I don’t think this really encompasses all the legitimate views of the situation.
While you and I, amongst many others here, if not all of us, believe completely in the right of, say, someone to publish the Sturmer cartoons cited upthread, would you offer as a defense to someone offended by said publication, who was merely using speech in return to register their offense and objection, that being exposed to vile anti-Semitism is “part of being exposed to different cultures/ideas is part of rejecting isolationsim is part of being a thinking human being”?
Remember: we’re not talking censorship here; we’re merely talking about what is legitimate debate and verbal intercourse. Would you still use the precise words you use above?
Do you respond to Fred Phelps’ protests with those words? Would you?
You’re asking me if I’m offended by the same things everyone else is offended by, in the end, Gary. Of course not. That’s silly.
I would never argue that Fred Phelps should be silenced however. He must deal with the LEGALLY AVAILABLE consequences of his message, but that’s where the response should end.
The response to the cartoons in Denmark pushed further than that though. Boycotts and such are fine—have a field day—but no matter how offensive this or that group finds a message, the messenger must be permitted to voice it. Otherwise we all lose something.
I mean what really are the protesters demanding? That no one ever again publish an image of Mohammed. That’s unacceptable to me.
“They’ll publish cartoons depicting Christ or Buddah and all sorts of things that will be highly offensive to this or that group, but no images of Mohammed.”
While I, for one, certainly wouldn’t want to live anywhere where visually depicting Mohammed was illegal, I’d point out the obvious, that there’s an entirely valid distinction between depicting Mohammed and depicting Buddha or Christ or Moses, which is that the former violates a basic tenent of Islam, whereas there is no such tenent whatever in Buddhism, Christianity or Judaism (although Christianity does have the history of a flare-up of iconoclasm, if you’re familiar with Byzantine history).
This hardly is an unimportant point not worth noting.
Anderson:
I don’t know what this is addressed to. Who is giving Islam a “pass” from condemning which or what “wicked ways”? What, specifically, are you saying?
Heck, if you DON’T publish iconic images of Christ at every opportunity, you’re liable to upset Bill O’Reilly.
“You’re asking me if I’m offended by the same things everyone else is offended by, in the end, Gary. Of course not. That’s silly.”
I’m sorry, I’m not following what you mean by this.
“I would never argue that Fred Phelps should be silenced however. He must deal with the LEGALLY AVAILABLE consequences of his message, but that’s where the response should end.”
Okay, but that’s not what I asked you. Could you, perhaps, please, directly answer, literally, the question I asked you, if you would be so kind?
“…but no matter how offensive this or that group finds a message, the messenger must be permitted to voice it.”
I’m not sure who you’re arguing with there, but it certainly isn’t me. Is there another comment in this thread that you’re directing this comment to, or was it just a general statement of principle, repeating what you’ve said numerous times now, which I agree with and never said anything to disagree with?
“I mean what really are the protesters demanding?”
A whole bunch of different things, since there are a whole bunch of different protestors with different things in mind and different agendas. Obviously. Treating them as a homogenous lump when they obviously aren’t is extremely unhelpful, I suggest. It’s like saying “all you lefties are Leninists and want to overthrow the government and we mustn’t allow that.”
I see you’re in a literal mode, Gary…not sure I can have a productive discourse at this stage. I’ll try again to answer your question(s), but if it doesn’t satisfy you this time, I’ll call it quits:
Do you respond to Fred Phelps’ protests with those words? Would you?
No. Because his words offend me. But what offends or doesn’t offend me is really not the issue here (which is what I tried to illustrate before). What’s at issue here is what the appropriate response to what offends me or Muslims is or should be. I’m not saying the Muslims should not be offended. I’m saying they should deal with that offense in acceptable ways. I’d be wholly sympathetic if they had stopped short of demanding an apology. I don’t demand an apology from Fred Phelps. I oppose him.
A whole bunch of different things, since there are a whole bunch of different protestors with different things in mind and different agendas. Obviously.
And that’s a very good example of a totally unproductive comment.
As good a point as this is, it’s probably not wise to mix current events with semi-ancient history, unless of course you have some recent antics of the Catholic Church in mind.
I am in agreement with Sebastian’s 14 points, too. I just don’t think we should get into tribalism of our own. I don’t like pointing at a group of strangers and, based on what they are saying , label them as an evil enemy in the sense of taking the words “evil” and “enemy” seriously and not just as rhetoric.
After all, what are the logical consequences of deciding that “they” are the evil enemy?Are we going to kill them? Are we going to attack a country that did not orchestrate the protests under the assumption that they are all Muslims so it doesn’t matter if we kill the wrong one? I doubt if that is what von meant but it is the direction a society goes if future plans are going to be based on hating and fearing.
Look, I think von meant to point out that there are indeed people in the world that want to do Westerners harm at least in part becaue they feel threatened by Western values. Well, OK, I already knew that. Maybe he meant that the protests show that there are more of these people than he had previously thought. I don’t know . I reacted to his tone which did not seem greatly different than the tone of some of the protesters.
If people move from one culture to another they should be prepared to either adjust to the new culture or go home. I don’t have a problem with defending Western values. My problem is with defending Western values by using the same rhetoric as the people we are objecting to.
It is worth thinking about how to defuse Islamic extremism. I mean thinking about it, not just emoting.
“I’m saying they should deal with that offense in acceptable ways.”
Thanks for answering. Who are you arguing with?
It doesn’t look that way to me, since I didn’t notice you distinguishing, carefully or otherwise, between angry Muslims (or sympathizers) writing angry letters to the newspapers, angry Muslims marching in protest, angry Muslims demanding apologies, angry Muslims calling for boycotts of the newspapers, angry Muslims calling for boycotts of whole countries, angry Muslims calling for boycotts of the entire European Union, angry Muslims calling for the deaths of those involved in the publication of the cartoons, angry Muslims calling for the death of Europeans in general, angry Muslims who have kidnapped (briefly) Europeans, and so on.
These are, nonetheless, vital distinctions, and if you can point to where you made any of these distinctions in your comment of February 03, 2006 at 06:23 PM, or 09:34 AM today, or 09:53 AM, or 10:22 AM, or 10:50 AM, or 11:10 AM, or 11:55 AM, and 12:25 p.m., I’ll agree that my response was “totally unproductive.” All you did was refer, instead, to “they” and to “both sides,” and to “the protestors,” and to “the Muslims.”
One lump of homogenous, undifferentiated, Muslims.
That’s all you’ve referred to. Please let me know if I’m in error about any of these comments you’ve posted.
I’m perfectly willing to believe that’s not what you were thinking, but it’s what you wrote. Why you think it’s “totally unproductive” of me to make these distinctions, I have no idea. If you can explain, I look forward to that.
“The cartoons may have been motivated by the intimidation of Danish illustrators, but that political art is motivated by a legitimate grievances doesn’t make it any good. People may have legitimate grievances about Ariel Sharon, and yet I don’t think much of cartoons that show him eating babies.”
Katherine I can’t agree with this. The legitimate grievance being complained about by the cartoons is the ability to draw the cartoons. The legitimate grievances against Ariel Sharon have absolutely nothing to do with a cartoon showing him eating babies.
The Ariel Sharon cartoon plugs into the lie that Jews use and eat the blood of children for their Passover feasts. The Danish cartoons plug into the well established truth that an uncomfortably large population of Muslim believers react totally inappropriately to obviously non-idolatric depictions of Muhammad.
[Theological Digression]
I will be the first to admit that my understanding of the intriciacies of Muslim theology (very little) is much narrower than my understanding of the intricacies of Christian theology (can’t believe I spent so much time on it). The purpose of not allowing depictions of Muhammad is to avoid ispiring idolatry–which is to say worshiping the image of Muhammad instead of seeking the non-image of God. The depicitions clearly won’t lead to idolatry. On a slightly deeper level, my understanding of Christian theology (and I believe the understanding really goes back to pre-Christian Jewish theology) is that the sin of idolatry involves worshiping anything in such a way that it gets in the way of your worship of God. Getting so worked up about the obviously non-idolatric depiction of Muhammad (especially in terms of dishonoring or disrespecting the Prophet) is in fact a species of idolatry because it emphasizes a distracting amount of concern with Muhammad’s image and the lack of respect paid to it rather than keeping the focus on God.
[End Theological Digression]
Gary, I’m not comfortable with this formulation:
There are lots of things that Christians in the US say are antithetical to their teachings, which nevertheless we let people do and depict. Expressing their dislike of such things–ok. Threatening violence of those things–not ok.
For example, an uncomfortable number (at least as far as I’m concerned) of Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong and that permitting it in our country is a anti-thetical to their beliefs. I support their right to say nasty things about me because I’m gay, even in nasty ways–I see Mr. Phelps (I won’t give him the honorific of Reverend) at least twice a year down here in San Diego. I support my right to disagree with them publically–I already have a poster made up for Gay Pride this year, it says “Mr. Phelps. I’ve been out of the closet for ten years. Funny that you’ve been to more Gay Pride events than me”. The San Diego Gay band played the wedding march in front of him last year. But to Mr. Phelps (and lots of Christians who aren’t as nuts as him) legalizing gay activity is considered a huge affront to their religion. But I don’t care, and if you want to live in modern US culture you had best get over it.
But that is exactly the point. The people threatening violence over these cartoons don’t want to live in a modern Western culture. If they could, many of them would destroy modern Western culture. The conflict isn’t just about troops in Saudi Arabia. It is about a culture that Islamists hate–and not just in the hyperbolic way that I ‘hate’ pecan ice cream. The jihadists hate our culture in meaning of the word that involves killing us on as regular a basis as they can get away with. The cartoon row is good in that it reminds us of the fact that this isn’t all about Israel and Palestinians or invited troops in Saudi Arabia. It is bad in that illustrates that things aren’t going to be as easy to fix as getting Israelis and Palestinians to stop killing each other (like that is easy) or removing troops from the land of the Guardians of Mecca.
Gary, you write to Edward (regarding the protestors: “A whole bunch of different things, since there are a whole bunch of different protestors with different things in mind and different agendas. Obviously. Treating them as a homogenous lump when they obviously aren’t is extremely unhelpful, I suggest.”
The minimum response they desire–an end to depictions of Muhammed is unacceptable. The fact that there are a range of responses beyond the unacceptable demand isn’t the point. The minimum demand is unacceptable. The fact that some of the protestors want to enforce that with violence only makes them much worse. The fact that there is a range of people who want to ban Western depictions of Muhammed isn’t helpful when the range begins with unacceptable demands.
(This is seen in the boycott response. I don’t have a problem with boycotting. But the aim of the boycott is to provoke a Danish government response which I find unacceptable. The minimum goals are unacceptable).
And please note that I said the goals are unacceptable. Mr. Phelps’ goal of ending the practice of homosexuality is also unacceptable. He can say what he wants–I’m not going to try to stop him at all–and I can think his goals are unacceptable. But his goals reveal that he is not the kind of man with good goals. I can label him “a man with bad goals”. If he organizes or contributes to a group which attempts to violently implement those goals, I will have no problem saying that we should stop him.
I read vons initial post consistent with his updates — that he was really talking about the more nutball crazy Muslims who resort to mob violence when their sensibilities are offended. They do represent an ideology that is the enemy, and it is important to make that point at this time.
But his critcism of the US State Dept. response was way off-base. That response was intended to be heard by all Muslims, and does von stand by his update that it is the minority that is the enemy? If so, then the US State Dept. response is entirely appropriate since it deals with the larger issue of the ugliness of the cartoons, and the bad but not “enemy” feelings of this majority. Better to show sensibility toward this hurt feeling of the majority, and demonstrate your own humanity and build common ground, than blow the war horns about the “enemy” who are only a minority. There is still plenty of opportunity to also denounce the minority response, without also alienating the majority with whom we want to make peace.
The US has already been led seriously astray by the jingoist warmongers who are running the show in the anti-terrorism fight. So calls to fight the “enemy” and criticism of the measured response by the State Dept are reminders of this excess, whether intended or not by von.
The US has a problem in responding to the excesses of a minority of Muslims. We have a similar nutball element in our own culture — the Pat Robertsons/Ann Coulters who advocate a similar type of violence against Muslims, and who think of Islam itself as the enemy. And there is plenty of raw emotion on this subject, kindled by memories of victims jumping from burning skyscrapers, that is easily misled into a similar mob violence response to Muslim excesses.
We now have a legacy of violent overreaction to 9/11, resulting in countless human rights abuses. The last thing we need now is for our own crazed elements to misuse, like agent provaceteurs, the mob violence of the Muslim minority as justification for further excesses in response.
Oh, crap. The Danish and Norwegian (?!?!) embassies in Syria have been set aflame.
How much farther is this going to go?
Slarti: it’s probably not wise to mix current events with semi-ancient history
Because then we see that “the enemy” Von is screaming at looks, in fact, rather like ourselves? You’re right, Slarti. Most unwise.
“Expressing their dislike of such things–ok. Threatening violence of those things–not ok.”
Who is arguing with you on that?
“The minimum response they desire–an end to depictions of Muhammed is unacceptable.”
It’s not at all clear to me from recent news stories — and I’ll have to go look for what I mean that I read last night — that that’s the “minimum response they desire.”
The latest I’ve seen from Denmark was far less: requests that the publishers state that they didn’t intend to give offense, requests that they demonstrate “sensitivity to Muslim feelings” in a deliberately unspecified manner. And so on. I’ll go see if I can refind what I read.
See here. I suspect you weren’t up to date on this.
How many hundred years ago? I don’t think that anyone’s arguing that once upon a time, not all that many generations ago, our culture too was brutal and frequently acted in a way that we now consider unacceptable.
But we can excuse the actions of others because our g’g’great grandfathers indulged in such activities, if you wish.
Ok, I didn’t really mean that last part, and I’d hope that Jesurgislac disagrees with it as well.
CaseyL: Oh, crap. The Danish and Norwegian (?!?!) embassies in Syria have been set aflame.
How much farther is this going to go?
It’s all about the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, Casey. Didn’t you know?
“Oh, crap. The Danish and Norwegian (?!?!) embassies in Syria have been set aflame.”
Nonsense. That couldn’t happen. Everyone knows that Syria is a “secular” regime, just like Saddam’s Iraq was.
(Sorry, I digress onto another point entirely, which I actually don’t particularly want to discuss further, having made the point once.)
Incidentally, the Catholic response, from the story I linked:
Canadian Muslim reaction.
More on Norwegian Muslim reaction.
Which doesn’t quite go as far as approval of the right of the offended to saw off the heads of the offenders, it should go without saying.
“It’s all about the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, Casey. Didn’t you know?”
No, it really seems all about supporting extremists, thugs and people who desire to promote murder and other crimes. It seems more about only being for “Freedom of Speech that I agree with”
Von’s post is a good one. It’s a good exercise to identify the enemy and their supporters.
Yet more, with a lot of links.
Slarti, would you care to say who and where you are quoting from?
Slarti: Ok, I didn’t really mean that last part, and I’d hope that Jesurgislac disagrees with it as well.
Thanks for that.
I have posted about this in my journal – a rather more coherent response to the situation than I was able to manage here.
“No, it really seems all about supporting extremists, thugs and people who desire to promote murder and other crimes.”
Absolutely. Look at all the posters here who speak up to agree with that.
Windle: No, it really seems all about supporting extremists, thugs and people who desire to promote murder and other crimes.
You know, you’re going to have to learn someday how to distinguish between being angry with a white guy telling “funny” jokes about n*gg*rs, and still not actually wanting to see that same guy dragged into the street and “necklaced”. Why not start now?
I know Wretchard is by no means a favorite around these parts, but I found this post interesting.
Everyone knows that Syria is a “secular” regime, just like Saddam’s Iraq was.
huh ? what does Syria’s government have to do with how its citizens act ?
Playing into Bin Laden’s Hands
Something as seemingly harmless as a cartoon has fanned the flames of religious intolerance. The risk of worldwide conflagration is very real. Unless cooler heads prevail, we risk polarizing further an already divided world. Osama Bin Laden has advocat…
“huh ? what does Syria’s government have to do with how its citizens act ?”
You’re kidding, right?
(Answer: only slightly less than with how Iraqi citizens acted under Saddam, for the same reasons.)
You’re kidding, right?
no, i’m not.
is there a stance Syria’s govt could take w.r.t. religion that would guarantee its citizens never got angry with any Western government over matters of religion/culture ? if not, i don’t see how it matters to what degree the government is ‘secular’ or not (or WTF any of it has to do with Saddam).
or, can you can show that the Syrians are carrying out official govt policy ?
Judging by what I read in this thread, we mostly agree on a distinction between speech advocating violence and actual violence.
Jesurgislac writes about shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. That analogy, though, doesn’t quite match the case. People in a theater where there’s a fire have a justifiable fear for their lives. People who feel assaulted by cartoons printed in a foreign newspaper, well, it seems to me there’s a difference.
Also, shouting “fire” has the very real potential of causing a panic with ensuing accidental injury. The reaction here is not panic, rather it is anger and possibly mob violence.
I’ve seen many portrayals of the stereotype of an angry Islamic mob (going back to the days of the takeover of the American Embassy in Iran). These events do seem to reinforce the stereotype. To accept Jes’s analogy it seems to me I have to allow that people who are hair-trigger angry are equivalent to people with a justifiable fear for their lives.
The Islamic world may have plenty of justifiable anger about real violence but this behavior reflects no credit on anyone. Is it the face of evil, though, as von writes? Is every protester an enemy? I imagine plenty of them are just along for the ride. Still, I find the image this projects very troubling.
There’s a Far Side cartoon titled something like “how nature says don’t touch.” If I recall correctly, it includes drawings of a coiled rattlesnake, a puffer fish with spines sticking out, and a human being carrying a bazooka and wearing an inflatable pool toy and a boot on his head. This kind of “don’t mess with me” attitude is reflected not just by the rioting crowds, though — consider the U.S. policy on first use of nuclear weapons or preemptive war.
We are much too close to the brink for my taste. I’m in favor of taking a step back.
Dave, I can’t agree this is a particularly accurate description of, say, France’s policy:
Nor particularly accurately descriptive of any European country in the last couple of years that I’m familiar with.
I’d suggest that, in fact, France, for instance, and Holland, particularly, have been far more confrontational with their Muslim population than the U.S. has. I missed when the U.S. banned the wearing of religious symbols in schools, or proposed making illegal speaking any language but English on the streets, for example.
And France has, in fact, been an extremely close ally in fighting terrorism with us. There was yet another story just the other day pointing out that the American National Security Advisor (now Stephen Hadley) and his French equivalent speak reguarly multiple times a week, and the French guy flies over every month to confer, for instance.
But I’ll try to say something nice about Wretchard: this post you linked wasn’t nearly as dumbass as his immediately previous “clash of civilizations” one was, or as many of the posts of his I’ve read have been.
And I’m a huge fan of William Manchester (when he’s not writing about Kennedys, where he grows hagiographic); I heartily recommend “Goodbye, Darkness” as one of the best first-person accounts of being a Marine grunt in the Pacific in WWII to all, and his biography of MacArthur, “American Caesar” is outstandingly superb.
