Democracy in a Cartoon

[gilliam]

The great British philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty, “Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being ‘pushed to an extreme’; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case.”

The cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten raise the most important question of our times: freedom of expression. Are we in the west going to cave into pressure from societies with a medieval mindset, or are we going to defend our most precious freedom – freedom of expression, a freedom for which thousands of people sacrificed their lives?

A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality; originality and truth. Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest. Do not apologize.

(Excerpt) Read more at service.spiegel.de …

 

[Ani_Ibi]

gilliam:

The great British philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty, “Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being ‘pushed to an extreme’; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case.”

It depends on how “extreme case” is defined, gilliam.

Do I hope that Muslims will tolerate in a friendly and generous way questions, challenges, and criticism to and of the principles put forth by their faith? Yes. Such inquiry is part of learning for us who put forward the questions, challenge, and criticism as well as for Muslims who hopefully will answer, respond, and provide apologetics.

Do I hope that Muslims will tolerate insults to the principles of their faith? Ridicule? Mockery? Misrepresentations? False witness? No. A thousand times no. Tolerance of this sort of anti-social rhetorical attack emboldens those with much time on their hands and little sense of what to do with that time.

Bigotry and hatred must not in my humble opinion be emboldened. Why? Because it deeply wounds the victim in a way that makes that victim at the very least mistrust the perpetrator and at the very most eschew the company of anyone not belonging to the victim’s immediate group.

Sticks and stones may break bones but names do hurt people.

The line of distinction which has been drawn by the Liberal-Left has been that hate speech is not actionable unless it councils violence. Balderdash! Hate speech immunizes folks from temperate behaviour and emboldens them to slide down a slippery slope toward a point in time when violent scape-goating begins to look not only acceptable but attractive and maybe even necessary.

Hitler’s anti-Jewish propaganda is a case in point. How were Jews portrayed? As vermin. What was the harm in portraying Jews as vermin? The portrayals were only films; only entertainment; only another point of view.

Well if that isn’t moral relativism at work, I don’t know what is. Those films diminished Jews in the eyes of their peers and were inaccurate portrayals. The very definition of defamation. And, by accepting that defamation as reasonable discourse, the German nation immunized itself against the horror of the death camps. And that in my opinion was an abomination.

gilliam:

The cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten raise the most important question of our times: freedom of expression. Are we in the west going to cave into pressure from societies with a medieval mindset, or are we going to defend our most precious freedom – freedom of expression, a freedom for which thousands of people sacrificed their lives?

You see the tactics of this writer? “Listen, understand, and negotiate common ground” becomes “cave in.” And “hurt feelings” become “medieval mindset.”

The precious freedom we must defend is not the freedom to single out, scapegoat, and belittle our fellow citizens. That is not freedom. That is an unsubstantiated claim to special privilege; special privilege which exists only in the fantasies of the perpetrators of the verbal bludgeoning which is the subject of this discussion.

gilliam:

A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression

True.

gilliam:

the freedom to argue

True.

gilliam:

to dissent

True.

gilliam:

even to insult and offend.

Why do I feel that the writer is talking about insulting and offending people not in the immediate circle of the writer? Would the writer feel warm and fuzzy being subjected to the same ridicule he would apportion out to others? I don’t think so. I think in the writer’s world sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. Why? Because I think the writer feels that his special privilege exempts him from equitable treatment.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

gilliam:

It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality; originality and truth.

Perhaps. I am willing to entertain the notion of the Islamic Street being thin-skinned and volatile.

gilliam:

Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest…

Solidarity with the Danes over the cartoon? Not I ! Never will I show solidarity for those who show no sensitivity toward the feelings of others, particularly as regards their way of worshipping God !

gilliam:

Do not apologize.

I am assuming only those who are without sin feel no need to apologize. An enviable position were it true.

To equate false witness and rhetorical bullying with reasonable discourse is in my opinion really pretty outrageous. And extraordinarily irresponsible and dangerous.

 

[gilliam]

In recent years, some Christians have been deeply offended by modern “art” that pictures Jesus’s face on the lid of a “toilet altar.” That has a Crucifix immersed in urine or offers a picture of the Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung. Some see such images as a blasphemous affront to faith and an attack on believers.

But the American and British artists who produced these images were free to put them on display, and they have been widely reproduced. Freedom of expression in Canada and other democracies is a cherished, fundamental right. And being free, means being free to challenge, provoke and even offend.

thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139007013790&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

 

[Ani_Ibi]

So glad to see that the latter article was a Toronto Star article. The Star gave $40K start up funds to Judy Rebick who, among other things, started a website. On that website, Rebick published a cartoon of Pope Benedict dressed as a Nazi saluting to the Virgin Mary who the cartoonist presumably mistook for Hitler.

