• Cartoons

There is something quite chilling about the reasons most newspapers in Australia have given for not publishing the 12 cartoons featuring Mohammed that have been the subject of angry protests by mainstream muslims world-wide and violence by fanatics.

Basically they are saying that there is no good reason to unnecessarily give gratuitous offence. That's fine as a reason for an editorial policy of not publishing images that unnecessarily upset people in the first place, and for not joining in the widespread blogosphere campaign for whipping up hostility to muslims generally using the attempted suppression of these cartoons as a pretext.

But it makes no sense whatever as an explanation for the failure to publish these cartoons as essential information to go with the many pages of reports and commentary on what has already blown up as a major issue.

Since violence was used to prohibit departures from an editorial policy of not giving gratuitous offence, many European newspapers have rightly published the cartoons as solidarity against that suppression of their own right to choose their editorial policies.

Most Australian newspapers have not. The reasons are not fear of violence, nor excessive tenderness about giving gratuitous offence (which Australian newspapers do with respect to muslims rather often). Nor was there any fear of government prosecution - though the "Equal Opportunity" tsars in the Australian State of Victoria actually tried to spread uncertainty about the legal of right to publish by only saying that it might not be illegal instead of simply saying that it is obviously legal.

The real reason is even more shameful. Denmark needed solidarity against a trade boycott and Australian media proprietors, on the advice of the Australian government, deliberately chose to withold that solidarity so that Australia's trading interest in the muslim world would not be affected alongside Denmark's.

That has been spelled out quite explicitly even though they prefer to waffle about "gratuitous offence".

Naturally one doesn't expect the capitalist press to act against the fundamental interests of the capitalists who own and pay for it. But one would think that in this age of globalization they would take a slightly less parochial view of their interests and be willing to defend their common interest in free trade rather than falling over themselves to benefit from boycotts of Denmark.

Solidarity with Denmark and an answer to both people trying to whip up anti-muslim hysteria and people trying to appease muslim hysteria requires the publication of lots of gratuitously offensive cartoons about all the "Great" religions.

I think the "mock crucifiction" resulted in actual prosecutions in the Courts for "offensive behaviour" (with students capitulating by pretending as their defence that they had a serious religious intent rather than a desire to mock and outrage Christians) as well as threats of university discipline.

I've noticed several references to "The Life of Brian" recently in this context as directed against religions generally. I thought of it as specifically directed at "left sects" with ordinary religions just used as a parallel to make the point. Would be interesting to see it again.

A storm has been cooked up by Islamists over these cartoons.

Similar cartoons sending up Christianity in a way that lets you know there is a distaste for Christians wouldn't be the same in the West. There aren't that many strong Christian power blocks in the West that would have the ability to stir up trouble in the same way.

But Picture this:

George Bush urging mass demonstrations, spittle spraying from his mouth. Blair screaming for violence against the Muslims.

What cartoon would cause this?


Imagine: A cartoon in Al Jazeera with giant oil depots and refineries with names like Exxon and Shell on them. In the foreground a smiling, impish, Mohammed-like charcter carrying something worse than bombs. He has signs under his arm that read:

NATIONALIZED!

ready to be pasted over the company signs.

Thats their religion.

Har Har!

The caricature of humourless pseudos shouting about "oil" and cackling to themselves is widely believed by the ignorant to be a fair portrayal of left politics. Makes one sort of empathize with muslim feelings of sacrilege.

The caricature of humourless pseudos shouting about "oil" and cackling to themselves is widely believed by the ignorant to be a fair portrayal of left politics. Makes one sort of empathize with muslim feelings of sacrilege.

"Cackling"?!

I say, old man....steady on!

I was just remarking on how the religion of the West these days seems to be the all-mighty dollar.

What are you? A happy oil exec? I can't think of any other reason for your reply. In that case, I'm sorry to have ruffled your feathers. Good luck to you, in that case.

I don't think publishing the cartoons is the correct response to show solidarity with Danish modernists.

The cartoons do nothing to promote the cause of our modernist allies in the Moslem world.

We should be condemning the fascist rioting against emabssies, threats and trade boycotts etc. We should say loud and clear that no religion has the right to have its feelings protected.

But is publishing the cartoons going to push the world in the way we want? I don't think so.

There are other ways to symbolically defy the anti free-speech clerics. For instance we could inisist, loudly and publically, that just because Islam forbids an action, Islam has no right to dictate the actions of non-believers. 

One cannot "symbolically defy". It is defy or submit.

I can see where you are coming from re the use of the word 'symbolically'.

I still stick with my general point that we could quite easily defy free-speech-hating clerics in other ways than publishing the cartoons. These ways would make us look better when we are attacked by them as well.

For instance we could attack every country that permits the stagnant traditions of honour killings, and denying education to young girls. That would get the reactionary clerics offside without making us look bigoted (which I think is a risk with the cartoons)

Your argument is a justification for the widespread editorial policy of not pubishing caricatures of Mohammed for the same reason that other material gratuitously offensive to particular sections is not published.