“is there a stance Syria’s govt could take w.r.t. religion that would guarantee its citizens never got angry with any Western government over matters of religion/culture ?”
A) There is no free press in Syria; anything printed in the Syrian press or on Syrian radio about this issue is there with the full approval of the Syrian government (although there is considerable travel of Syrians to Lebanon, and to a lesser extent elsewhere in the mideast, and they can get foreign broadcasts if they make an effort and don’t mind risking owning illegal shortwave receivers, so word would slowly get around to one degree or another).
B) Riots don’t take place in Syria, let alone burning down embassies, without government authorization and approval.
“can you can show that the Syrians are carrying out official govt policy?”
This is like asking for a showing that a public demo in Stalin’s Russia was carrying out official government policy. You might want to read up a bit more on Syria, perhaps.
ral: People who feel assaulted by cartoons printed in a foreign newspaper, well, it seems to me there’s a difference.
Von began this thread by saying of people who were holding placards in the street – about the equivalent level of assault to “cartoons printed in a foreign newspaper” These guys are the enemy. They are, to use the old word, evil. You can’t accommodate them.
The newspaper didn’t just “print cartoons”: it commissioned and published cartoons which it knew the Danish Muslim community would be bitterly offended by. The intent was to hurt and upset Muslims. Yes, this really is the direct equivalent of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater – by someone who’s standing well out of the way and intends to watch the resultant chaos and disaster with enjoyment.
Holy crap, who ever thought that Hugh Hewitt of all people, might speak some sense?
There is no free press in Syria
but there is outside of Syria.
Riots don’t take place in Syria, let alone burning down embassies, without government authorization and approval
quite an assertion.
This is like asking for a showing that a public demo in Stalin’s Russia was carrying out official government policy
actually, it’s exactly like asking exactly what i asked.
DaveC: I found Wretchard’s post interesting as a sort of thought exercise, but not as a description of any policy we or Europe has actually pursued. And, as Gary said, the preceding one was worse. (I don’t read him anymore, having stopped seeing the point after about the millionth overwrought and unsubstantiated “we’re in a culture clash and liberals have a secret death wish” post.
Syria is, of course, a secular country. It is also a country that is surrounded by rising fundamentalism, and needs ways to let its citizens vent and feel pious without turning their religion on their own government. (Just as Hamas is probably glad to have a distraction from its present confusion.) This is convenient for a lot of odious people. Yet another reason why I don’t feel inclined to participate.
“The intent was to hurt and upset Muslims.”
Tweet. Mindreading. 10 yards.
Or do you have a cite, Jes, on that “intent”?
I see Von has posted two Updates on this post now. Sometimes I am indeed a seer.
It seems to me most posters here basically agree that a newspaper should have the right to publish offensive images, but also that the cartoons published in this instance really are offensive to Muslim religious sensibilities. The debate seems to be one of emphasis – do you feel more strongly about the right of the newspaper to publish the images, or do you feel more strongly that the decision to publish them was stupid and needlessly provocative?
For the record, my own “visceral reaction” is pretty much the same as Edward’s and Von’s.
ThirdGorchBro: The debate seems to be one of emphasis – do you feel more strongly about the right of the newspaper to publish the images, or do you feel more strongly that the decision to publish them was stupid and needlessly provocative?
The thing is, it wasn’t just an accident that these cartoons offended Muslims. The newspaper that commissioned them and published them did so in full knowledge that pictorial images of Muhammed are offensive to Muslims – that’s why they were commissioned. (Read the wiki entry on the topic.) The newspaper editor (according to a Danish blogger) knew damn well that the cartoons would be felt to be insulting by the Danish Muslim community: the best you can say of him is that he didn’t intend to cause an international incident.
I’m really chomping at the bit about this, because ordinarily, I’d be coming down on the side of freedom of expression. But I’m doubtful that the social framework which supports freedom of expression ought to be used to defend the right of a newspaper to deliberately and intentionally insult a minority group which suffers discrimination. (As is certainly true of Muslims in Denmark.)
None of that excuses violence, but the majority of the protests against this have in fact been peaceful and non-violent.
“Syria is, of course, a secular country.”
I think a formulation along the lines of “it is a country with many secular people and many religious people whose government enforces a great deal of secularism” would be, perhaps, somewhat closer to a better description, but I’ll certainly listen to counter-arguments.
It’s, of course, unsurprising that Baathist political theory has always been secular, nor that the small, largely Alawite, ruling class would desire to enforce a large degree of secularism.
But that doesn’t mean that Syria’s people are grossly more “secular” than Iraq was, either in the years since the beginning of the Iraq-Iran War until Saddam’s fall, or now.
The reason, cleek, that I brought up Saddam’s Iraq is that a) the two countries share the history of Baathist control, albeit under leaders who were strong rivals; and b) plenty of people who never read a word about Iraq before 2002 have continued to erroneously assert, and many still do, that “Iraq was a secular country” under Saddam, which is, shall we say, considerably inaccurate, and most extremely so after late 1980, when Saddam began huge efforts to reconfigure himself as a religious leader and to use Sunni Islam as a rallying point against Shiite Iran, building thousands of Mosques across the land, including the largest in the world, having a Koran inscribed out of what was allegedly his own blood, constantly making Islamic-themed speeches, and so on. Iraqis didn’t magically suddenly become religious only after he was removed from power. And Syrian religious expression is similarly repressed, although I certainly grant that there are plenty of genuine Syrian secularists, just as there are a noticable number of Iraqi secularists (though many are, of course, now fleeing); what the actual numbers are in Syria is impossible to determine, given the semi-totalitarian regime.
I’m a bit unclear on the point of your link, Cleek; have you some examples of actions such as these “An official statement late on Saturday warned that law violators would face ‘the severest punishments'” happening over the Embassy attacks? Are you familiar with, say, Hama?
Phil: for some reason, I couldn’t figure out how to make your italics go away, so in a fit of despair I de-italicized the whole Hewitt quote. I’m sorry to have altered your post in a visible way (as opposed to invisible things like putting in a close italics tag, which I normally assume are fair game, and don’t violate the unwritten law against editing comments that are not in some way beyond the pale.)
I, for one, find myself almost entirely in agreement with Sebastian (assuming a benevolent reading on the content of point 14).
I think, Jes, that a far more relevant analogy would be whether I would feel the same way if someone made a piece of art entitled Piss Christ which consisted of a crucifix in a bottle of urine. Pretty clearly offensive, with the intent to offend. It is possible, however, that the artist actually meant for it to provoke thought of some sort on the nature of blasphemy or freedom of speech, etc.
My response to both is and was the same and is pretty well outlined by Sebastian above. I also think such considerations apply to the Toles cartoon, which, for what it is worth, I didn’t find offensive and did think made a political statement pretty clearly. Then again, my humour is odd and makes me think sights like this (not work appropriate. Links to sex toys in the shape of religious figures) are funny. The fact that I consider myself a devout and practicing Christian only makes them moreso, for what it is worth.
socratic_me: I think, Jes, that a far more relevant analogy would be whether I would feel the same way if someone made a piece of art entitled Piss Christ which consisted of a crucifix in a bottle of urine.
No, not really. Piss Christ was not, in fact, blasphemous in the same core way as desecrating the Host would be – or as publishing images of Mohammed is.
I’m a bit unclear on the point of your link, Cleek;
you flatly stated that demonstrations do not happen in Sryia without government approval. i linked to one that apparently did not. so, and as i suspected, the citizens of Syria are capable of doing things without government sanction. and that’s why i doubt that Syria’s government’s policy towards religion has all that much to do with today’s riots.
still, if we learn tomorrow that the Syrian govt did encourage the riots, i won’t be dismayed that i came to the wrong conclusion – though the govt of Syria might be dismayed at the consequences of being caught encouraging an act of aggression against Denmark and Norway.
have you some examples of actions such as these “An official statement late on Saturday warned that law violators would face ‘the severest punishments'” happening over the Embassy attacks?
today we don’t. that doesn’t mean we never will.
hilzoy, I’m just glad you fixed it! I feared for a moment that I had broken ObWi.
socratic me: power to you. As someone who had a sense of humor when I was a devout Christian, I’ve always felt that there were too few of us. Odd, since I think that one of the things one could learn about God by surveying His creation was that He had an excellent, if somewhat dark and mordant, sense of humor.
Phil: ObWi is hard to break. We have secret inner stores of resilience.
Wow, I can’t recall ever being on the same side of an issue as Hewitt before. Nice post by him, though.
Look upthread, or possibly in your own paste buffer.
“Look upthread, or possibly in your own paste buffer.”
Thank you for the link. My own paste buffer has long since moved on to dozens of other things. And I made various links “updthread.”
“still, if we learn tomorrow that the Syrian govt did encourage the riots”
I have no idea if they did, or if they merely didn’t discourage them. But I am aware of no information, as yet, suggesting that they didn’t discourage them, and it’s certainly not as if you can gather and hold a riot in Syria that catches the Syrian government unawares, or unable to prevent it. Particularly not when they had at least a couple of day’s notice (via what’s going on in Islamic countries around the world) of what sentiments were.
“today we don’t. that doesn’t mean we never will.”
Certainly.
“though the govt of Syria might be dismayed at the consequences of being caught encouraging an act of aggression against Denmark and Norway.”
Unless evidence turns up that the government was busing people in, or something similarly blatant — which is certainly possible, but hardly necessary, and thus not my first assumption — I don’t think it’s likely the EU is going to ratchet up pressure on Syria any further than it already is over Hariri and the aftermath. Moreover, the EU is rather busy dealing with the rest of the Islamic world, and hardly is apt to seek further confrontation. So I doubt, though I could be wrong, that this will wind up being a factor or that there will be “consequences.”
Unless of course, it disparages Americans. That would probably be acceptable.
The “insult” in question, as you seem to define it, comes by means of not observing a prohibition in religious law. This is not an acceptable standard to hold a free society to. The minority and/or discriminatory position of the religion in question is completely moot.
Windle: Unless of course, it disparages Americans.
Which country were you thinking of where Americans are a minority group that suffer discrimination?
Jonas: The “insult” in question, as you seem to define it, comes by means of not observing a prohibition in religious law. This is not an acceptable standard to hold a free society to.
You know, while I really don’t want to threadjack this into yet another abortion debate, or same-sex marriage debate, or, you know, any of the other debates on whether the religious right should be able to impose their beliefs on US law, I have to admit: I like this quote, and I trust you mean to apply it to the Bush administration as well as to groups of protesting Muslims across the world. 🙂
Read Akram’s Blog.
You know, this blog, which has developed its own character in part because the bloggers who run it will ban anyone of any political persuasion who is gratuitously rude/offensive to anyone else, is an odd place to find a post aggressively defending the right to be gratuitously offensive, and aggressively attacking the right to be offended at such rudeness.
You trust is not misplaced, Jes, that’s precisely what I had in mind. 🙂
Windle: “Unless of course, it disparages Americans. That would probably be acceptable.”
If I hadn’t already declared my distaste for pointless and predictable clashes of stereotypes, I suppose that now would be the moment to trot out some tired old utterly false cliche about the right, and apply it to Windle. But for some reason I can’t be bothered.
“You know, while I really don’t want to threadjack this into yet another abortion debate, or same-sex marriage debate, or, you know, any of the other debates on whether the religious right should be able to impose their beliefs on US law”
I think there might be some minor distinction to be found between say voting your idea of morality into place and burning down embassies and threatening to kidnap and murder Danes to try to get your idea of morality into place.
I dealt with the question upthread here and we talked at length about religious beliefs and law in the comments here.
You can’t just logically suggest that one group wants its ideas to be enacted by governments and so does another group so they are all effectively the same. There really is a difference between the KKK and NAACP.
“If I hadn’t already declared my distaste for pointless and predictable clashes of stereotypes”
So you really think this is a false cliche about Jesurgislac? I think my comment is a very accurate description of how Jesurgislac would feel if it was related to Americans.
Would you care to make a wager about the next time America does anything that Jesurgislac will be on the opposign side regardless of the cirumstances?
It’s good to know who is on the other side. It’s good to know who is not for America, but consistently opposed. Identifying those is not a cliche, but a responsiblity.
>Windle: “Unless of course, it disparages Americans. That would probably be acceptable.”< I thought (as I've just said elsewhere) that probably the US Govt should, given the First Amendment, not have said this. Jack Straw's comments otoh were, given our laws, OK.
OTOH
It’s good to know who is on the other side. It’s good to know who is not for America, but consistently opposed. Identifying those is not a cliche, but a responsiblity.
Oh come on Windle! Maybe you should tell the FBI and MI5?
Would you care to make a wager about the next time America does anything that Jesurgislac will be on the opposign side regardless of the cirumstances?
Oooh, can I take that wager? 😀 When’s NASA’s next launch?
Sebastian: I think there might be some minor distinction to be found between say voting your idea of morality into place and burning down embassies and threatening to kidnap and murder Danes to try to get your idea of morality into place.
Just as there’s some minor distinction to be found between, say, Islamic countries boycotting Danish products and Muslims assembling to protest peacefully, and publishing a list like the Nuremburg Files or even actually murdering doctors who carry out abortions. There are, as you yourself pointed out, valid and invalid ways of trying to protest what you see as immoral. There are violent extremists in all faiths.
“Would you care to make a wager about the next time America does anything that Jesurgislac will be on the opposign side regardless of the cirumstances?”
Anything? Yeah, I’d take that bet.
Oh, look, America just just did something. U.S. Moves to Seize Bankrupt Steel Maker’s Pension Plan.
Jes didn’t post.
I win.
Helps to define your terms. But you said “anything.”
This is too easy.
If I may derail slightly for one moment, this does remind me of a fairly bizarre anecdote relating to westerners – inadvertantly – not being culturally sensitive to a religion.
Stu Roosa is a NASA astronaut who went to the moon. He and his wife visited Nepal in 1975:
“There are violent extremists in all faiths.”
Yes there are. But that is not the same as saying that each faith has equal numbers of violent extremists. Nor is it saying that all violent extremists are equally violent. The really violent extremists in the abortion field have tended to attack doctors and abortion clinics. They have not tended to say burn down (with tacit government permission) the embassy of a country with an independent paper which independently published mildly offensive non-idolatric cartoons. The Muslim extremists we are talking about right now not only have the inappropriate overreaction of Christian anti-abortion bombers, they also have a completely misdirected sense of where to direct their anger. The only exception to that would be Eric Rudolph who is so far as I can tell a solitary exception, rather than the large numbers of mobs spread across the world.
The difference is in the numbers and the intensity. There are breathing members of most faiths. That doesn’t make it an interesting observation.
Another development.
Just for the hell of it, a Simon Jenkins column for you to disagree with, Sebastian.
The really violent extremists in the abortion field have tended to attack doctors and abortion clinics. They have not tended to say burn down (with tacit government permission) the embassy of a country with an independent paper which independently published mildly offensive non-idolatric cartoons.
Actually, I would say that the really successful violent extremists in the abortion field have tended to, say, inflict horrifying suffering on women in Ghana. Why bother burning down an embassy, when you can destroy the lives of so many women in so many countries by a global gag rule?
However, my point is still the same: it’s unjust and foolish to make comparisons between people who shoot doctors with people who assemble for peaceful protest, and claim that therefore anti-choicers are more violent than anti-blasphemers: it is unjust and foolish to make comparisons between a mob that burns down an embassy and a mob assembled outside a clinic to harass women going in; it is unjust and foolish generally to claim that some faiths have more violent extremists than other faiths – especially when you look at the current Bush administration and their record of unjust war and so many dead.
From the Simon Jenkins article:
“It is plain dumb to claim such blasphemy as just a joke concordant with the western way of life. Better claim it as intentionally savage, since that was how it was bound to seem.”
If it were blasphemy about Christianity it would win awards. And it wouldn’t cause riots. And it wouldn’t have triggered the torching of the Danish embassy.
“It is clearly hard for westerners to comprehend the dismay these gestures cause Muslims. The question is not whether Muslims should or should not “grow up” or respect freedom of speech. It is whether we truly want to share a world in peace with those who have values and religious beliefs different from our own.”
That isn’t sharing. That is letting the irrational beliefs of some Muslims dictate what we can write about. And if we let them dictate what we can write about, they will never grow up and respect freedom of speech.
“The traditional balance between free speech and respect for the feelings of others is evidently becoming harder to sustain. The resulting turbulence can only feed the propaganda of the right to attack or expel immigrants and those of alien culture.”
No. This is exactly the same balance between free speech and respect for the feelings of others that created “Piss Christ”. The balance has been struck before. The question is whether or not we should give in to demands to strike a new balance with extra special care taken to the sensibilities of certain militant Muslims. If a British commentator was saying this about being sensitive to Christian fundamentalists in the US, he would be laughed at. In the US, it seems to be considered shocking that some people might protest the government funding of such blasphemous art. Having similar people suddenly wake up to the fact that blasphemous art can offend is kind of silly. Either blasphemous art is allowable or it is not. You can’t have a rule that blasphemous art is allowable except when it blasphemes Muslims. Or rather you can, but I don’t want to live there.
“The best defence of free speech can only be to curb its excess and respect its courtesy.”
The problem here is that by the standards of secular interaction with religion in the West, these cartoons were practically banal and certainly not a special excess beyond the bounds of that seen and dealt with by other religions on a daily basis.
“…it is unjust and foolish generally to claim that some faiths have more violent extremists than other faiths….”
That one’s trickier. Most Westerners don’t realize how commonplace Buddhist monk brawling and violence is, but on the other hand, how many violent extremist Bahai’s are there, actually? Proportionally, even?
I wouldn’t venture to offer numbers or estimates of violent-extremists-per-religion, but I’m not clear on what basis a claim that numerical distinctions are impossible and can’t exist — which may not be your claim, but which this sounds awfully close to, although perhaps that’s simply out of lack of clarity – would rest.
“However, my point is still the same: it’s unjust and foolish to make comparisons between people who shoot doctors with people who assemble for peaceful protest, and claim that therefore anti-choicers are more violent than anti-blasphemers: it is unjust and foolish to make comparisons between a mob that burns down an embassy and a mob assembled outside a clinic to harass women going in; it is unjust and foolish generally to claim that some faiths have more violent extremists than other faiths”
Wrong on every count. Numbers matter. One crazy B’Hai extremist wouldn’t be the same as ten violent Christian anti-abortion demonstrators isn’t the same as multiple mobs of people combined with large organized terrorist factions threatening people and burning down unrelated embassies over cartoons.
I’m not lumping together the peaceful and the non-peaceful Muslim anti-idolators.
I’m noting that the number of non-peaceful Muslim anti-idolators is disturbingly large and noticeably larger than the two handfuls of violent anti-abortion demonstrators. You put together all of the violent anti-abortion demonstrators in the US and you won’t even get a large enough number to be noticeable in the mobs that burned the embassies. Add in the Indonesian radicals and the various Palestinian terrorist groups which have jumped on the bandwagon, and you have a noticeable number of people.