Rebick claimed the cartoon was legitimate comment; that it was satire.

If it were only satire, then one could have expected reasonable discourse to ensue on the subject on her website. Did that happen? No!

What did happen then? This is what happened:

A poster advised a defender of the Catholich Church to “insert a crucifix up her @#^& and twist it.” Was the poster suspended? No. The poster responded to this tolerance of his hate speech by escalating his rhetorical attacks. And then other posters chimed in, posting ever more offensive, profane, ugly vitriol against our faith.

The phenomenon was reported to the Catholic Civil Rights League who, in turn, complained to the Liberal government claiming that a government agency (CIDA) was funding Alternatives which was funding One World which was funding Rebick. The minister in charge and Rebick denied the existence of the money trail.

The League said that likely charges could not be pressed against Rebick because the police usually wanted to see the risk of violence before proceeding with an investigation.

Let’s see if a risk of violence existed.

Where did Rebick go to capitilize on all this free publicity? London, Ontario. Why London? Because the University of Western Ontario was awarding Dr Henry Morgentaler an honourary doctorate of laws for his work in promoting the right of women to “choose.”

The NDP was capitilizing on all this publicity to promote their pro-abortion platform. And Catholics and Evangelics were objecting strenuously by withdrawing their donations, withdrawing their applications to enroll, and by demonstrating on the campus.

And what happened as a result of all this hullaballoo? People felt free to hurl pop cans out of moving vehicles at the demonstrator’s heads, indulge in pushing and shoving, and shout insults.

What makes this not a “risk of violence” in the eyes of the police?

I am not going to defend people who would ridicule Islam. Neither am I going to defend people who would ridicule Catholicism.

Both are abominations to human society. What I do want is equity. Rhetorical bullying is not the same as reasonable discourse. Folks who indulge in rhetorical bullying should be shown the inside of a concrete residential setting for a bit until they rethink the meaning of freedom and its correlation with responsibility.

Point is: Why would the Toronto Star speak against its own constituency: Rebick and her rabble [sic].

Catholic group outraged over cartoon of Nazi-saluting Pope

 

[gilliam]

Ani Ibi:

It depends on how “extreme case” is defined, gilliam.

Do I hope that Muslims will tolerate in a friendly and generous way questions, challenges, and criticism to and of the principles put forth by their faith? …

Doubt it

 

[Ani_Ibi]

gilliam:

Doubt it

Fair enough. But does that excuse others from ridiculing the principles of Islam?

Ridicule and reasonable discourse – in my world – are disparate entities.

 

[gilliam]

Ani Ibi:

Fair enough. But does that excuse others from ridiculing the principles of Islam?

Ridicule and reasonable discourse – in my world – are disparate entities.

I think the cartoons were trying to show a link between Islam and terrorism. They were political cartoons so they tend to “bite”. There have been enough of them attacking the Church not so long ago.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

gilliam:

I think the cartoons were trying to show a link between Islam and terrorism.

I understand. And this link can be portrayed in a reasonable manner. But demonstrating insensitivity to the belief of Muslims that depicting their Prophet Muhammed pboh is idolatry and depicting him as a terrorist or associated with terrorism is blasphemy – is unnecessary, callous, irresponsible, and dangerous.

gilliam:

They were political cartoons so they tend to “bite”.

Robust political debate – or, as you put it, “bite” – is different from rhetorical attack.

gilliam:

There have been enough of them attacking the Church not so long ago.

Indeed, gilliam, there have been. And I strongly and furiously object to our Church being subjected to these unprovoked, wanton, vicious attacks. But I am equally offended to see any religion being brutalized thus.

What pigs me off hugely is that the amount of fuss dedicated to understanding the Muslim point of view has not been dedicated in a fair way at all to understanding the Catholic point of view.

Ridicule hurts. I don’t make a distinction between a Muslim and a Catholic in terms of their being made victims of ridicule. In my world it is hurtful either way.

Who are the people most invested in ridiculing religions? Are they religious people themselves? I doubt it. I think this is another temper tantrum from the secular humanists for whom everything they say is fair comment and everything the religious say is from a medieval mindset and eminently predisposed to outright dismissal.

 

[gilliam]

Ani Ibi:

Who are the people most invested in ridiculing religions? Are they religious people themselves? I doubt it. I think this is another temper tantrum from the secular humanists for whom everything they say is fair comment and everything the religious say is from a medieval mindset and eminently predisposed to outright dismissal.