Also, noticeably larger.
Also, noticeably angrier.
“it is unjust and foolish to make comparisons between a mob that burns down an embassy and a mob assembled outside a clinic to harass women going in”
You got that right, but I wonder if you know which way the < points in that less-than-greater-than equation.
Heh, Gary thought of the violent B’hai too.
Utterly cheap shot warning!
I’m not going to bother linking — you can find it yourself, if you like — and I’m only quoting the headline, via Memeorandum, without bothering to read the text, but here’s the Malkin headline/header:
My response: AND PICK ME UP A BLUEBERRY MUFFIN WHILE YOU’RE TAKING ORDERS!
Okay, done now. Thank you for indulging me.
“Heh, Gary thought of the violent B’hai too.”
Yeah, but I spelled it right. 🙂
I pretty much agree with you on this, Sebastian. There happen to be a significant number of Moslem violent extremists quite enthused about at least making death threats in the world today, and they certainly seem to clearly outnumber their equivalents in other religions, both numerically and proportionally, as do the number of Muslim suicide bombers. They remain a minority of Muslims in every country in the world, so far as I’m aware, and it’s tragic for them that this is true, and various things should always be acknowledged when discussing this, I think, such as their minority status, the stance of the majority, and so forth, but pretending this isn’t so isn’t helpful, and acknowledging it isn’t bigotry. (The existence of the fact is, of course, used by anti-Islamic bigots, but that’s another thing.)
This is just an observation, but we had this thread where (in my reading) it was complained that the idea of ignoring religious justifications for laws was a problem. It is in the type of event discussed here that we can see a reason why a lot of people think it would far better to keep religious justifications and laws separate.
(lest I be accused of trying to draw some parallels between the protest that von references and any other group that may seek to incorporate its religious beliefs into the US legal code, I am not, I am just trying to suggest that it is the fact that religion can be such a potent catalyst that some want to separate it completely)
Sebastian: If it were blasphemy about Christianity it would win awards.
Please find me, thank you, an example of someone desecrating the Host as an art form and winning awards for it.
Incidently, the result of googling for “violent Baha’i” is this: “No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.”
“Baha’i” and “violence” seems to only turn up reports of violence against Baha’i.
Sebastian: You put together all of the violent anti-abortion demonstrators in the US and you won’t even get a large enough number to be noticeable in the mobs that burned the embassies.
You put together number of people killed by these anti-cartoon protests, and you won’t even get a large enough number to be noticeable in the pile of bodies killed by Bush re-instituting the global gag rule.
I’m not sure if it was clear to folks unfamiliar with either the Times of London, or British newspapers, by the way, that it’s a moderately conservative newspaper and Simon Jenkins is a Conservative.
Here’s another Conservative POV from the paper known as the “Torygraph,” the primary broadsheet (redundantly: non-tabloid) Conservative British paper:
And so on. One might or might not want to read the rest, as they say.
“But I am a bit confused about why someone like Qaradawi thinks it is insulting to show the Prophet’s turban turned into a bomb, as one of the cartoons does. He never stops telling us that Islam commands its followers to blow other people up.”
I should note that I this is a fairly stupid question that strings together two easily separable points.
I’m not presenting any of these links or quotes, it should be clear, as support for any of my own notions. I’m just pointing to some opinions in the debate. We could also look at the Boston Globe tut-tutting as yet another.
Jesu,
and you won’t even get a large enough number to be noticeable in the pile of bodies killed by Bush re-instituting the global gag rule.
wahahhaa! So I do my obligatory search for “Bush” on a post that has nothing to do with him, and what do ya know! I find like 3-4 references to him in the comments section, and they are all from you. Pretty frigging sweet!
And how about em’ zionists…
Hilzoy,
Jes says:
Seems Jesurgislac is working to make my points for me.
She has managed to work some Bush hatred into the thread. She has made up something called the global gag rule as she posts whatever crap to the Internet she wants.
Let’s not be afraid to call a spade a spade.
“…She has made up something called the global gag rule….”
Without addressing any of Jesurgislac’s other points, you really might want to learn to use Google, and check your facts before posting.
You do present a good imitation of a leftist out to make rightwingers look, um, less impressive than some actually are by pretending to be one.
Between Stan LS and Windle, were I on the right, I’d be pretty darned embarassed.
It might be noticed that I don’t make these points out of my undying love for Jesurgislac.
I don’t think that’s the case, but you might consider the advantages of not machine-gunning yourself in the lower extremities quite so consistently.
Although it’s always good to have a little comedy on offer.
Gary got to the laugh fest before I did. If only the global gag rule were what my little brother used to call a fig of the imagination.
Wow, ta know this thread is long enough for me to play. I don’t deny that I am attracted to a fairly strong version of Islam that may not exist, or be practiced by only a minority of the faithful. But as I said above, the prohibition against idolatry seems almost a commanded nominalism, and has a usefulness in understanding the cultures.
Matt Yglesias, that famous nominalist, once said that freedom has only a utilitarian or cosequentialist value, and no intrinsic value. It could possibly be the case that Muslims don’t quite understand the pure Platonic demi-god “FREEDOM of SPEECH” that our Idealist West worships. Maybe they say well sometimes good, sometimes bad, it all depends, and each specific case and circumstance should be judged separately because there are other values also important. Of course, that would be a barbaric position, incomprehensible and destructive of everything of value in the world. Or not.
In any case, I have obtained three books on Islamic Philosophy, including one discussing Greek influence, and may even read them before I decide that Islamic pragmatic nominalism is the inferior system.
It depends what sort of freedom Matt was talking about, I guess, but he’s surely wrong about freedom of the will and (more debatably) free speech.
Uhh, hilzoy, I think a nominalist would have some difficulty talking about the freedom of the will. For instance I am not sure it would make any sense to say it would be a good thing to exist. It does or it does not;if it does exist, we would have no choice but to exercise it, etc.
As far as free speech, if we abandon principle and idolatry for pragmatics, we would ask the very specific question as to whether publishing these cartoons provide so much benefit to all that the offense to some is justified. We would not quake in terror that a decision in this case would establish precedents and principles applicable to all cases.
Freedom of speech (freedom of expression) is not Platonic, granted out of some benevolent, non-utilitarian whim.
Most of us can make a distinction between protests (including angry, shouting, fist-shaking, flag-burning protests) and mob violence, incitement to murder, and burning down buildings.
Why? Is it only because the angry-but-not-violent protest is more decorous, less destructive; more (god help me) “politically correct”?
No. It’s because protests enable people who are otherwise not being heard, or not being heeded, to express their grievances in a way that does get attention. And the very utilitarian reason for this is to alert The Powers That Be of an issue that enough people feel strongly about to mandate it’s being taken up in serious fashion – if TPTB are at all serious about good governance, and truly want to know what’s bothering people so they can fix it somehow before the issue festers into large scale alienation, violence, and insurrection.
Large scale protests are a plea, and a warning. They’re a signal that the normative political process is breaking down. They’re also part of an implicit contract between citizens and TPTB: the citizens march and protest and chant, but do not murder anyone or blow anything up; and TPTB in return take the trouble to find out what the protest is about and, if there are legitimate grievances, fix them.
The protests over the cartoons are entirely outside that model. They short-circuited it by leaping immediately to violence, threats of murder, and demands for the blood of the cartoonists, editors, etc.
This is not a trivial distinction, because it gives the people who committed the offense which triggered the protests no bargaining room, and no incentive to address the issue in normative, legitimate ways.
That’s why the apologies rankle. They didn’t arise from a mutual exchange of views; they didn’t reflect an actual awakening on the part of the people who issued them; they were, simply, coerced out of people by using violence to scare them.
And that’s a victory of force, with no meaning beyond the fact of the coercion itself. It led to no greater understanding, no greater comity, no bridge between the opposing sides.
Ya know, human judgement and the process of consensus is a wonderful thing. The Canadians and British and other European nations have codified limits upon speech without descending into total repression. They actually claim to be able to distinguish between Nazis and Conservatives without a meta-rule and as far as I can tell seem to be tolerably functional.
Good Grief, I just remembered arguing this before, as a proxy for Paul Cella.
I wrote the 1:47 before reading CaseyL’s
Ummm…
“Who do you need to publish the cartoons?”
“Because you say we can’t. No other reason.”
“Is that a good reason, and you say I should not take offense?”
“No, take offense. That is why we published them, to offend you. To show that we can and that we will.”
“Right. Ok, now I will accept you as a partner in discussion, based on your lack of sensitivity and good will.”
Note that I have no particular interest in discussing or defending the protestors, those who threaten, or the violent. Nor do I justify their behavior in any way. It actually disgusts me to have to say it in the context of von’s full blown hate post, written for no reason but to provoke and incite. The “exercise of free speech” is not in itself a justification for anything. There should be another purpose, and it is clear that purpose was not admirable.
Here’s one thing I haven’t seen clarified yet: what do you mean by “enemy”, in this context?
If threats of violence are made, or even carried out, by an angry mob, what does it mean to label them as “enemies”? Enemies of what? And what should be done?
It seems to me that this is a law enforcement issue — mobs are protesting, rioting, making threats and and causing property damage. None of which is to be excused, and anyone breaking any local laws should be apprehended and charged.
But I’m wondering where your rhetoric of “enemies” will logically lead, and just how widely you are applying the term. To me, “enemy” means “one who should be captured or killed on sight”, that pre-emptive strikes against such “enemies” are justified, that there is a whole class of people whose existence we are morally bound to extinguish.
Is this what you mean when you label these Muslims in particular as “enemies”? Or are they merely criminals?
That isn’t sharing. That is letting the irrational beliefs of some Muslims dictate what we can write about. And if we let them dictate what we can write about, they will never grow up and respect freedom of speech.
I am sorely tempted here to cause a diversion by revisiting the spectacle of bluenosed busybodies across the country petitioning the FCC to impose record-breaking financial penalties on CBS for allowing a boob to appear on their broadcast, but I won’t. See also Stern, Howard. Nevertheless, keep it in mind.
Seems Jesurgislac is working to make my points for me.
She has managed to work some Bush hatred into the thread.
Oooh, I’m sorry: Your original wager was concerning Jesurgislac criticizing whatever America does. America. George W. Bush, fortunately or unfortunately, is not “America,” despite the fevered dreams of some slavish few.
She has made up something called the global gag rule as she posts whatever crap to the Internet she wants.
At the risk of being impolite, are you retarded? Do you not understand that the gag rule refers to something very specific?
Well if she would have said Global Gag rule that might have stood out late at night, but god forbid someone make a mistake in a quick post.
Typical that noone here has a problem with her accusing Bush of being a killer. It’s no surprise that those on the other side would remain silent about comments like that.
This morning another embassy was burned by those who Jesurgislac supports.
Hurrah!
Phil,
Bush does represent America. We voted an he won hands down.
Although, Phil: posting rules warning. Just because someone has it coming…you know the rest.
Between Stan LS and Windle, were I on the right, I’d be pretty darned embarassed.
Hey, Garry. Given birth to any more strawmen, lately?
Jes,
Just as there’s some minor distinction to be found between, say, Islamic countries boycotting Danish products and Muslims assembling to protest peacefully, and publishing a list like the Nuremburg Files or even actually murdering doctors who carry out abortions.
But by your logic, promoting abortions while knowing that some think its murder is like screaming “Fire!” in a crowded theater, right?
Hey, next time some skinheads kill gays, I am sure to check your posts to see you claim that gays baited the skinheads by promoting their lifestyle in the media and by pushing for the same sex marriage.
Yelling “Fire!”, huh?
There’s something odd going on with Typepad’s time-tagging, as I’m sure everyone has noticed by now. I’ll keep an eye on it and if it persists, I’ll submit a trouble ticket.
Wow. Thank you, Hilzoy, Gary, and Phil, for responding to Windle so I don’t have to.
Phil,
I am sorely tempted here to cause a diversion by revisiting the spectacle of bluenosed busybodies across the country petitioning the FCC to impose record-breaking financial penalties on CBS for allowing a boob to appear on their broadcast, but I won’t. See also Stern, Howard. Nevertheless, keep it in mind.
Ah. “petitioning” a gov’t agency is now the same as violent rioting and threats of death. Got it.
“I am sorely tempted here to cause a diversion by revisiting the spectacle of bluenosed busybodies across the country petitioning the FCC to impose record-breaking financial penalties on CBS for allowing a boob to appear on their broadcast, but I won’t. See also Stern, Howard. Nevertheless, keep it in mind.”
Is it really so difficult to understand that petitioning is different from burning down an embassy? Is it really so difficult to understand that generally expressing displeasure with a newspaper is different from subjecting every Danish person in the Middle East to kidnapping and death threats?
By the way, a third embassy has been burned. I think that officially makes it a pattern.
“Bush does represent America. We voted an he won hands down.
Just curious: when Bill Clinton was President, you were using these same words, right?
If a Democratic President is elected in 2008, or 2012, or 2016, even President Hillary Clinton, or whomever your most nightmare Democratic President would be, you’ll be using these same words, right?
Gary,
…or whomever your most nightmare Democratic President would be, you’ll be using these same words, right?
Nah, he’ll just call their supporters the “slavish few”.
Oh, wait… That was Phil’s term for Bush supporters.
See, tu quoque doesn’t even accomplish its feeble effects if what you say doesn’t make sense (also: helps to spell your interlocuter’s name correctly).
No, no, don’t thank me for my advice! It’s just no fun and not even a duel of wits when you come to the field not even a quarter-armed. Let’s get you trained up! But, first, pull the feet out of your mouth, and treat the self-inflicted wounds. Here, let’s wipe the blood off, get that bandaged, and get you cleaned up.
Then we’ll start on some rounds of logic and fallacies, and exercising those muscles.
In six months, we’ll have you up and running, and can start Rhetoric 101. We’ll have you able to enter the field of debate in no time!
A “straw man” is to offer a substitute argument of your own choosing, to be easily refuted, rather than to address the argument of your opponent.
“Between Stan LS and Windle, were I on the right, I’d be pretty darned embarassed.”
No straw man there, alas. You are (you say) on the right; you are embarassing as examples of the right. The first is your own assertion, and the second’s just an assertion of my subjective opinion. Whoops! That this is an example of a subjective opinion of mine, and not, in fact, a presentation of an argument of yours is a fact. Oopsie! No straw man!
“Straw man” is a specific and defined fallacy. It does not mean “waah, anything the mean man said!”
First lesson: study these. Learn them. Don’t use them. Learn to spot them.
There will be a quiz. Best of luck to you! I look forward to the day you and Windle work up to being at least half-armed in a duel of wits. Better yet if you can get to the point of fully armed, and start helping whatever cause you then think best deserves defending.
Fortunately for your “side,” ObWings has Slart, and Sebastian, and even Charles, to demonstrate that conservatives aren’t always so, ah, unimpressive.
Best of luck to you with your studies! No, no, don’t thank me so much! I’m just here to help.
“This morning another embassy was burned by those who Jesurgislac supports.”
Now, unless Jesurgislac has actually made a statement saying she supports embassy burnings, this is a “straw man” argument. Hope this helps!
Hint: the primary reason making a straw man argument is bad is that it is dishonest if done knowingly, and if it is not done knowingly, it indicates that the maker of the straw man argument is not able to understand the distinction between the actual argument made, and the re-stated falsified version.
Feel free to distinguish for us which was the proper cause here.
Bonus point: the reason it’s good to use “logic” and not “fallacies” in your attempts at argument and debate is that you can use “logic” to make “valid points” and “win” the argument. In the end, you can actually persuade people you are correct that way!
Use of fallacies, on the other hand: different result.
“By the way, a third embassy has been burned. I think that officially makes it a pattern.”
The Danish and Swedish embassies in Damascus are in the same building, according to various reports. (It also houses the Chilean Embassy.) (The Norwegion embassy is reportedly 6 kilometers away, though, so if it’s the same people, they had a nice hike, or used cars/whatever; it may not have been the same individuals, though; gotta spread the fun around!)
However, the Danish embassy in Beirut has also been torched, according to multiple reports.
So, yes, one could call embassy burning a “pattern” at this point. I hope people at least brought marshmallows. Be a shame to waste a good fire.
Yes, Gary, I’m sure they’ve noticed that Republicans nowadays never win arguments through use of fallacious logic.
Of course, it depends on what the meaning of “win” is.
Nah, he’ll just call their supporters the “slavish few”.
Oh, wait… That was Phil’s term for Bush supporters.
Well, no, it wasn’t but I don’t expect reading comprehension from the likes of you. I’ll just stick you in the “retarded” pile with Windle. Or, you can read it again, see if you can figure out what I actually said, and go from there.
Ah. “petitioning” a gov’t agency is now the same as violent rioting and threats of death. Got it.
I didn’t say that, either. Boy, you really are . . . OK, you need to learn how to goddamned read, and how to discern meaning from context. It was a riposte to the concept, advanced by Sebastian, that our culture does not [let] the irrational beliefs of [religious groups] dictate what we can write about. We already do that; the question is, which groups are we going to listen to, and how far are we going to let it go?
I’m sure you’ll reply to this with another SCINTILLATING strawman and tu quoque, so save yourself the energy and pretend you already did.
Bush does represent America.
That’s nice. He doesn’t equal America.
Sebastian, as to this: Is it really so difficult to understand that petitioning is different from burning down an embassy?
. . . I know you’re not as into deliberate, willfull, belligerent misunderstanding and strawmanism as Stan and Windle are, so I’m going to assume you missed the context, and repeat it:
It was a riposte to the concept, advanced by Sebastian, that our culture does not [let] the irrational beliefs of [religious groups] dictate what we can write about. We already do that; the question is, which groups are we going to listen to, and how far are we going to let it go?
Belated response to this, in case Typepad is alive:
“Who do you need to publish the cartoons?”
“Because you say we can’t using the threat of violence, and it’s important for people in a free society to refuse to knuckle under to fundamentalism and censorship. And also because it’s important for this country to begin to think seriously about how to maintain the right of free expression when growing numbers of citizens oppose it, and for moderate Muslims to make their voices heard on these issues and help the Western majority and the fundamentalist minority learn to coexist fruitfully.”
“it is clear that purpose was not admirable”
Maybe it’s clear to you. It’s clear to me you’re wrong. Your reliance on straw-man arguments here is a factor in that.
Gary,
No straw man there, alas.
Nope, not there. I was referring to the Hamas post. Should’ve made it clear.
I haven’t a comment yet, but this piece in the Telegraph is spot on, at least to me. Quote:
It seems that many of the protesters are not just dissenting, but trying to impose religious supremacy on the people around. Nobody should accept that double standard.
The other issue that strikes me is that Muslims are not supposed to produce images of Muhammed because they want no semblance of idolatry. Non-Muslims are not be bound by such a contract. We don’t produce images out of general courtesy, but we should be in no way forbidden from producing such, and Muslims worldwide should be mature enough to handle it if non-Muslims do.
Phil,
. . . I know you’re not as into deliberate, willfull, belligerent misunderstanding and strawmanism as Stan and Windle are,
Mmmm. divide and conquer.
We already do that; the question is, which groups are we going to listen to, and how far are we going to let it go?
Ah! So death threats are made to get the public to listen to your point of you, not to intimidate? Must be fascinating being you.
Rilkefan quoting Bob McManus:
I’m not entirely sure, since Bob is sometimes rather vague, but I tentatively read him as specifically referring to Jyllands-Posten, and the specific history of their publication of the cartoons in question (in October, 2005).
I have never seen a copy, and haven’t read the newspaper, but I’ve read a moderate amount about the newspaper by now, from a variety of points of view.
Assuming that my tentative and perhaps wrong reading of Bob as referring specifically to that publication, and their intent, is correct, arguendo, I’d ask if you were also at least slightly familiar with that newspaper, the issues surrounding it, and the specific circumstances of their original publication of the cartoons, and the political context in Norwegian politics that the paper holds, and in the context of Muslim/Norwegian relations presently in play in Norway, rilkefan, which I, at least, think would be a necessary background towards being “clear” about what was going on.
“Maybe it’s clear to you. It’s clear to me you’re wrong.”
I think I have some small grasp of said background; I’m not “clear” either way that I fully understand all the implications and “purpose[s]” going on. This is because the relevant “purpose” was that of the owner and editors of Jyllands-Posten and not the many purposes of everyone else who have since come along and added their own purposes on top.
You may have far greater knowledge and understanding of the background here than I, of course, and given your grasp of languages, that’s quite likely. It might be useful if you’d clarify that, though. Certainly I’d be far more inclined to understand that you are correct than if you simply assert to Bob that “It’s clear to me you’re wrong” (just as Bob hasn’t convinced me of anything, either, via the Power Of Assertion in “The ‘exercise of free speech’ is not in itself a justification for anything. There should be another purpose, and it is clear that purpose was not admirable.”)
Not that either of you are obligated to convince me, of course. But, as a rule, clear-thinking people aren’t convinced of anything by simple assertion, although sometimes the Argument From Authority works.
As ever, Just My Opinion.
Gary, the discussion on BAGnewsNotes is illuminating — some context and translations are provided.
One of the cartoons specifically refers to a PR stunt.
By the way, “Danish”, not “Norwegian,” yes?
Yawn.
Bye, Stan. Come back to me when you’re, you know, smarter.
Hey, cleek, you still reading?
This:
StanLS says: “Mmmm. divide and conquer.”
I’m entirely content to let Charles, Sebastian, and Slart, speak up to say what they think of you and Windle’s comments, how they’d characterize your approach, and which of you two folks’s comments they do and do not agree with. Perhaps they agree with your implication that you all stand undivided; perhaps not. Perhaps they’d prefer not to address the issue and perhaps they’d prefer that you not have put them on the spot. But you have, so we’ll just have to wait and see.
StanLS again, responding to Phil:
See, since Phil in no way said what you claim he said, there’s another example of a proper “straw man.”
Again, the question is which of the two possible explanations for using a straw man argument applies.
Yes. Slip of the braino; sorry.
Links ‘R Good, by the way; I take it you’re referring to an entry here somewhere.
As always, to know how to embed a link, and do other tags, see here. For linking, scroll down to “Link Something.” If all else fails, there’s always just cutting and pasting a URL, though it’s preferable to embed a link, and simple as can be. I’m an HTML illiterate, myself, who has yet to understand even tables.
Oh, I linked to it above (twice) Sorry, with you I just assume you’ve already read everything.
What’s missing in this thread so far — and I should have brought it up sooner, but mostly I’ve just been either being reactive, or presenting some links to bits of news and various views — is the extent to which this issue is what almost all externally-directed acts are, which is that they are almost always generated for domestic reasons.
In other words, a large part of what is going on is that normal Islamic feeling and belief is being manipulated by Islamic extremists (the Muslim Brotherhood in its various national manifestations) as a weapon in their war against against their rulers. See here for elaboration of this thesis, if you care to.
Ral: “Sorry, with you I just assume you’ve already read everything.”
Not an altogether unfair assumption, though certainly not always correct.
Remembering what was said where and when, however, is not one of my strengths. 🙂
(It’s a negative side-effect of reading very fast and from multiple sources, flipping back and forth between — it’s 10 open tabs just this moment, and I try to keep it under 14, preferably down to only 7-8, or better, only 6, but I rarely succeed — and doing that for most of the day.)
“Maybe it’s clear to you. It’s clear to me you’re wrong.”
Gary, there were three intended meanings. One was the Gary-meaning: “It’s clear to me that it’s not clear.” One was the snark-meaning: “you say X, but I can equally well say not-X, so there” – e.g., he was begging the question. Then there was my actual opinion, based on what I’ve read [none of it in north-of-Germany tongues] and my sense of human nature, that it’s reasonably clear that what I described was going on. (The extent to which other stuff was going on – e.g., a desire to poke a stick in the eye of fundamentalism – is not clear to me, but that’s not relevant to the discussion, given bob‘s absolutist stance.)
I’d consider posting in a different font when I write things likely to throw you, but I don’t have a clear sense of what that is (as opposed to stuff you’d just disagree with, or …), and I’d probably just end up writing entirely in rilkefont.
Interesting diary at Kos, incidentally supporting my view of events.
Slightly amusing in view of this.
Atrios favors the poking-with-a-stick view. I’m inclined at the moment to think he’s an idiot given his recent statement that “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare just like appendectomies” is a good stance (and I could go on and on about “icky”), but jftr.
A not-entirely-tangential, but amusing, account of how the Conservatives and LibDems managed to defeat Labour in the House of Commons vote to defeat the Lords’ modifications to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill last week came from an idea from an episode of West Wing, by the way.
“the Power Of Assertion in “The ‘exercise of free speech’ is not in itself a justification”
Gary your standards would lead to long comment threads. It was not an argument from Assertion or Authority but an exercise in logic based on common understanding of the meaning of words.
To repeat the quote:”The ‘exercise of free speech’ is not in itself a justification for anything. There should be another purpose, and it is clear that purpose was not admirable.”
1)Can one “exercise free speech” that is contentless free speech? Even doo-wop, skat, dada-esque nonsense syllables, waving hands in the air, will express some kind of meaning and intention, if only at the extreme an intent to express nonsense.
If you wish to argue that a content or intention free speech is common and we may not presume an intent even exists in speech acts, do it with someone else.
2) So “I am going to exercise my freedom of speech” is not a full or complete explanation of any speech-act. There is a difference between yelling “Bluebird!” in a crowded theater and yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and tho both might expressions of FOS, the difference between the two is more important than their similarity.
3) So exercising FOS or expressing solidarity with other papers or not surrendering to pressure only deals with the act of publishing and not the content of what was published. Even if someone found the cartoons funny, it would be humour at the expense of others most basic values. The intent was to offend and hurt, and I gave seen no evidence that the particular content was chosen with ignorance or innocence that the content would offend and hurt. Please provide some if you have it.
And all this was said more succinctly in my previous content. Gary, someone who responds to “The Sky is blue” with “Not on the other side of the world” is not really advancing the conversation or discussion, but is just tiresome.
speech-act
rilkefan, did you notice the mis-punctuated abbreviation at the end “(s.a..w)”?
Irony is not dead.
(It’s a negative side-effect of reading very fast and from multiple sources, flipping back and forth between — it’s 10 open tabs just this moment, and I try to keep it under 14, preferably down to only 7-8, or better, only 6, but I rarely succeed — and doing that for most of the day.)
Interestingly, I’ve found that if I open 20+ tabs in a Firefox window, I can’t close it directly without crashing Firefox. The only way to rid myself of the sucker is to close each tab individually until I’m into the safe zone (~15 tabs).
Also: comity, folks. Not that I’m one to be talking.
Does anyone here have a inkling of where at least part of the offence resides? Someone can call me short, and the degree to which I take humbrage depends largely on the degree to which offense is intended. Yes there may be many images of Muhammed on display in the West, but were those images created with the intent to offend? And have those many images created such a response? Rilkefan says these cartoons did not have the intent to offend.
Defend it.
I only read Atrios/Duncan Black when someone links to him, so I’m missing his prior statements and context, and, honest, rilkefan, I’m not looking for reasons to argue with you, but having read the post you point to (since I take you seriously), I read what you point to:
And don’t see where from there you get to “‘Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare just like appendectomies’ is a good stance….”
Maybe it’s from other things he’s said, that you didn’t link to.
“This is because the relevant “purpose” was that of the owner and editors of Jyllands-Posten and not the many purposes of everyone else who have since come along and added their own purposes on top.”
Wrong. The purposes of the secondary publishers are extremely relevant. If the protests over “Piss Christs” had motivated a massive display of anti-Christian blasphemy in a thousand different locations the net effect would be a perception that an entire large segment of the culture was deliberately hostile to and contemptuous of Christian sensitivities.
“Interestingly, I’ve found that if I open 20+ tabs in a Firefox window, I can’t close it directly without crashing Firefox.”
I most highly recommend the SessionSaver Extension, if you’re not already using it. Also, the latest update of Firefox (which had an update either yesterday or the day before, I forget which; r.v. 1.8.0.1).
I don’t get up to 20, though; titles become unreadable, and I only have 512 megs of RAM.
“Wrong. The purposes of the secondary publishers are extremely relevant.”
I thought we were discussing, in this subthread of discussion, the original publication. If not, than my mistake.
Obviously, in the larger discussion, the purposes of everyone else who involved themselves is relevant.
“It was a riposte to the concept, advanced by Sebastian, that our culture does not [let] the irrational beliefs of [religious groups] dictate what we can write about. We already do that; the question is, which groups are we going to listen to, and how far are we going to let it go?”
Our culture also doesn’t encourage burning down buildings because you are mad about a writing or piece of art. If you disagree you are going to have to give me a recent example of such a case.
Since your example was “I am sorely tempted here to cause a diversion by revisiting the spectacle of bluenosed busybodies across the country petitioning the FCC to impose record-breaking financial penalties on CBS for allowing a boob to appear on their broadcast, but I won’t. See also Stern, Howard. Nevertheless, keep it in mind”
Since my response was that you seem to be either unintentionally or deliberately obscuring the difference between oral protest and violence (which is to say the rather noticeable difference between your example and mine) my response A) stands and B) is not a strawman. Unless of course your response was not intended to be placed in the context of a discussion about the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons–which is to say the context of this thread.
(So is there a reason I should be using Firefox rather than Safari?)
bob m, cartoonists often dip their pens in venom. When done well it comes out funny but many cartoons (particularly political cartoons) are indeed intended to provoke. But to provoke what? Anger? Thought? Introspection?
Intent can be hard to discern, but I think there’s plenty of evidence (following various links in these comments) for explanations other than just intent to offend. See BAGnewsNotes.
That Kos diary rilkefan points to is very interesting.
“Originally, editors at the paper asked 12 artists to draw depictions of the prophet after an author complained that no artist was willing, under his own name, to illustrate a book about Mohammed.”
That simply reinforces my point rather than refutes it. The reason, in part, no one is willing to depict Muhammed is that they understand the depiction is offensive.
To illustrate: “Editors asked twelve illustrators to draw depictions of Jesus having sex with Mary after an author complained…”
I doubt that it would be a large comfort to Christians that the artists were atheists or Jews.
“(So is there a reason I should be using Firefox rather than Safari?)”
Not having owned a Mac since the SE, I’m not competent to speak to it. Maybe Safari is also open-source (don’t think so, but I imagine there are homebrewed modifiers/add-ons) and has an equivalent of the innumerable Extensions. I’m entirely sure there are endless good articles and discussions you could Google and read, although obviously you already know that and wonder about people’s opinions here. Which probably means I shouldn’t bother to post this.
Oh, well. 🙂 [click]
The discussion in the comments on BAG gives much more context. And, this notion that “any depiction of the Prophet is inherently offensive” is open to considerable debate. As is the question of whether those images even do depict him.
Bob: “The reason, in part, no one is willing to depict Muhammed is that they understand the depiction is offensive.”
And the other reason, clearly, in part, was that some artists simply felt they would be threatened and endangered if they drew such a depiction and it were published.
They felt this way with excellent cause, of course.
Ask Theo van Gogh. And Salman Rushdie. Obviously.
It doesn’t strike me as useful for anyone to ignore the fact that there are two issues in conflict here — desire to stand up for free speech, and desire to not feel deliberately and unnecessarily insulted — and that each has some legitimacy; that various people then hare off from those two bases, some even unto willingness to murder and worse, on one side, shouldn’t obscure those two basic points, and the fact that neither is inherently, per se, up to a point, illegitimate.
This is, to emphasize, not to say that then debating and considering all the extended arguments and POVs and acts isn’t also critical. Obviously, it is. But that shouldn’t make the two basic points opaque or invisible, either.
Here’s Edward‘s post again.
bob, what’s your stance on that post? Offensive, intended to offend, out-of-bounds?
Gary, I take Atrios to mean that there’s no moral issue in having abortion. He says people think abortions are “icky”, the word he uses to describe how people feel about gay sex. This in my view is madness.
And what would be the reaction in America if the ten largest newspapers had, with appropriate black bars, drawings of Jesus having sex with Mary on their front page? The protests answered with cries of “Free Speech!” and all the other newspapers and the left blogosphere reprinting the pictures with amusing variations?
Heck, Blockbuster caved almost immediately with “The Last Temptation of Christ”. I didn’t hear von or the rest jumping to defend the rights of Kevin Smith or Michael Moore when they lost their distributors.
Free Speech is not the issue here, nor violence. Prejudice and hypocrisy is the issue here.
I think the idea behind the Danish publications was to provoke, more than offend. At the same time: they did seek theological advice beforehand and decided to publish againtst the recommendations.
Freedom of speech is very important. But why is it important? We do not live in societies where you can say just anything: there are laws about slander, inciting hate, public decency, etc.. So there are limits set on the freedom of speech. It is a freedom to express an opinion, because we feel it is important that facts, opinions and perceptions are generally discussed, that people can form their own opinion because they are properly informed about everything.
In using their rights people/organisations/media often cross a boundary. Show things that are considered insulting, indecent or even blasphemous. But that usually has a function. If you feel the community is too prudish, or should accept gay lifestyle, or the church should stop banning condoms and thus stop being responsible for killing people you have an opinion. You want to express somthing that is important to you.
These cartoons were not made to illustrate a point, they were made to show that they could publish an insult if they wanted to. For me, that is abuse of the right to express yourself and I strongly feel that the newspaper should not have published the cartoons. Or at least not like that – if they were published in the context of an actual story it would allready be different IMHO. Context matters.
At the same time our freedom of press *is* important. And if you feel that the publication was wrong, you should go sue, or file official complaints, or do whatever the proper procedure is in the country you live in.
If I read that a few Danish Immams travelled through the ME to stoke the fire and added three more (and more insulting) cartoons to make sure it was insulting enough, I feel there is more going on. Shame on those people, for trying to start a war against the country they live in and benefit from btw. The kosdiary gives an interesting reason for the timelag between the act and the escalation.
I think escalation was easier because there allready is a lot of resentment. The cartoons were the provocation, but not the cause. That is another thread though.
I think it is good to show support for the freedom of the press and that European newspapers should make very clear that – not matter their opinion about the cartoons – the Danish newspaper has the right to publish them. I think publishing the cartoons now, knowing for sure how insulting they obviously are, is worse than the original publication. You can show support without doing that. Doing things just because you can KNOWING the effect makes you responsible for the effect. Sometimes that is worth it, but not in this case.
dutchmarbel, I agree and thanks for the link. I wrote before I think we’re too close to the brink and need to take a step back.
von wrote “publish that cartoon fifty times a day for the next thirty years.” Even granting the assumption that “we’re in a war” this seems like a poor strategy.
“bob, what’s your stance on that post? Offensive, intended to offend, out-of-bounds?”
I read it, wth the comments. I also read the Paul Cella post over at RedState, with the comments. I also read a post I was directed to over by Bainbridge, with the comments.
My argument is not with Edward, who I am sure is sincere in his support of free speech, and would defend both Scorcese’s movie and the “Left Behind” series or anything else.
There is a context here, beyond the cartoons, in which 150k troops are in Iraq and bets are being taken as to when, not if we or Israel or whatever coalition attacks Iran.
Edward has a somewhat different agenda than the “No Retreat” crowd. There are those in our nation who seek a total religious war against Islam, or any smaller conflict or series of conflicts. Unto the plains of Armageddon and the Apocalypse in a not trivial constituency. They would be most pleased to have the “Enemy” strike the first blow in order to claim self-defense as a justification for genocide.
“They hate us for our freedoms.” Hmmm… Well no negotiation, compromise, surrender, or retreat appears avaiable. Only war.
I think it is very important to look at wonder at the various motivations and agendas of the assorted parties to this controversy. Very important for liberals to beware with whom they form temporary alliances. A good start would be to look past the substance of von’s post to the tone and emotional effect.
“To hell with them. Publish that cartoon fifty times a day for the next thirty years. Let ’em scream.” …von
My liberal friends, once the war against Islam begins, it is going to be very hard to stop.
“Gary, I take Atrios to mean that there’s no moral issue in having abortion. He says people think abortions are “icky”, the word he uses to describe how people feel about gay sex. This in my view is madness.”
Okay, now I gotcha. Fair and good point.
Even if one simply feels that those who believe it is a moral issue, or that moral issues are involved, are completely wrong, not acknowledging that people believe they moral issues are involved — and I’d certainly say that moral issues are involved, no matter one’s stance on them — is not acknowledging a crucial point.
Bob, I think not standing up to the sort of political pressure to treat Muslims with kid gloves we’re seeing is more likely to start that war through a build-up of resentment. There’s a lot of pressure on both sides, it’s good for both sides to release a bit of that from time to time IMO.
Besides…I’d advocate standing up to the Christians who want to ban “Piss Christ” or other works just as vigorously and being just as much “in their face” about it. There are times when staking your ground means being a bit obnoxious. So long as the underlying principle is sound, God will forgive our excesses.
“Free Speech is not the issue here, nor violence. Prejudice and hypocrisy is the issue here.”
Again, they’re all issues “here,” if we’re discussing the big picture, and not simply the motivation behind the original publication (in September; I was wrong when I early said “October”).
And if you note, I have in this thread not defended violence, which is indefensible. Or free speech, which appears to have adequate advocates today.
I have attempted to defend Islam and cross-cultural magnanimity. You might guess at my agenda.
bob, amusingly enough, recently a cache of paintings was stolen from a dungeon in the Vatican where they had been taken along with their original owners, whose skeletons hang beside the now-empty frames. The works, which the Holy See had long denied existed, are by Euphronios, Da Vinci, Raphael, Velazquez, Rembrandt, Turner, Manet, Cezanne, and Klee, and there’s also a cutout by Matisse, and all depict Mary shtupping Jesus. Most experts consulted consider the works to be easily the best and most characteristic by the artists. The group is going up for auction next week in NYC, along with the manuscript of a newly-discovered Shakespeare play based on what must have been a direct viewing of the Raphael, and the Pope has announced that he’ll excommunicate the US if the govt doesn’t step in.