Maybe, maybe not:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/02/05/nflag05.jpg
A child joins demonstrators in Belgrave Square

 

[Ani_Ibi]

gilliam:

Maybe, maybe not:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/02/05/nflag05.jpg
A child joins demonstrators in Belgrave Square

I do not approve of the violence which has occurred in reaction to the cartoon either, gilliam.

The Muslim rioters are not ridiculing anyone. They are counselling murder. Neither position is defensible. And I only pray to God that we do not find ourselves in the middle of it.

The burning of the embassies does not bode well. But then again that might be manageable if Syria did not already have such a deplorable history in terms of terrorism.

I hope they really enjoy what little posturing time they think they have left. Because what comes after won’t be very pleasant.

 

[walstan]

Mill lays down “one very simple principle” to govern the use of coercion in society - and by coercion he means both legal penalties and the operation of public opinion; it is that we may only coerce others in self-defence - either to defend ourselves, or to defend others from harm. Crucially, this rules out paternalistic interventions to save people from themselves, and ideal interventions to make people behave “better”. It has long exercised critics to explain how a utilitarian can subscribe to such a principle of self-restraint. In essence, Mill argues that only by adopting the self-restraint principle can we seek out the truth, experience the truth as “our own”, and fully develop individual selves.

Could it be that it was that lack of self restraint by the Danish press that has lead to this situation?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

walstan:

Could it be that it was that lack of self restraint by the Danish press that has lead to this situation?

Yes.

However it needs to be noted that it is not the lack of self restraint by the Danish press that has endangered lives.

It is the lack of self-restraint by Islamic radical militants that has endangered lives.

 

[walstan]

Ani Ibi:

Yes.

However it needs to be noted that it is not the lack of self restraint by the Danish press that has endangered lives.

It is the lack of self-restraint by Islamic radical militants that has endangered lives.

From that I therefore assume that you agree with the publication of the cartoons and other articles in germany by Julius Streicher’s in Der Stermer prior to 1939 that resulted in Krystal Nacht and the subsequent gettoisation of the Jews and which in turn lead to the holocaust. Or do you think restraint should have been made then but not now by the Danes?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

walstan:

From that I therefore assume that you agree with the publication of the cartoons and other articles in germany by Julius Streicher’s in Der Stermer prior to 1939 that resulted in Krystal Nacht and the subsequent gettoisation of the Jews and which in turn lead to the holocaust. Or do you think restraint should have been made then but not now by the Danes?

Muslim moderation:​

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D050206/2istanbul.jpg

found at: haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/678639.html

above an article headed:

Dutch Islamists post cartoons depicting Anne Frank, Hitler in bed -

which can be found a little way down this page:

atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

Can anyone spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y ?

Demeaning cartoons are not an occasional indulgence by Muslim papers wanting to test a principle - they are habitual: the tradition of Julius Streicher is alive and well and flourishing among the Islamofascists.

One would have hoped that the horrible results of centuries of Christian Judaeophobia would have warned Islamofascists against repeating Christian sins - but no, the Islamofascists continue it, as though the Nazi genocide had never occurred Since they deny it happened, this is unsurprising: one can hardly learn from events which did not take place ##

 

[Ani_Ibi]

walstan:

From that I therefore assume that you agree with the publication of the cartoons and other articles in germany by Julius Streicher’s in Der Stermer prior to 1939 that resulted in Krystal Nacht and the subsequent gettoisation of the Jews and which in turn lead to the holocaust.

No. Please do a search of my posts in the last 24 hours. You will see that I oppose the portrayal of Jews as vermin. And I also oppose the Danish cartoon of Muhammad.

Words cause direct psychological and social harm and they start a chain of events which causes physical harm.

Words for instance can be innocuous, free speech – if you will. But they can also bear false witness, defraud, belittle, ostrasize, stigmatize and so on. These latter functions are direct psychological and social harm. But they do not directly endanger lives.

Do words endanger lives indirectly?

Yes. Harmful words serve to innoculate the less cogent among us to eventual physical wrongs, physical assaults against the person or against whole races.

walstan:

Or do you think restraint should have been made then but not now by the Danes?

I think the restraint should have been made at the time of the “verminizing” of the Jews" before WWII.

I also think that the restraint should have been made in September when the Danish press published the cartoon.

Above and beyond that, I think the Danish imam should have exercised restraint when he chose to forge additional cartoons and when he conspired with other Middle East imams to foment future violence.

Above and beyond that, I think that the rioters should have exercised restraint by listening to the clerics who were urging them to be non-violent and to return to their homes.

Not a lot of restraint going around if you ask me.

PS: I would like to underline that I also think restraint should be exercised before publishing disgusting caricatures of Jews and Christians in the radical Islamic press.