“We do not live in societies where you can say just anything: there are laws about slander, inciting hate, public decency, etc..’
Actually, we’ve never had the second in America, and don’t want to, and it’s un-Constitutional, and the third has been long expunged, save as regards use of the limited broadcast spectrum, and as regards “obscenity” according to a “community standard,” which means that there have been almost no successful prosecutions on that charge in decades (much to the horror and dismay of the John Ashcroft and James Dobson types, to whom this is evidence of the horrific state of the modern US and “liberalism”).
You might, however, include “libel,” as well as “slander,” and also trade secrets, proprietary information, and a few other categories of speech subject to law, if you’re listing them. And, of course, I’m not mentioning America as in any way suggesting that Canada, Australia, Europe, and other countries don’t have equally valid and somewhat different laws and approaches to free speech. I’m just noting some exceptions to your generalization, which obviously wasn’t intended to be detailed and inclusive; this is not a criticism, but a supplement to what you wrote.
“The kosdiary gives an interesting reason for the timelag between the act and the escalation.”
I have to say that I think Judith Apter Klinghoffer presented a much more intelligent and accurate set of descriptions, quotes, and citations than that quite-badly written Kosdiary (I wrote a response, but then cancelled it before posting, as being overly-rude), but perhaps I’m now biased since I obviously thought one was worth quoting, and the other not at all.
I forgot to add, you’ll get a kick out of the front page of the NYT.
“…would defend both Scorcese’s movie….”
Scorsese.
“…and the Pope has announced that he’ll excommunicate the US if the govt doesn’t step in….”
rilkefan: I ask this because this sounds extremely interesting, and not because I’m challenging anything you said, but could you give a cite so I don’t have to Google to read about this?
Okay, I did a quick GoogleNews check, and didn’t find anything like this. Am I being too literal again, or something?
Nada.
Okay, you’re kidding, rilkefan. Gotta be.
Our culture also doesn’t encourage burning down buildings because you are mad about a writing or piece of art. If you disagree you are going to have to give me a recent example of such a case.
When I disagree with such a statement, I’ll let you know.*
Since my response was that you seem to be either unintentionally or deliberately obscuring the difference between oral protest and violence (which is to say the rather noticeable difference between your example and mine) my response A) stands and B) is not a strawman.
No, Sebastian. I am illustrating that it is hardly some bedrock principle — hell, it isn’t even true — that we don’t let irrational religious beliefs dictate what we can and can’t talk about in this country. Not only do we let them do so, it’s bloody commonplace. That’s it. I’m sorry you seem to find it irrelevant, but it’s there nevertheless.
*(Although, interestingly, there recently arose a kerfuffle because an actor who appeared in a recent movie about missionaries who were martyred in South America in the fifties, playing the lead missionary, turned out to be not only gay, but an advocate for gay marriage. One response by some Christian wiener was that “firebombing [the producers’] houses would probably be an overreaction.” “Probably.” Yeesh.)
“…whose skeletons hang beside the now-empty frames.”
That should have clued me. 🙁
“I forgot to add, you’ll get a kick out of the front page of the NYT.”
This? “Mastermind of U.S.S. Cole Attack Escapes Jail.”
Or Specter Says Surveillance Program Violated the Law? Something else? (Neither seems funny to me, but as often, don’t know what the reference is to; but there are about 60 stories there, as always.)
Edward: I think not standing up to the sort of political pressure to treat Muslims with kid gloves
In what universe is “refraining from deliberate insult” equated to “treating with kid gloves”?
we’re seeing is more likely to start that war through a build-up of resentment. There’s a lot of pressure on both sides, it’s good for both sides to release a bit of that from time to time IMO.
You are seriously arguing that in any situation where two sides are in conflict, it’s a good thing for the two sides to bitterly insult each other to “release a bit of pressure”?
In what universe is “refraining from deliberate insult” equated to “treating with kid gloves”?
In a universe where we would not shy away from deliberatly insulting people of other religions…namely, this universe.
“that we don’t let irrational religious beliefs dictate what we can and can’t talk about in this country. Not only do we let them do so, it’s bloody commonplace. That’s it. I’m sorry you seem to find it irrelevant, but it’s there nevertheless.”
Once again what in the world are you talking about? The Janet Jackson super-bowl breast shot? We allow breat shots in the US, just not on broadcast channels during prime time. We allow pornography in the United States. Just not on broadcast television during prime time. And even the Janet Jackson breast shot didn’t cause riots and arson. We allow blasphemy, and even though some people don’t want it to be on the government dime it often is.
I don’t find your point irrelavent. It would be relevant if true.
“In what universe is “refraining from deliberate insult” equated to “treating with kid gloves”?”
Which part is the deliberate issult? Threatening to kill people if they depict a prophet or depicting the prophet?
Fafblog enters the fray
Sebastian, let me get this straight: You’re actually claiming, with a straight face, that the US media, along with its culture generally, have not internalized any Christian taboos and mores that control — in a very broad sense — what is printed and broadcast in this country? None?
I find that . . . amazing. Absolutely amazing.
We allow breat shots in the US, just not on broadcast channels during prime time.
We do not allow nude breast shots on broadcast television at all, Sebastian, except perhaps in a news/informational context, and even then the nipples are blurred.
We allow pornography in the United States. Just not on broadcast television during prime time.
We do not allow pornography on broadcast television at all, Sebastian.
We also do not have a US equivalent of the Page Three girl, fwiw.
Now, why do you think these three things happen to be?
what seems to be missing in your reaction to my statements, Jes, is a focus on the medium: cartoons. In our culture you can step across the line in cartoons…it’s the medium in which we allow the pressure to be released a bit, by design, through humor, so that what’s on everyone’s mind, but unacceptable to express via other mediums, can be said there.
I’d be more sympathetic to the extreme reactions to these cartoons if there was not widespread and seemingly non-riot-provoking use of cartoons to paint extremely unflattering portraits of the US and Israel in Arab newspapers. That’s what I mean by “kid gloves” treatment. Because we’re afraid of the sort of overreactions best illustrated by folks burning down embassies, we refrain from making statements we would easily make about other cultures. That chaffs my neck for a host of reasons, but none the least of which is because in exchange for my constant mantra that we treat Arab Muslims as equals, I expect the same in return.
I would fight just as strongly for their right to publish the anti-American and anti-Israel cartoons they do if folks here were demanding an apology for them.
Syria voices regret over embassy attacks
Now this is progress.
“Now this is progress.”
Oh, for god’s sake. What did you expect them to say, Edward? They’re already in dark doo-doo with the UN and the EU over Hariri, etc.
Edward: In a universe where we would not shy away from deliberatly insulting people of other religions…namely, this universe.
My question was: Is, in your view, “refraining from deliberate insult” equivalent to “treating with kid gloves”?
So, in your view, when people refrain from insulting you, your relationship with your partner, and your partner himself, they are treating you with kid gloves, and you would prefer they “took the pressure off” by insulting you? I have to say this is not how you reacted when Tacitus showed up to insult you and your partner here: far from thanking him for not treating you with kid gloves, and urging the rest of us to follow suit, you banned him. Change of heart?
I’d be more sympathetic to the extreme reactions to these cartoons if there was not widespread and seemingly non-riot-provoking use of cartoons to paint extremely unflattering portraits of the US and Israel in Arab newspapers.
You know, I suspect there would not have been riots over deliberately insulting cartoons of Syria and/or Iran in a Danish newspaper, either.
But had an Iraqi newspaper published 12 cartoons of Jesus showing images such as Jesus eating Iraqi babies, Jesus armed with a machine gun and shooting down Iraqi civilians, Jesus dropping cluster bombs on city streets, Jesus torturing naked prisoners in Abu Ghraib with a smile on his face, Jesus giving George W. Bush a blow-job in the Oval Office, then I think you would not see hordes of right-wing Americans angrily demanding that any offended Christians get a sense of humor and accept that freedom of speech means the right to be deliberately offensive to others.
The relevant quote from the story you cited, Edward, is this:
I do hope you’ll read this post, and the links.
And the following certainly significantly modifies earlier reports:
So much for “burning the Swedish and Danish embassies.”
“Tried to” is what this report says.
then I think you would not see hordes of right-wing Americans
I apologize for that. The situation with regard to the cartoons is far more complex than a phrase such as “hordes of right-wing Americans” would suggest. What I meant to say was that I doubt you would see the same hordes who are demanding that Muslims offended by these cartoons get over it, expressing the same demand to offended Christians. As I wrote on my livejournal, it’s all about privilege.
Sebastian,
I don’t find your point irrelavent. It would be relevant if true.
Careful! You might end up in his “retarded pile”!
Jesurgislac,
then I think you would not see hordes of right-wing Americans angrily demanding that any offended Christians get a sense of humor and accept that freedom of speech means the right to be deliberately offensive to others.
Ok. I am putting you in *my* “retarded” pile. “Angrily demanding”???
Oops. That’s “offended”??
That’s what’s going on? They got offended? Never mind the riots, arson, death threats, etc. They are just offended.
Good analogy there.
“I am putting you in *my* ‘retarded’ pile.”
Apparently you either didn’t read, or are ignoring, the fact that the use of that characterization of you earned a banning warning. I assume you’ll get the same now, once it’s noticed by a blog-owner.
Query: how long has it been since Stan LS’s last “warning,” and what are the damn rules about how long warnings last, and how long bannings last, anyway, I ask for about the billionth time?
“Good analogy there.”
You might want to look up what an “analogy” is in a dictionary. She didn’t make one.
Really fascinating, in that this whole episode seems like an ink blot test. As I said, I lean slightly away from Von’s argument, though the rhetoric has gotten so overheated that any middle ground has to be conjured up.
I think that the reason I lean away from the argument is that I realized that a parallel with this situation is the Yasukuni shrine problems between Japan and the rest of Asia. While I am certain that China uses Koizumi’s visits to Yasukuni as fodder (just as any repressive Arab country can use the threat of an attack on Islam to divert attention from its internal policies). Here’s a link (with a few good internal links) for some background on Yasukuni.
Since I am leaning toward that side, I’d also ask Jes to dial it back a bit. Thanks
Whoops, didn’t finish that thought. While I’m sure China uses Yasukuni in order to divert attention from its policies, Yasukuni represents a needless inflaming of opinion, though some argue that it is simply an appeal to the right wing base that undergirds the LDP here and also functions as a way of diverting attention.
Gary, I don’t think that Stan LS has gotten a warning recently, though Windle has. Unfortunately, it was Hilzoy who gave the warning, and it would be difficult for Hilzoy to ban Windle or give Stan a warning without raising cries of bias. That’s one reason I wish everyone would turn the heat down a notch, so as to have the possibility of some comments standing out in relief.
“While I am certain”
lj, missed the indep clause.
I think the middle ground is that Denmark needs to have a national dialogue (one without threats of violence) on the rights of free speech and the rights of religious minorities and the laws should be changed if the Danes feel they should be, but until then newspapers should responsibly print what the bleep they feel like and others should feel free to responsibly protest. And that other countries (and religious and ideological groups) need to have similar national conversations.
Ask and ye shall.
I think the difference with the shrine is the Japanese goverment’s participation, if that’s what you’re getting at. If the Danish govt had published those cartoons, I would feel quite differently.
“…though the rhetoric has gotten so overheated that any middle ground has to be conjured up.”
I’d be surprised if you can find any overheated rhetoric from me. Or from Slart, or from Hilzoy. Among others. Just noting.
“…Yasukuni represents a needless inflaming of opinion, though some argue that it is simply an appeal to the right wing base that undergirds the LDP here and also functions as a way of diverting attention.”
Although I’m entirely sure I know less about Japan than you, and I’ve never been there, I’ve been reading about Yasukuni and related issues since I was a lad. Your use of it here as a metonym here is very unclear to me.
Are you referring to the fact that the fourteen class A war criminals are buried there? Or to Koizumi’s and past PM’s visits? Or to some other aspect?
“…I don’t think that Stan LS has gotten a warning recently….”
Thus my query about how long warnings are good for: forever? A week? A month? A year?
I’ve asked that this sort of thing be answered and posted with the rules about a billion times. I never get an answer. I repeat for the billionth time that secret, unwritten, rules, are unjust, in my view.
It’s not, I think, unreasonable to write down how long warnings are good for and how long bannings last. Those are two simple questions, and all I’ve ever asked to be answered.
Incidentally, there was an article in the New Yorker this week describing the current Pope’s 2004 visit to a graveyard where S.S. men are buried. He there blamed the (WWI) Allies for driving Germany into Nazism.
Yikes.
Good point, rilkefan, which is why I lean in the direction I do rather than jump in with both feet. But Koizumi’s defense is that he goes as a private citizen and the offering he makes there comes from his own pocket rather than any kind of expense account and the ‘governmental’ involvement with Yasukuni has been withdrawn/blurred in the past 20 years.
I think the republishing of the cartoons by other papers round the world to ‘show solidarity’ is, well, needlessly inflammatory, and (if I understand correctly) the commissioning of the cartoons to support the author who couldn’t get an illustrator seems to move the Danish papers out of the ‘completely blameless’ category. But, again, it takes on the quality of an inkblot rather than clear cut outlines that some seem to think, imo.
Unsurprisingly, good article at the link you gave, LJ.
“secret, unwritten, rules, are unjust”
What about secret, unwritten, nonexistent rules? Given that (as I understand it) the Kitten considers the commenter’s contributions to the blog and the context of the offense (if the Kitten gets around to considering at all), any explicit policy represents a loss of flexibility. And there really aren’t many bannings here.
“While I’m sure China uses Yasukuni in order to divert attention from its policies, Yasukuni represents a needless inflaming of opinion, though some argue that it is simply an appeal to the right wing base that undergirds the LDP here and also functions as a way of diverting attention.”
I’ll add that I’ve followed the Yasukuni issue with considerable intensity, albeit only in English, and without, say, reading about it every month, for approximately thirty years. I consider it beyond problematic, and past “reprehsensible” and entirely into “utterly outrageous and with no justification as I understand it” that, well, to quote from your link:
You may disagree with me on this, and since you likely know more than I, and obviously know more about Japan than I, if so, I’d certainly be curious to hear about it, although I’d suggest we move any such discussion over the current open thread, if you feel like discussing it.
Oh, and the “private visits” line that PMs have taken, since, as noted in the article, “In 1975, Prime Minister Miki Takeo visited the shrine, saying he was doing so in a private capacity” is an even more outrageous fig leaf, in my view.
That the Chinese have taken to using this as a convenient tool to whip up Chinese nationalism is perfectly true, but they’re also, nonetheless, perfectly correct in stating the offensiveness to anyone — it seems to me and I’m perfectly prepared to hear why I’m wrong — not a supporter of Japanese militarism/fascism.
That all the other soldiers who are buried at Yasukuni are there is kinda besides the point, it seems to me, given the choice to add the 14 Class A war criminals, and the refusal to move them. But if you think I’m wrong, please let me know.
Let me add that I’ll grant a completely shallow understanding of Shinto doctrine, and can’t even begin to speak to that issue, and that I understanding that that’s the defense the administrators of the Shrine and others take.
All I can say to that is that they can’t, however, reasonably expect the non-Shinto world to understand those religiously-based reasons, and hey, whoops, I see how we’re back to the religious issue you brought Yasukuni into this for, now.
Gary, given the above, I don’t see how you can scoff at generals attacking the press on official letterhead.
“And there really aren’t many bannings here.”
I haven’t ever even gotten a warning. I assume I have court jester or crazy aunt status and I am not at all pleased.
Incidentally, got halfway thru one of the Islamic philosophy books last night, starting at the end and moving toward the intoduction. Averroes, Avicenna, Ghazali( in their longer Arabic names, Ibn Sina for instance) mostly pre-Aquinas stuff. Don’t think I have reached the Mutalizids…Mutalazids…Mutoids yet.
Nominalism is specifically discussed, and even some of the more Sufi-inspired mysticism is anti-Idealist. I have to figure out what “Neo-Platonic Aristotelianism” is pretty quick. Looks dirty.
I’d be surprised if you can find any overheated rhetoric from me. Or from Slart, or from Hilzoy. Among others. Just noting.
Gary, in avoiding naming names, I can’t name the names of those who aren’t at fault because that has the effect of, well, naming names. Though I do think you have been a catalyst in this thread. As you said at HoCB, “I often don’t feel constrained to do more than adhere to the posting rules,” so part of the thrust of my comment (to the unnamed unmatched wash) was to encourage everyone to do a bit more than simply ‘adhere to posting rules’, as I think that it will make the truly problematic comments stand out and make it easier for the blog owners to enforce the rules. I also directed a request to Jes specifically, largely because I thought that her 11:44 comment to Ed, while being very correct, could have been phrased in a less confrontational manner, i.e. I winced when I read it because it seemed to be a punch right to the kidneys.
Your use of it here as a metonym here is very unclear to me.
I said Yasukuni represents, so in this case, stands a symbol for all of the problems that this shrine, the Imperial patronage, the various PM visits, the statements made, the currently mooted proposals for relocation, as well as the reactions of other countries concerning the shrine bring. I don’t (and I think the context of the comment should make it clear) think that you can isolate one aspect of this without presenting the other contexts. So, moving this to an open thread is a good idea, though perhaps, I should try to put together a post at HoCB, though that would bring to site dangerously close to actual content rather than meta-discussion.
Thus my query about how long warnings are good for: forever? A week? A month? A year?
Given that I am not one of the ObWi elect, while I can answer your first question, I obviously cannot answer your second one, so haranguing me about it is a non-optimal use of your commenting time. Unless, of course, you meant to address your question to the powers that be, but since you didn’t give any names, following your example, I have to assume that you are talking about me. ;^)
re. kittens — my experience is that they are highly capricious and sometimes appear to have short attention spans. On the other hand, they can be quite single-minded.
Over at HoCB I observed that Muslims aren’t rioting in Detroit, where there is a huge media presence at this time for some reason. (before I said silly and not carefully tought-out things)
So it really is not about Bush or American right-wing fundamentalist groups, Jes. I’ve given you an easy target elsewhere. Fire away!
(Also for posts that attract a lot of comments at ObWi, may be it woud be a good idea to insert a post that says more comments about postX here?)
“Gary, given the above, I don’t see how you can scoff at generals attacking the press on official letterhead.”
I agree that they shouldn’t have used official letterhead.
I’m completely missing whatever connection you’re making to “the above,” whatever that refers to, I’m afraid. I also wouldn’t agree that a letter about a single cartoon is “attacking the press” in general. It’s “attacking a single cartoon,” at worst. But in general I do regard stern Letters To The Editor as non-fear-worthy. Perhaps I need a paranoia tune-up; I’m sure Bob thinks so, and others.
“Given that I am not one of the ObWi elect, while I can answer your first question, I obviously cannot answer your second one, so haranguing me about it is a non-optimal use of your commenting time.”
I’m sorry. I thought it was clear that I wasn’t addressing you, LJ, about that, but the blog-owners, but clearly I wasn’t clear.
“Gary, in avoiding naming names, I can’t name the names of those who aren’t at fault because that has the effect of, well, naming names.”
It wasn’t a complaint. Just an observation, and an utterly trivial one.
“…As you said at HoCB, “I often don’t feel constrained to do more than adhere to the posting rules,”
I don’t think that taking that out of context is a fair presentation, so I’ll present the full paragraph, and otherwise ask people to read the full comment I wrote, and preferably the context of the entire thread.
If I’d known that things written in comments there were going to be hauled out and quoted out of context here, let me say here and now that I’d have given strong reconsideration to the notion of engaging in the IHCB project.
I am not happy about this.
Out-of-context paragraph:
I don’t feel comfortable hijacking the thread to present the full context of my comment, or the rest of the thread, but I do hope anyone who wishes to discuss this further read the entire thread first. Carefully.
Josh Marshall on the statue and frieze of Mohammed at the SCOTUS. Slightly more interesting case in my view than the cartoons.
Apologies, Gary, I was trying to be a bit playful and, again, avoid calling out someone by name in order to lower the temperature, especially since the person mentioned is someone who you are engaging on this thread. I do pay attention to what you write, and I thought that the point you made was a good one, but in the context of a lengthy thread that (at least to me) seems a bit overheated, simply adhering to posting rules is not going to cool things down. Again, my apologies for quoting what you said from HoCB, and anyone who would like to take this up, I’ve made an open thread over there for the purpose.
“Again, my apologies for quoting what you said from HoCB….”
Accepted. It wasn’t the biggest deal in the world, anyway, obviously, and I certainly didn’t think you had any malicious intent or intent to be deliberately unfair.
I simply was under the understanding that the purpose and point of IHCB was to speak more freely about things here, and to be able to say things that might violate the posting rules here — indeed, my impression was that the initial idea was more or less to be a place to vent, scream, curse, or yell, things that couldn’t or shouldn’t be said here, as well as discuss them; perhaps I misunderstood — and that things said there stay there, and stay in that context.
And I’m very touchy about being taken out of context, period, let alone on something that is inflammatory.
(And god forbid you should ever be in a position to publish/post something of mine and change my words without acknowledgement, if you ever want to see me really jump down your throat, “you” being the generic second-person here, not “you, LJ”; one blogger who solicited my contributions repeatedly did that — change my words to what he thought was a better way of putting things, which is to say, what he thought, not what I thought or wrote, while leaving my name signed to it and making no acknowledgement of said changes — in case anyone ever wondered why I’m no longer blogging at a certain well-known group blog, that’s one of several reasons.)
Anyway, apology accepted, issue on the way to be being forgotten, assuming this never happens again. Thank you.
“I also directed a request to Jes specifically, largely because I thought that her 11:44 comment to Ed….”
Maybe I’m blind, but there seems to be no such comment on this thread, by the way.
Probably you mean “February 05, 2006 at 06:44 PM,” I’m guessing.
Gary,
“I am putting you in *my* ‘retarded’ pile.”
Apparently you either didn’t read, or are ignoring, the fact that the use of that characterization of you earned a banning warning. I assume you’ll get the same now, once it’s noticed by a blog-owner.
Query: how long has it been since Stan LS’s last “warning,” and what are the damn rules about how long warnings last, and how long bannings last, anyway, I ask for about the billionth time?
Aw, poookie, why so mad? After all, the term “retard pile” was used to insult me by Phil right frigging here. None of the blog owners rebuked Phil, and neither did you. Why so touchy now?
No need to worry, though. I won’t be commenting or reading this blog from now on. This sandbox is all yours now. Unfortunately, it has turned into another KOS diary.
Enjoy.
I simply was under the understanding that the purpose and point of IHCB was to speak more freely about things here, and to be able to say things that might violate the posting rules here — indeed, my impression was that the initial idea was more or less to be a place to vent, scream, curse, or yell, things that couldn’t or shouldn’t be said here, as well as discuss them; perhaps I misunderstood — and that things said there stay there, and stay in that context.
Well, that is certainly part of it, but another part is, I think, to look at the rhetoric and framing that goes on here, so that more discussion about the content occurs here. At least, that is my take. If it were simply a place to vent and curse, I don’t think it would exist with the three who are blogging there now. Anyway, thanks for your gracious acceptance and I hope we can return to the topic of the thread.
None of the blog owners rebuked Phil
Errr, actually, they did right here, but I guess you didn’t notice, which is unsurprising. Perhaps if he had capitalized “warning”, you might not have missed it.
lj,
Actually, that rebuke, at February 05, 2006 at 10:46 AM, was in response to Phils’ comment to Windle made at February 05, 2006 at 07:15 AM. Phil insulted me here (atFebruary 05, 2006 at 12:42 PM).
Perhaps if he had capitalized “warning”, you might not have missed it.
Yes, yes. I get it. I am retarded. Thanks.
Bye Kossaks!
“Aw, poookie, why so mad?”
Not mad in the slightest. I only get mad at people I give the faintest damn about. (Like LJ! Or Charles! ;-))
You might want to spell that “pookie,” though.
“Bye Kossaks!”
Not a blog I read. But don’t let the door, etc.
LJ: “…but another part is, I think, to look at the rhetoric and framing that goes on here, so that more discussion about the content occurs here.”
Yeah, I get that. And also a place for Jack, you, and DaveC, and possibly anyone else added in the future, to have a blog. I wasn’t trying to list all the other reasons I understood. But you are simply mentioning another part, I understand, and now I say I understand, and we’re all clear, and it’s all puppies and kittens and flowers, I hope, until the next silliness.
You might want to spell that “pookie,” though.
Gary, I think Stan was trying to imitate the way adults often talk to toddlers. “Does Stannie Wannie want me to tell mean ole Phillie Willie off?” sort of thing. I’ve never understood why people do this with children, so I’m not sure why it would be effective in this context, but perhaps it works at the blogs Stan visits.
“Gary, I think Stan was trying to imitate the way adults often talk to toddlers.”
Obviously. It’s still “pookie,” not “poookie.” Not many three-voweled words in English, so far as I’m aware.
“…so I’m not sure why it would be effective in this context….”
It’s a trolling technique. It’s suppose to make you mad. That’s what trolls try to do, as part of the whole “I want attention!” fundamental of trolling. Yawn.
I forgot to ask earlier, so I’ll toss it into this comment, that before I complete letting go of our previous silliness, I would appreciate a direct affirmation of my 10:04 p.m.: “…assuming this never happens again.” I’m afraid I’m big on clarity. Thanks, and then that’s all done.
Also, I hope I was temperate; positive reinforcement, I hear, is better than negative reinforcement for training purposes, not that I expect or need much indulging; I’m just saying at least once. (Similarly, I hope I was temperate in my frustrated comment on the “Civil Liberty Infringement Engines” post; but you can respond to all this, save for the “pookie” stuff, on IHCB, and I’ll read it there, I suggest, since that’s doubtless a more appropriate venue).
“…assuming this never happens again.”
This is impolite in my book, jftr – probably the first time, definitely the second.
“This is impolite in my book, jftr – probably the first time, definitely the second.”
Noted.
GF (above): And I’m a huge fan of William Manchester (when he’s not writing about Kennedys, where he grows hagiographic); I heartily recommend “Goodbye, Darkness” as one of the best first-person accounts of being a Marine grunt in the Pacific in WWII to all, and his biography of MacArthur, “American Caesar” is outstandingly superb.
FWIW, American Caesar got savaged by experts in Asian history – I think in The Journal of Asian Studies, among others – when it came out. Reviewers admitted that Manchester wrote well, but for historical research and accuracy they much preferred the more pedestrian, but more reliable, D. Clayton James, The Years of MacArthur.
As always, YMMV.
“…assuming this never happens again.” I’m afraid I’m big on clarity. Thanks, and then that’s all done.
Apologies, this got pushed down and I only noticed it when dr ngo posted. The answer is yes (assuming that the question is ‘and you won’t do this again?’), and I would note for the record that I generally take an apology to mean “And given the same set of circumstances, I will not do this again”. I’ve always thought that someone has a much further cause for complaint if, after an apology, the same behavior is manifest, but I now wonder if this is some idiosyncrasy of mine rather than a general understanding.
“FWIW, American Caesar got savaged by experts in Asian history….”
Well, I didn’t say it was the only book people should read on MacArthur. 🙂
If you have a pointer to a good critical article taking it down, I’d read it with interest.
I’ve read a variety of other MacArthur bios, but I don’t think I’ve read D. Clayton James. I’ll try to keep an eye out for it.
Is there a nutshell in-a-paragraph-or-so summary you might be able to give as to the most notable flaws of the Manchester?
Alas, no. If I had my full run of JAS to hand, I’d try to track down at least that original review, but they’re all still in boxes, 18 months after we moved into this house. My vague recollection is that it was mostly trivial nit-picking of the kind that we academics are prone to – this event was in August, not September; the addressee of the telegram was Col. X, not General Y, &c. – and some of it might be attributed to the reflexive sniping of a historian at a mere journalist daring to write history, and (worse) actually making money doing it! But I really don’t remember the details. Sorry.
Gary:
You might, however, include “libel,” as well as “slander,” and also trade secrets, proprietary information, and a few other categories of speech subject to law, if you’re listing them. And, of course, I’m not mentioning America as in any way suggesting that Canada, Australia, Europe, and other countries don’t have equally valid and somewhat different laws and approaches to free speech. I’m just noting some exceptions to your generalization, which obviously wasn’t intended to be detailed and inclusive; this is not a criticism, but a supplement to what you wrote.
If I mention a few items in a row and add “etc.” to that list, it is safe to assume that there are more items that could be on the list. It was more to give a general idea.
Also, if I say “we” you can always be certain that I do not refer to just America. Me not being American and not living in America would make that impossible :).In this case I ment “we discussing this here, who have freedom of the press” and I thought that was clear from the context.
I find comments difficult to read if everything has to be utterly defined but how far one goes in those definitions is a judgement call. So sometimes you might need to ask for more clarifications if you want to be sure.
The article you linked to is interesting, though it does not convince me entirely. I liked this quote best:””After all,” said Shahine, “we’d rather have the Danes apologising out of conviction, rather than because they feel threatened.””. If the sunni moslim world had shamed the Danes instead of threatening them, the reactions would have been quite different – but it would not have created a common enemy.
I also think the comment about how the coalition is stretched thin is interesting. Denmark has been one of the most faithfull US allies these last few years. Both in official support (money, troops) as in popular support. What is the effect of the fact that the US and UK very publically decided to not back them up?
“…but they’re all still in boxes, 18 months after we moved into this house.”
No problem, I understand completely. Been there, done that, many times.
“…My vague recollection is that it was mostly trivial nit-picking of the kind that we academics are prone to – this event was in August, not September; the addressee of the telegram was Col. X, not General Y, &c….”
Oh, well, if it’s only that level of thing, that I can’t say I’d do more than say “interesting, noted,” and not care much more. I thought you meant that it was suggested that he got important details or interpretations wrong. Getting the details right is certainly important, but not nearly as important as getting the larger stuff right.
Dutchmarbel: “If I mention a few items in a row and add “etc.” to that list, it is safe to assume that there are more items that could be on the list.”
Yes, indeed. I was merely mentioning a few.
“Also, if I say ‘we’ you can always be certain that I do not refer to just America.”
I never had any other idea. Or to perhaps put it more clearly: I understood that.
“In this case I ment “we discussing this here, who have freedom of the press” and I thought that was clear from the context.’
It was.
“What is the effect of the fact that the US and UK very publically decided to not back them up?”
I’m not at all clear what you are referring to. From the U.S., the State Department statement?
In any case, I’m off to sleep now.
Perhaps some of them are dismayed by behavior all around, but are otherwise too busy to drop by for individual admonishments. Please cut it out, folks; attack the points all you wish, but refrain from attacking the person. Bad behavior all around, including you, Gary. Stan has already effectively banished himself, if we take him at his word. I swear, we never see things like this even on the abortion threads. I’d be quite disappointed if I had to view another exchange discussing who belongs in the “retarded pile” again.
As far as my personal POV in this matter is concerned:
a) In this place and time in the Western Hemisphere, at least, the death penalty for insult is considered unacceptable. Whether it’s wise to provoke those who are otherwise inclined is another matter entirely.
b) There’s more than a little daylight between dictated and guided that Phil might want to take some time out and consider. Just a suggestion.
There’s more, but I don’t think any of it will get fair play in this particular thread. Given the history, at least.
Given that I’ve used neither the word “guided” nor the word “dictated” in the thread, Slarti, I’ll take that recommendation under all the advisement it deserves.
I’m still waiting for either Sebastian — or, hey, you, if you want to take a stab — to make a cogent argument that our common culture is not broadly controlled (in the sense of having a strong guiding influence over) by internalized Christian taboos and mores, that we haven’t, as he put, let people’s irrational religious beliefs influence what we can and can’t say. (Might I remind people that within the last decade a man was put on trial for saying “F***” within earshot of a child in Michigan.)
It’s nice to pretend that we here in the enlightened West are over all that, but it ain’t nohow true.
Apologies for getting the verb tense wrong, Phil. And no, I’m not going to make any sort of stab at your topic until you stop using “dictate” and “controlled” and “guiding” (see, I got all the tenses exactly right this time) as if they are even close to interchangeable.
And y’know, maybe not even then. It sounds as if you want us to explain to you how laws in the United States are NOT shaped in any way by religious beliefs, and that’s not a debating point I care to take.
“I’d be quite disappointed if I had to view another exchange discussing who belongs in the ‘retarded pile’ again.”
I’m unclear why this follows use of my name, as such words never came from, or were used by, me.
I’m confused about why you think I was talking about you in particular, Gary, simply because your name was mentioned a few sentences prior. But to relieve your confusion: “retarded pile” had nothing to do with you.
It sounds as if you want us to explain to you how laws in the United States are NOT shaped in any way by religious beliefs, and that’s not a debating point I care to take.
What does “what we can and can’t talk about,” in terms of US broadcast and print media, have to do with “laws in the United States.” “Can” and “can’t” are shaped by more than laws, after all.
Nonetheless, the fact remains that “irrational religious beliefs” (where the whole concept of “profanity” comes from) are very nearly the single largest guiding — and, yes, dictating — influence on what goes over the airwaves and what rolls off the presses in this country. Or, more importantly, on what doesn’t. Hence, the NFL and ABC censoring the words “come” and “cock.”
Slarti: It sounds as if you want us to explain to you how laws in the United States are NOT shaped in any way by religious beliefs, and that’s not a debating point I care to take.
Who would?
If you’re arguing that mores in this country are shaped by religion, Phil, who are you arguing against?
Those who want free speech to be choked off by religious mores?
Your link has somehow been blocked because of the subject matter, Jesurgislac.
Ok, just kidding. I don’t think this proves what you seem to think it does. This isn’t a constraint on speech, it’s a policy constraint. You are free to discuss it to your heart’s content. Do you see no difference between policy and speech?
Do you see no difference between policy and speech?
The US has an official policy, imposed by the religious right, of restricting free speech. The restrictions on free speech have a lethal effect. That was my point, Slarti.
Ok, now please tell me whose speech is being constrained? Certainly not yours.
“Ok, now please tell me whose speech is being constrained? Certainly not yours.”
That’s perfectly obvious from her link: people, U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens alike, around the world who accept U.S. government aid for health clinics.
It’s pretty difficult to imagine you clicked on her link and read even the first sentence, and didn’t understand it, although I guess it could have happened, somehow.
Um, feel free to explain what was unclear to you about her link, Slart.
Everything, Gary. The article was clear, but the claim was…not well supported, to be polite.
And they’re constrained from speaking in what way, exactly? Does free speech mean that no one can alter their actions in the least bit, as a response to what’s being said? If so, I’m feeling suppressed.
Free speech is different from the right to do absolutely anything you want and still get subsidized.
Sebastian: Free speech is different from the right to do absolutely anything you want and still get subsidized.
The global gag rule is called the global gag rule because it restricts free speech, Sebastian.
The US government chooses not to subsidize safe legal abortion for women who need it. That has nothing to do with free speech.
Refusing to provide support for health clinics unless the health clinic workers agree neither to tell women where they can safely terminate an unwanted pregnancy, nor to tell legislators or the media about the dangers of illegal abortion – that’s a religiously-inspired restriction on free speech, that has had lethal consequences.
Yet you’ve never written anything in opposition to the global gag rule. You could of course have argued that no blogger can write about everything, but do I take it from your comment that in fact you’re in favor of religious restrictions on free speech, imposed with US government funding?
“The US government chooses not to subsidize safe legal abortion for women who need it. That has nothing to do with free speech.”
Unless you posit a world-wide right to US subsidies, the rest of your comment makes no logical sense. Do you in fact posit such a right?
“Refusing to provide support for health clinics unless the health clinic workers agree neither to tell women where they can safely terminate an unwanted pregnancy, nor to tell legislators or the media about the dangers of illegal abortion – that’s a religiously-inspired restriction on free speech, that has had lethal consequences.”
Y’know, pretending that Slart and Sebastian don’t have a technically accurate point in noting that no one’s speech is restricted if they choose to turn down the money isn’t useful. It just lets them hit you over the head with the fact that you’re ignoring their argument, rather than acknowledging it and responding as to what’s important.
A better rhetorical and substantive response, I suggest, is to acknowledge the technical point being made, and to then proceed to what’s truly important, which is that “an estimated 600,000 women die of pregnancy-related causes, of which the World Health Organization attributes close to 80,000 to unsafe abortion – 219 every day – nine each hour” and that we have it in our power to stop much of that, and let many, perhaps most, of those women live, if we can get past arguing about whether a donor has the right to put restrictions on the use of their donations, and whether or not that is a restriction on absolute free speech or not.
“…that’s a religiously-inspired restriction on free speech, that has had lethal consequences.”
Technically, they are correct that it is not. It’s besides the point. Move on to what’s important. Don’t let your interlocuter(s) define the grounds of the argument.
Just a suggestion.
“Unless you posit a world-wide right to US subsidies, the rest of your comment makes no logical sense. Do you in fact posit such a right?”
See, Jes, this is correct. You don’t want to be caught up arguing this when it’s irrelevant to the point you want, I think — I could be wrong — to be making about the global gag rule killing women.
You’re welcome.
Slart: “Ok, now please tell me whose speech is being constrained? Certainly not yours.”
I responded: “That’s perfectly obvious from her link: people, U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens alike, around the world who accept U.S. government aid for health clinics.”
Slart responds: “The article was clear, but the claim was…not well supported, to be polite.”
And: “And they’re constrained from speaking in what way, exactly?”
By having the donated money withdrawn. Note the conditions of what I said that you are responding to, please.
I said something different from what Jes said. The same rhetorical gambit in response fails, I suggest.
Going back to definitions of “free speech” also will fail in address what I wrote. I didn’t address “free speech.” I answered your questions, instead.
And to anticipate a bit more: a financial lever is certainly a constraint. “Constraint” doesn’t mean “you have no choice.” A “constraint” is a restriction, not an absolute control.
If they would like to perform abortions and receive money from outsiders, they can seek non-US sources, correct? Since European countries are famously less worried about abortion that should be no problem. Unless of course European countries are a bit more tight-fisted with their money–that could be a problem. But then Jesurgislac would say things like “France’s lack of charity is killing KILLING thousands of women”
Which leads us directly back to the world-wide right to subsidies issue. That world-wide right to subsidies problem isn’t as easy to escape as you think.
Phil, in response to:
The problem is that you are using the word ‘controlled’ in one sense for Western culture and a completely different sense for Muslim extremists. In my recent post on the subject I said that I didn’t have any problem with people’s moral sense being influenced by religion. That is a perfectly unsurprising thing for religion to do. Violently demanding that your views on blasphemy be respected by every single person in the world at all times is a rather different version of control.
I don’t get it. The US can decide to run program P in country Q. Having done so, can they tell employee R not to use the letter S? Or not to mention Jesus, or the local religion’s deity? Or John Kerry? Or vitamin C?
Somewhere there’s a transition from prohibiting speech that encourages say genocidal hatred and speech that encourages good nutrition or speech that’s iambic, isn’t there?
Sebastian: If they would like to perform abortions and receive money from outsiders, they can seek non-US sources, correct?
Are you deliberately ignoring my point?
If they would like to be able to speak freely to their clients, or to speak freely to their nation’s legislators or media, they must seek money from non-US sources.
If they accept money from the US for their health clinics, they accept with the money a religiously-inspired restriction on their freedom of speech. That is the global gag rule. Do you approve of this restriction on freedom of speech, or not?
If this is a free country, why is everything so expensive?
“Which leads us directly back to the world-wide right to subsidies issue. That world-wide right to subsidies problem isn’t as easy to escape as you think.”
Sure it is. All you have to do is avoid positing such a right, and point, instead, to the moral failure of not being a Good Samaritan, to put it in Christian terms. WWJD?
Playing into Bin Laden’s Hands
Something as seemingly harmless as a cartoon has fanned the flames of religious intolerance. The risk of worldwide conflagration is very real. Unless cooler heads prevail, we risk polarizing further an already divided world. Osama Bin Laden has advocat…
If I won’t give money to you unless you dye your hair blond, that isn’t a restriction on hair color. That is a precondition I put on giving you money. If you have an objection to having blond hair which outweighs your objection to getting money from me, that still isn’t a restriction on hair color. Whether or not that analogy holds for interactions between governments and their own citizens is a subject of some debate. But it certainly holds for all other types of giving–such as the one you raise. People weigh the pros and cons of choices every single day. If a foreign hospital wants to accept aid from the US government (note I do not say from all possible sources in the US) it must choose not to engage in helping with abortions. If it thinks abortions are super-important, it can turn down US government aid. People make choices like that every day. People weigh options every day. I bet you do so in the store when you have limited funds and have to weigh your desires against your means and then choose to make only some of the purchases you desire. Unless you posit an international and unconditional right to US funds it doesn’t make sense to complain about getting US funds with conditions.
I don’t really care what Jesus would do, but I think funding abortions is more of a moral failing than not funding them. Now if you want to point me to non-abortion methods of alleviating childbirth injury, feel free and appeal to my moral understanding on that basis, feel free. Otherwise you are going to have to come up with a much stronger argument.
Funds could always be spent some way other than how they are actually spent.
Sheesh, I need to preview. Or get sleep or something.
Sebastian: If I won’t give money to you unless you dye your hair blond, that isn’t a restriction on hair color. That is a precondition I put on giving you money.
Plainly, however, it is a restriction on hair color that you wish to impose, even if the person on whom you wish to impose it can escape your restriction by simply refusing your money.
People weigh the pros and cons of choices every single day. If a foreign hospital wants to accept aid from the US government (note I do not say from all possible sources in the US) it must choose not to engage in helping with abortions.
You are again ignoring my point. If a foreign hospital wants to accept aid from the US government, no employee at that hospital is then allowed to tell any patient where safe abortions are available – a restriction of freedom of speech from doctor to patient: nor are they allowed to speak to their legislators or to the media about the dangers of illegal abortion – a restriction on public freedom of speech.
My question again is: Do you approve of this restriction on free speech?
Sebastian: but I think funding abortions is more of a moral failing than not funding them.
But my question – which you are persistently ignoring – is not about funding abortions. I am asking you about the restriction on free speech.
But, like, I already have blonde hair…
Well, hilzoy, the money is yours! Kind of like the philosophy of this admin’s tax cuts, eh?
Sebastian, I don’t have any objection to getting money from you. A good motto is, “when they’re throwing money out the window, stand outside the window.”
Yes, get some sleep. Good night.
“If it thinks abortions are super-important, it can turn down US government aid.”
Sebastian, just tangentially: is there an exception to allowing speech strictly in cases of abortions strictly to save the life of the mother in the U.S global gag rule?
If there isn’t, would you support such an exception?
As I said, this is a tangential question, and not at all about the issue of “free speech.” It’s purely a tangential question about your stance on the GGR.
Jes says: “My question again is: Do you approve of this restriction on free speech?”
Have you considered asking Sebastian that question with the last three words misising? Which is your primary concern here? The GGR, or defining “free speech”?
“But my question – which you are persistently ignoring – is not about funding abortions. I am asking you about the restriction on free speech.”
Perhaps this answers my question.
“Free speech” and “Strings-free monetary handouts” are different things.
If I offered to give you $100,000,000 to build a hospital and you wanted to spend it on lottery tickets, my saying that I wouldn’t give you the money if you spent it on lottery tickets is NOT a restriction on your right to buy lottery tickets. It is a restriction on the gift of money.
If had $5000 to give to a human rights group, but I wouldn’t give to one that made the death penalty in Western countries a focus of their attention, that isn’t a restriction on their right to focus on the death penalty. That just means that I won’t give money to them. If I am their largest donor and I make that known they can choose between getting the money they want from their largest donor or opposing the death penalty. That isn’t a restriction on their ability to oppose the death penalty. It just makes it so that they can’t oppose the death penalty AND get my money. Charities deal with the wishes of their largest donors all the time.
If the US refused to give money to doctors who performed female ‘circumcisions’ or those who told where to have their daughters mutilated that wouldn’t be a restriction on the ‘right’ remove their daughter’s ability to receive certain forms of sexual pleasure. It would be a restriction on the given money.
SH, I don’t understand why you’re talking about doctors performing procedures which the US has a consensus against, and laws against (anyway I think a more interesting case would be male circumcision if you want to argue procedure, or some other procedure which is legal here). What about the speech acts I asked about?
In this case the speech acts are directly related to the medical acts which are not to be performed under the terms of the funding. It isn’t as if the US government is making a condition of the funding that the doctor cannot perform medical act A and cannot use the word ‘flag’. It is that the doctor cannot perform medical act A with the money nor can he get around the prohibition by refering you to another clinic that he may or may not have a financial interest in.
Of course this all presumes that there are sting operations going on. It isn’t as if cheating on the gag rule is going to come to anyone’s attention unless you are running pretty large abortion services. And if you are doing that, get funding from someone else.
“that he may or may not have a financial interest in”
which is relevant why? I take it you’d feel differently if the doctor’s financial indifference could be certified?
It seems extremely odd to me that the govt can prohibit doctors from performing procedures out of the country which the govt pays doctors to perform here (e.g. Medicaid pays for abortions for various reasons). Well, more than odd.
“It seems extremely odd to me that the govt can prohibit doctors from performing procedures out of the country which the govt pays doctors to perform here”
They can’t. They just don’t have to give money to them.
It seems extremely odd to me that the govt doesn’t have to give money to doctors who fit their qualifications for working in foreign countries except for being black while instead giving money to white doctors. Not ethnic discrimination – there’s nothing saying they have to give money to black doctors.
Also I take it the govt can gag doctors working in public US hospitals without free speech issues arising, since working for a public hospital isn’t a right?
Sebastian: It isn’t as if the US government is making a condition of the funding that the doctor cannot perform medical act A and cannot use the word ‘flag’.
Actually, that’s exactly what the condition on the funding is. My question is, do you approve of this religiously-inspired restriction on free speech?
It is that the doctor cannot perform medical act A with the money nor can he get around the prohibition by refering you to another clinic that he may or may not have a financial interest in.
No one at the hospital can direct women to any clinic where a woman can get a safe abortion. (Your gloss that the doctor may have “a financial interest” in another clinic is kind of strange: these restrictions apply to non-profit bodies, charities and NGOs, far more than they do to private profit-making hospitals, and the restriction on free speech applies to all staff at the hospital, not only the doctors.
Further – a point you still ignore – it applies also to the right to speak freely to legislators and the media. My question is, do you approve of this religiously-inspired restriction on free speech?
It isn’t as if cheating on the gag rule is going to come to anyone’s attention
Since the gag rule also prohibits speaking to legislators or to the media, yes, cheating on the gag rule will come to the attention of the US government.
unless you are running pretty large abortion services.
Not relevant either, Sebastian. I didn’t ask you if you thought it was possible to get around this religiously-inspired restriction on free speech. I asked you if you approved of it.
“It seems extremely odd to me that the govt doesn’t have to give money to doctors who fit their qualifications for working in foreign countries except for being black while instead giving money to white doctors.”
I’m quite unclear whether it would violate case law or statute to discriminate by race (or any other prohibited category) against non-U.S. foreign citizens residing outside U.S. legal jurisdiction; it’s an interesting question, though not one likely to arise other than as a hypothetical, I’d think.
I’m somewhat vague as to whether it would be illegal to discriminate by race, or other prohibited category, against a U.S. citizen residing outside U.S. jurisdiction, in another country, although my first guess is that it probably would be illegal. But that’s just a guess, and I have no idea if it’s correct without looking into it, which I don’t intend to do. I’d be curious as to what any of our U.S. lawyers here have to say when they wake up.
“Also I take it the govt can gag doctors working in public US hospitals without free speech issues arising, since working for a public hospital isn’t a right?”
That’s a lot more complicated, because of the considerable number of other issues that clearly arise. IANAL, but a simple answer might — and I might be all wrong, as I’m basically just taking a stab at guessing for now, which isn’t terribly wise of me — that all other things being the same, it would be legal, but that in practice, all other things are unlikely to be the same.
I’m also taking “gag doctors working in public US hospitals without free speech issues arising” to mean “require doctors to abide by given conditions/restrictions, including on speech during the professional performance of their job while on duty, if said employment is subject to agreeing to such restrictions by signing their job agreement.”
I’d think, all other things, that that would be legal. Why not? Of course, it’s late, and I shouldn’t be responding to complicated questions, since I could easily be missing an important aspect just now.
Offhand, that would seem to be legal and Constitutional if the restriction didn’t violate the Constitution in some other fashion, such as, say, requiring in the contract that one discriminate against patients on the basis of race, religion, etc.
You seem to find Sebastian’s statements of fact and law puzzling, although I don’t know why.
“Not ethnic discrimination – there’s nothing saying they have to give money to black doctors.”
I don’t understand the meaning of this sentence fragment. As ever, maybe that’s just me. Or that it’s late.
There’s a prohibition in U.S. lawag ainst using the word “flag”?
Maybe the word “exactly” has changed meaning since I last looked. Or has a different, unknown to me, usage in British English than in American English. Is this like watching someone’s head “literally explode,” meaning “metaphorically explode”? “Exactly” means “analogically”?
“My question is, do you approve of this religiously-inspired restriction on free speech?”
I’m going to have to give up agreeing with Sebastian that this is not a restriction on “free speech,” but a restriction on terms of employment or on terms of receiving a grant, since you’re clearly determined to ignore the point. And you are clearly, apparently, determined to argue definitions of “free speech” as a priority over arguing the justice of the GGR and the cause of saving women’s lives.
Oh, well.
Speaking to Sebastian’s idea that saying “we won’t give you money unless you refrain from saying what we don’t want you to say” is not a restriction on free speech, what of this? Same deal?
“Same deal?”
It’s bullying. Bullying is nasty, but it’s not a governmental or legal restriction on free speech. You can quit your job and speak freely. Ask Paul O’Neil, for example, oread his book.
But if your boss says “follow these rules or you’re fired,” that choice is yours.
religiously-inspired restriction on free speech
Jes, are you objecting to the restriction on speech per se, or to particular sort of speech that’s being restricted? If the US were funding infant care clinics in China and had a rule that no money would be given to clinics who participated in the infanticide of baby girls, or told parents about other options for getting rid of their baby girl, or lobbied to make such infanticide legal, would you be similarly outraged at this “restriction of free speech”?
Anyway, I think it would be helpful to reserve the term “free speech” to contexts where one is subject to criminal penalties for one’s speech, or is forcibly silenced. Financial disincentives for undesired speech are perfectly ordinary, and I don’t see why the US gov’t should be any less entitled to attach conditions to its money than any private organization.
Unresponsive. This doesn’t infringe on their right to speak at all. It does place a one-time consequence (I’m not convinced this is true, but I’ll stipulate it for the purposes of discussion) on certain activities, but if the point is that speech should never have any consequences, I’m definitely in the wrong conversation. I’d also point out that you’ve (apparently, anyway) argued the other side of this issue sometime in the last week; when I get time I’ll link to it.
Of course, it’s probably best when referring to free speech issues exactly what one is talking about. Are we talking Constitutionality, or something else? Does free speech mean that I ought to be able to divulge corporate intellectual property, or classified information? Probably some frameworking is in order; maybe even some of that has been done since your reply. I’m catching up right now.
Thanks, Gary. This is completely at odds with your previous remarks, but consistency, hobgoblins, etc.
I think the discussion-worthiness of this topic exists even without attaching it to free-speech issues; in fact I see attempts to link it that way as a distraction, as well as being completely inaccurate.
The extent to which I’m an interlocuter in this matter is defined solely by the free-speech infringement claim, which I completely disagree with. Whether the US government ought to tie strings of morality to foreign aid is of course a worthy topic. We do that anyway, I claim, by requiring that aid be spent in areas that we specify. Is this a legitimate extension of restrictions on how aid money can be spent, or no? I’m guessing Jesurgislac is opining no; I’m open to discussion in the matter.
“Don’t let your interlocuter(s) define the grounds of the argument.”
The thing is that Jesurgislac defined the terms. She wants to use the “gag rule” as something to illustrate something about free speech inconsistency regarding getting worked up about the cartoons. So far as I can see, she doesn’t have a leg to stand on in that regard.
OK, getting serious now. It seems to me something is missing from this discussion.
When two parties make a contract, exchanging money for some outcome, it is perfectly legitimate for the paying party to insist on conditions. If the parties agree, we generally think that the contract was freely entered into.
When an individual gives money to a charity, in general no strings are attached. The individual has decided that the charity is a worthy cause and simply donates. The charity is free to spend the money without conditions.
There are gray areas of course. One that comes to mind is a large bequest to an institution, where a will may specify conditions. But I think the main recourse if the institution fails to comply with conditions is to withhold further money … money that was spent is gone.
Is U.S. funding of a program in a foreign country more like a contract or a donation? Again, we’re probably in a gray area. But if we attach conditions let’s not pretend that it’s pure charity.
The consequences of not funding some of these programs are stark. People will probably die as a result. So if we claim this is charity and stop the funding, we have decided that the cause is no longer worthy despite that fact.
In my mind, attaching conditions amounts to imposing our will on otherwise independent people. I think the analogy of a job where you can just quit and go elsewhere is strained at best.
The free speech argument is perhaps a bit of a red herring, but I think it is relevant. This is not a relationship between equals. People living in abject poverty do not have much leverage in negotiation. It’s not a stretch to say that if we use our far superior power to coerce them we are infringing on their rights.
“I’d also point out that you’ve (apparently, anyway) argued the other side of this issue sometime in the last week; when I get time I’ll link to it.”
And: “Thanks, Gary. This is completely at odds with your previous remarks, but consistency, hobgoblins, etc.”
Sure. I’ll happily point out what’s wrong with either side of an argument, or what’s right about either side of an argument, and I’ll happily try to strengthen both arguments, if I think someone on either side is missing an important point, or doing a bad job on their side.
I’d rather see a profitable debate, where maybe everyone, but I’d hope at least someone, learns something from it, than a debate made on lousy premises or on lousy logic “win,” since nothing is actually learned by anyone from that, save that you can win an argument with a bad case, or even when you’re wrong, and I don’t like to see people learn that lesson.
I’m just all funny about this sort of thing. This is also why I always say I’m more interested in an interesting disgreement than in talking with someone who agrees with my conclusion, but in an embarassing or illogical or stupid way; that does me no good at all….
Having my ideas well challenged, whether by facts or logic or both, on the other hand, may teach me something, tell me facts I should know, and at least help me strengthen my argument for the future, or maybe even change my mind!
I’m just a cock-eyed optimist, or something. This also doesn’t help me be a “team player,” and it gets me frequent comments that I’m a “contrarian.” I manage to live with such a dread charge. Somehow.
“She wants to use the “gag rule” as something to illustrate something about free speech inconsistency regarding getting worked up about the cartoons. So far as I can see, she doesn’t have a leg to stand on in that regard.”
Probably not, but we’ll see.
I may not make much sense this morning, anyway, since I wound up watching BSG “Flight of the Phoenix” from around 1:40 a.m. until about 3 a.m., and then “Pegasus” until about 4:35 a.m., and then finally going to bed, loaded with two Ambien and a bunch of melatonin, around 4:50 a.m., then getting up around 8:10 a.m., running an intravenous coffee line, but I’m still working with a head of solid mud, which is throbbing painfully. So this may not be a day with much output from me — certainly won’t be for a few hours, if it all, and what comes may also be clear as mud, when I risk it. You Are Warned. Whoever you are. What’s my name again? Yawn. (It’s now 9:34 a.m. Rocky Mountain time, here.) Yawn. Which blog is this? How do I spell “is”?
“When an individual gives money to a charity, in general no strings are attached.”
This is seriously not so. Strings and restrictions are done all the time. “I’m donating for your program in Ethiopia, and the money is just for that program, and not an open donation.” Many charities will point out that targeted donations is one of their biggest problems in terms of lack of flexibility.
And you certainly don’t have to be dead to be donating on that premise. Look into the issue, I suggest.
Gary, that is a quibble. You choose a charity and give money. If the charity has a way to earmark the money, fine, but you have no real recourse once you sign the check. It’s only big money that really gets to attach strings.
My point is, attaching strings is an exercise of power.
“If the charity has a way to earmark the money, fine, but you have no real recourse once you sign the check. It’s only big money that really gets to attach strings.”
This just isn’t true. Targeted donations, and targeted solitications, is one of the largest complaints most international charities have had for years. If I were more away, I’d point you at a dozen articles from the last couple of years on it; but you can go google for yourself, and see.
“If I were more away”
should be “If I were more awake.”
See what I mean?
When you wake up, please suggest a good search word. “targeted donations” plus complain or plus recourse doesn’t work very well. I’m sure you have a point but it is, I think, tangential.
Yes, indeed, it is as Gary says. Recall the post-9/11 controversy at the American Red Cross when people who assumed their donations were being used for 9/11 victims (of whom there were regretably few who required Red Cross assistance) found out the money was going to the general disaster relief fund. They’re still recovering from that snafu, and “donor intent” is now the name of the game.
“You choose a charity and give money. If the charity has a way to earmark the money, fine, but you have no real recourse once you sign the check.”
And if you don’t like what they do with it, you don’t sign the next check.
Not signing the next check isn’t a restriction on free speech.
Telling them why you aren’t signing the next check isn’t a restriction on free speech. In fact it is a good thing to do because they can then decide if their policy which is causing you to not write the next check is worth not getting the next check.
On a lighter note, Stop cartoon violence – Bush.
Lately the headlines make me think of Wyle E. Coyote. Should we embargo Acme products?
NASA telling you that they won’t sign your paycheck if you go to a Wes Clark rally or talk about it at lunch isn’t a restriction on free speech? A ban on gay marriage doesn’t infringe gays’ rights – they can, like anyone, marry someone of the opposite sex?
Sampe article on problems of targeted giving.
NASA telling you that they won’t sign your paycheck if you go to a Wes Clark rally or talk about it at lunch isn’t a restriction on free speech?
I don’t think a private employer can do that either, can they? My offhand, ill-informed opinion is that as long as the gov’t isn’t using its police power, it should be able to behave like a private organization.
Here:
See also particularly here. Will this do for starters? I’ve got other things I need to be doing.
“NASA telling you that they won’t sign your paycheck if you go to a Wes Clark rally or talk about it at lunch isn’t a restriction on free speech?”
It might be, since they’re a government agency, not a private business, and different rules apply. Such a requirement might be possible if it were directed by statute, and weren’t otherwise in contravention of the Constitution, and a court agree. I can’t see that an agency could simply make up such a rule on their own, absent specific Congressional authority.
None of this should be a great mystery; what do you find so puzzling?
“Wyle E. Coyote.”
I say, I say, I say, that’s Wile E. Coyote,” son, and don’tchu forget it!
Sebastian, at the individual level I agree. But when the amounts get large and the problem is desperate, I think it is legitimate to consider whether the exercise of a donor’s power infringes on rights. That is not my primary consideration, though. More important to me is the practical result.
Gary,
The practical result is that this targeting of an individual donation is ignored. And, need I remind you, “money is fungible?” The charities may be upset and it may result in a drop in donations (as I believe the Red Cross experienced) but that’s about it.
In the Times article the complaint seems to be mostly from the intended recipients rather than donors. For example,
And again, what is the recourse?
“We must all remember the Golden Rule.” “What’s that?” “He who has the gold makes the rules.” [from the Wizard of Id, if I recall correctly]
I don’t think foreign aid is similar enough to an employment situation to make an employment analysis very helpful.
That said, the employment/free speech intersection is a lot more complicated than you seem to think rilkefan. For example, army officers and foriegn service employees are both restricted in what they can say in public if they want to maintain their positions.
I am restricted in what I can say in public, if I want to keep my freedom, security clearance, and 401k. It’s part of this agreement I have whereby I promise to safeguard this information in exchange for being able to access it.
I could cry coercion, but that’d be an abdication of responsibility.
SH: “That said, the employment/free speech intersection is a lot more complicated than you seem to think”
No, I realize it’s complex, I just think (or more accurately suspect) your argument proves too much.
Move the discussion to NGOs or charities if you prefer. (Though actually probably everybody’s bored at this poin.)
Slart, I think it’s clear the govt can compel you to keep secrets they give you access to, given the security import – but what about publicly available info? Or if the admin prohibited you (at the cost of losing your job) from expressing political views contrary to it on non-defense issues ?
If I understand correctly, some percentage of hires are patronage or otherwise political, but others are expected to be apolitical. I recognize the right of a doctor in country X not to discuss an action that is legal (and funded by the govt) in the US and legal in that country, but I find the intrusion of our politics into such areas troubling.
They can’t, and don’t. If they did, though, it’d have to be the result of an agreement to that effect. They certainly cannot constrain in any way things that I choose to discuss outside of my role at work.
I don’t see where the dividing line between that and gagging doctors (US citizens or otherwise) lies.
“If I understand correctly, some percentage of hires are patronage or otherwise political, but others are expected to be apolitical.”
You’re talking about the difference between the Senior Executive Service and the Civil Service.
“I recognize the right of a doctor in country X not to discuss an action that is legal (and funded by the govt) in the US and legal in that country, but I find the intrusion of our politics into such areas troubling.”
I don’t understand what this means.
“I don’t see where the dividing line between that and gagging doctors (US citizens or otherwise) lies.”
Statute.
Is it the contention that the doctors are also gagged when speaking as private citizens? Are they gagged when no such conditions for providing aid are in place?
It’s not clear to me what your argument is, and probably vice versa, so let’s talk. The way I see it, there’s no legal bindings in the case in question, just financial ones.
Slarti: Is it the contention that the doctors are also gagged when speaking as private citizens?
Yes, indeed. What would be the point of the global gag rule if a hospital employee (doctor, administrator, or nurse) could be ungagged when they leave work? The whole point of the global gag rule is to make Bush look good to his base by driving as many women as possible to die of unsafe illegal abortions. If the global gag rule were that easy to get around, more women might survive.
I’m sorry: of course, the point of the global gag rule isn’t to kill women – the women who are killed by it are just collateral damage. The point of the global gag rule is to diminish the number of safe legal abortions, and to prevent as many people as possible from talking about the unsafe illegal abortions that result. The dead women are not relevant to the “pro-lifers” who see this as a good result.
And again, sorry. This was intended to be an amusing poke at Sebastian and Von, who object to people rioting in favor of religiously-inspired opposition to free speech, but who (Sebastian, at least) see religiously-inspired opposition to free speech as desireable when it causes the death of nearly 80 000 women a year. Unfortunately, I failed to maintain the amused detachment necessary for truly successful pokes: I can’t regard those deaths as positively as Sebastian does.
I am banning myself from Obsidian Wings for 24 hours to cool down. Bye.
The description from the site you gave, Jes, says:
So the NGO can’t use other funding to lobby to make abortion legal. How do we get from there to a restriction on private speech on the part of individual employees? AFAICT this means that they simply can’t lobby the government in their official capacity as a member of that NGO (or even more literally, can’t receive money from the NGO to do so).
“The whole point of the global gag rule is to make Bush look good to his base by driving as many women as possible to die of unsafe illegal abortions.”
Wasn’t the global gag rule in effect under Reagan and Bush I?
BTW can we have no more related presidents? The dynasty-like implications of Bush I v. Bush II seem unamerican.
The gag rule is the admin saying they won’t pay for programs where doctors express certain views the admin dislikes. I assume that if a doctor sees a patient who wants another option and the doctor says, “I can’t talk about abortion, but come by my house when I’m off-duty and I’ll tell you where to go”, the funding would be cut if the administrator found out and agreed with the policy.
I’m a contractor. My paycheck comes from a national lab. If my boss was told not to renew my contract on the basis of my advocacy of Wes Clark, I’d be displeased. I assume that statute, as Gary puts it, prevents the admin from doing that. If I went to Namibia to teach physics for an NGO, and the admin decided they’d drop the program if I discussed the Big Bang, I’d be displeased. I take it there’s no statute involved. It’s unclear to me why anyone would shrug at the latter hypo and not the former on that basis.
kenB, see “provide counseling and referral for abortion”.
(I should note that I’m arguing this because of my view that medical decisions and discussions should be between doctors and their patients to the extent that’s consistent with widely-held cultural standards. Of course if it turns out a drug is deadly, then I can see proscribing it – but consider the case of Teresa Nielsen Hayden described here.)
the funding would be cut if the administrator found out and agreed with the policy.
Probably, but only because it would at that point be the de facto policy of the NGO. Surely it’s legitimate for the government to factor in the NGO’s policies when deciding which organizations to fund. Seems to me that the objection here isn’t the “free speech restriction” per se, but the particular speech being restricted — see my China infanticide hypo as a check on that impression.
Note that I’m not supporting the gag rule policy, just saying that treating it as a “freedom of speech” issue is inapt.
“I assume that if a doctor sees a patient who wants another option and the doctor says, ‘I can’t talk about abortion, but come by my house when I’m off-duty and I’ll tell you where to go’, the funding would be cut if the administrator found out and agreed with the policy.”
I’m not an expert on the GGR, though I’m doing a bit more reading on it now, to see if I can find any support for Jes’s assertions as regards private, off-duty speech, and your “assumption.”
I suggestion that “assumption[s]” may not be helpful. Could you please offer a citation, instead?
Thanks. Ditto request to Jes, whether she wants to wait 24 hours, or not respond to me, or whatever. Presumably, if the assertion is true, it shouldn’t be in the least hard to support it with a citation.
Here, it says this:
“Presumably, if the assertion is true, it shouldn’t be in the least hard to support it with a citation.”
Could you support your “presumption” with a citation, please? If it’s true that it’s generally the case that true assertions can be easily based on cites, it shouldn’t be hard to base that on a cite.
I’ve read a number of documents. I’ve yet to find anything about off-duty speech of individuals of NGOs. A typical formulation goes like this:
The only cases I’m yet finding of punishments being enacted tend to be like this:
Everything I read refers to “organizations” being prohibited from engaging in various acts. I’ve found nothing in reference prohibitions on off-duty individuals, as yet. I’ve found no cases of individuals being punished, as yet, though there are various citations of people saying they didn’t engage in speech because of “fear” of their organization having funds withdrawn. I suppose one could make a case for a “chilling effect,” but really only if one can point to actual examples of such events having ever taken place, I think.
I’ll look around a bit more, and then I’ll go on to other stuff, and wait for a citation in support of the assertion that individuals working for NGOs can’t speak up on their off-hours. There are certainly many cases of such individuals testifying in public about abortion, and writing articles about abortion, I note, which also tends to cast some doubt on Jesurgislac’s assertion, and Rilkefan’s “assumption.”
But I’m not an expert, and a couple of citations in support of the claims would clear things up immediately.
*retreats from this thread*
“Could you support your ‘presumption’ with a citation, please? If it’s true that it’s generally the case that true assertions can be easily based on cites, it shouldn’t be hard to base that on a cite.”
What? If this is the level of response you’re interested in responding with, I decline further attempts to converse with you.
Interesting French cartoons via Jerome a Paris at Kos.
Gary, noted.
Jesurgislac:
Indeed, which is why I asked the question in the first place. It’s just that I, like Gary, have been unable to find anything substantiating that notion in the articles you’ve linked to. To give him credit, Gary has looked a great deal harder than I have.
This is not to say that there aren’t any legitimate questions to be raised pertaining to how…kosher, for lack of a better word, it is to have foreign policy impose different values on other countries than we impose on ourselves.
I find this discussion unreal. Suppose a congressional sponsor of the gag rule found out that the people working at the program were using the fiction of being off work to get around the rule. Think they’d think it’s kosher?
One doesn’t stop being an employee at 5 pm each day.
If doctors affiliated with project X are telling patients about prohibited option Y, it’s a violation, no matter what time of day it is. Sheesh.
the people working at the program were using the fiction of being off work to get around the rule. Think they’d think it’s kosher?
Of course not — if it was systematic, that would make it a de facto policy of the organization. But if a friend of an employee came to her personally, not through the NGO, and asked for advice, the employee could counsel her without running afoul of the rule.
Anyway, I’ll ask again — for those of you who see this as a free speech issue, would you still see it the same way if you supported the aim of the rule? If, fr’ex, the US said “we’re not going to fund foreign NGOs that perform female genital mutilation or help their clients figure out where they can take their daughters to have it done”, would you object?
kenB, if the friend was also the friend of Jesse Helms — or whoever Sen. Brownback — and reported back about the conversation, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that funding was getting cut off.
Anyway, the sort of small leak in the system you describe is nowhere near sufficient for the it’s-not-really-a-gag-rule argument.
“Anyway, the sort of small leak in the system you describe is nowhere near sufficient for the it’s-not-really-a-gag-rule argument.”
Absolutely. And in case anyone is only reading some of the comments, I’d like to emphasize again that I 100% oppose the global gag rule, support the right to abortion, have always been horrified by the global gag rule, and absolutely agree that it leads to the utterly unnecessary deaths of some horrifically large number of women around the world. I believe that it is, by my own system of morality, on balance, a deeply immoral law, that it should never have been passed, and should be removed from the books as quickly as possible.
I’ve always believed that the GGR is simply awful.
Meanwhile, the lives of women killed by it can never, of course, be restored, nor the pain of their families, friends, and loved ones, alleviated.
None of that prevents me, though, from wanting to find out what the facts of a detail are, when said detail is brought up, rather than relying on an “assumption.”
Indeed, it weakens one’s utterly valid and important case, and one’s credibility, if one gets any detail wrong in one’s argument.
It’s not helpful to leave a hole in one’s argument.
Well, I already wrote that the free speech argument is not my primary consideration. I just don’t think dismissing it out of hand is valid. Besides, I’d like to have an argument (please).
kenB, I think you need to expand your hypothetical a bit to make it meaningful. I find it difficult to imagine as a worthy cause an NGO that performed female genital mutilation. Does this purported NGO have some other function that makes it worth funding? Does any such NGO exist?
So, looking at it from the other side, would I be in favor of dangling money in front of this purported NGO to try to convince them to stop doing female genital mutilation? Would it work if I did? Somehow I think I could find a better use for my money.
No, you wouldn’t.
mind reader 🙂
“Besides, I’d like to have an argument (please).
No, you wouldn’t.”
That’s next door. This is abuse.
kenB, if there was a stark inconsistency in values between us and country X such as you describe, I would feel more comfortable with us asking doctors to abide by our laws, but I don’t know how the entire enterprise would work. What happens now in countries where FGM is practiced? Are there significant #s of doctors likely to be hired by a reputable (by general Western standards) NGO who would perform FGM or favorably advise parents where to go? (Or, what ral said.)
Slart, as to the off-work question, I’m obviously in the Charley Carp camp, but if you like, consider the hypothetical (“If we assume this, then…”) I’m not actually that interested in this question, given that I would oppose the rule either way – does it matter to your view of the rule?
ral, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings (oh, sorry, you want room 12A): assume that we’re contributing money to infant & child care clinics. The idea is that we want to support the work in general, but there’s this one practice that we find morally repugnant and don’t want to be associated with.
Or if you don’t want a hypothetical situation, how about a hypothetical ral? Imagine for a moment that you felt that abortion was every bit as bad as infanticide. How might that change your position on the “freedom of speech” complaint in regard to how this money is doled out?
[a direct answer to a direct question, but if I were testifying I’d have to say I can’t accept your hypothetical.]
It doesn’t change my view at all. I oppose this policy based on its results. I freely admit that some people on the other side (perhaps yourself included) support it for completely honest reasons.
There are some dishonest people in the world but they mostly don’t seem to appear on ObWi (or at least, not for long).
Let me add one thing — I don’t think the policy produces the desired result. That is, I think probably the more frequent result is cheating rather than suppression of speech. The worst of both worlds, from just about anyone’s point of view.
I oppose this policy based on its results.
Fine by me. I oppose the policy as well. I just don’t think the “freedom of speech” framing is the most appropriate (though it may in fact be effective). To me, it seems roughly as valid as talking about books being “banned” when they’re really just being pulled from a school library shelf — it’s a rhetorical device to make you think of totalitarianism.
Having thought for a second I’d like to amend my statement about the culture clash scenario above to note that Congress can pass a law regulating the use of the money in question, and I find I’d feel better about that. Part of my objection appears to be rooted in this balance-of-powers issue.
Yeah, I think I framed it that way (albeit, needless to say, clumsily) upthread. If it were just me making the rules, I’d say no abortions. Jesurgislac probably loathes me for that, but it ought to come as no surprise. Given that we’re footing the bill for X, I think it’s fair to say that we have some say in the matter of allowable uses for our money, or allowable uses for money that our money is replacing.
Whether, on the other hand, we ought to be imposing our values on other countries when they’re not even our values, actually, is another question altogether. I haven’t an answer for this, so I’m forced to back down to this: given that we don’t have a greater consensus in favor of such policy, and given that our courts don’t find in favor of such policy domestically (loosely speaking; you lawyers just take it easy) I’d say that we probably ought to give serious consideration to not implementing it abroad.
That’s of course completely disregarding the consequences of the policy, which (I believe) either aren’t well recorded anywhere Jesurgislac has linked to, or I’ve missed some key data. Given that I’m not arguing based on the consequences, though, I’m not really hell-bent on nailing down where the numbers came from and what they mean.
Fair enough.
Hi Folks
I was reading some your message, it is quite interesting to see your point of view.
I am pissed of and I have been pissed off for say 5 years now. Since 9/11. I am pissed of at these bastards that call themselves Muslims. These so called great heroes that are protecting the Muslim community.
The truth is I hate these people I really hate these people. They have ruined the view of my religion. The talk so much about bringing the Muslim community together and that they are protecting us . No your not! Your making things worse! Whenever the world comes together whenever there is a flicker of peace you have to come a blow someone up. If you love Islam so much why don’t you want peace.
Oh and they say that September 11th was a great Occassion, well you know what, if wasnt for that. There would be an insurgency in Afghanistan there would be now war in Iraq, Muslim men and women would not feel sacred to leave their homes, if it wans’t for that fucking incident you twats so call jihadis nobody would be spitting on us treating us a backward society. So in effect you ahve brought it on yourself, beacuse of you blowing yourselves up throwing bombs and being a terrorist no one would have drawn our Prophet (Peace be upon him) a terrorist, your the ones that have made it look it. It was your acts
You know there are a lot of peaceful Muslims who just want life to move on. I am one of them I would never advocate the killing of people in the name of religion. Who said this was okay, did God No,Did the Prophets no, so why are you doing it for what basis? I hate these people. These fucking motherfuckers and that Anjum Chaudhary that bastard who doesn’t even know the A-Z of Islam goes off with stupid Placards, hello we protesting against the cartoons this is not a political campaign for you. And you know the one thing Britich Muslims have been asking, why were there not any arrests. Surely if you speaking Shit like this soemone would arrest but no. Why? Why? Why?
How dare they hijack this protest for advocating somehting rubbish, couldn’t they actually do what they were there for protest against the cartoons. How dare you hijack the occasion for your personal needs. This furore wouldn’t have happened. I hate you Anjum Chaudhary it is because of people because of you that we are in such a shit situation. Trying to help us. Fat chance. Believe all Muslims at this time are thinking what aload of bastards