I already said I agree with that.

It would be better if the provocative excuse had not been provided for the current hysteria.

But that is not an argument for Australian newspapers suppressing critical information required to understand current events and for failing to display solidarity with Denmark.

It isn't just free-speech-hating clerics who are stirring things up. Only a tiny minority are engaging in actual violence but there is a fairly widespread hysterical reaction among mainstream conservative muslims seeking not just to protest but also to "peacefully" punish Denmark for not imposing islamic restrictions against blasphemy on its media by trade boycotts.

The Australian Government advised newspapers that hundreds of millions of dollars worth of trade were at stake if they joined Danish and other European newspapers in "giving offence". They reported that advice and demonstrated their sense of "responsibility" by only "symbolically defying" as you advocate.

That "symbolic defiance" is in fact real submission which does much more harm in stirring up hatred between ethnic communities than the cartoons ever could. It rewards both the conservative mainstream and the violent fanatics for their incomprehension or rejection of what a free press means and why we defend it thus encouraging further attacks and undermining solidarity with people under much more serious pressure from islamists in muslim societies who will need solidarity from the rest of the world in standing up for their rights too.

It also fosters ignorance and distrust of muslims generally including people appalled by the pressure tactics rallying behind islamophobic campaigns. It is no coincidence that France which was stupid enough to ban the hijab was also stupid enough to officially condemn a newspaper that published.

Not sure what you mean by:

For instance we could attack every country that permits the stagnant traditions of honour killings, and denying education to young girls. That would get the reactionary clerics offside without making us look bigoted (which I think is a risk with the cartoons)

Afghanistan was a good start but its a slow process even there.

Suspect that isn't what you meant by "attack"

Caricatures of Mohammed advocating honor killings and prohibiting education of young girls would be even more provocative and counter-productive (and will no doubt be adopted by the hate campaign).

We need to simply take the position that we have a free press and they had better get used to it because their people will want one too.

That isn't even defiance. Its reality.

What's at stake in the Muslim world, not just Denmark by not expressing solidarity is explained in Don't yield to extremists.

BTW that item should be included in current news with link back here for discussion.

As well as highlighting the arrest of Jordanian and Yemini editors for not following the editorial guidelines accepted in Australia the article explains that it's the state and state appointed clergy that are driving this.

Especially interesting that Egypt took a lead role diplomatically and through its state clery. This stuff and the capitulation to it especially benefits regimes like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria by feeding the backlash against region change and widespread sentiment that muslims just aren't ready for democracy and we should support the existing autocracies to keep the islamists from winning elections. (Iranian promotion of the hysteria is slightly different as their main opponents are not islamists but they also benefit from mobilizing against "Western" free speech).

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has taken roughly the same reactionary position as the Blair Government in the UK (whose legislation outlawing insults to religion was defeated by only one vote). They have helped defuse the state clergy's manipulation by calling for Yes to anger, no to violence

Even the Carnegie Foundation has started acknowledging that democracy in Egypt doesn't just mean democracy for pro-US liberals and is still worth supporting.

 "According to this law," namely, Article II, "the censorship should not prevent serious and modest investigation of truth, nor impose undue constraint on writers, or hinder the book trade from operating freely." The investigation of truth which should not be prevented by the censorship is more particularly defined as one which is serious and modest. Both these definitions concern not the content of the investigation, but rather something which lies outside its content. From the outset they draw the investigation away from truth and make it pay attention to an unknown third thing.


An investigation which continually has its eyes fixed on this third element, to which the law gives a legitimate capriciousness, will it not lose sight of the truth? Is it not the first duty of the seeker after truth to aim directly at the truth, without looking to the right or left? Will I not forget the essence of the matter, if I am obliged not to forget to state it in the prescribed form? Truth is as little modest as light, and towards whom should it be so? Towards itself? Verum index sui et falsi. Therefore, towards falsehood?.


If modesty is the characteristic feature of the investigation, then it is a sign that truth is feared rather than falsehood. It is a means of discouragement at every step forward I take. It is the imposition on the investigation of a fear of reaching a result, a means of guarding against the truth. Further, truth is general, it does not belong to me alone, it belongs to all, it owns me, I do not own it. My property is the form, which is my spiritual individuality. Le style c'est l'homme. Yes, indeed! The law permits me to write, only I must write in a style that is not mine! I may show my spiritual countenance, but I must first set it in the prescribed folds!


What man of honour will not blush at this presumption and not prefer to hide his head under the toga? Under the toga at least one has an inkling of a Jupiter's head. The prescribed folds mean nothing but bonne mine a mauvais jeu. You admire the delightful variety, the inexhaustible riches of nature. You do not demand that the rose should smell like the violet, but must the greatest riches of all, the spirit, exist in only one variety?

I am humorous, but the law bids me write seriously. I am audacious, but the law commands that my style be modest. Grey, all grey, is the sole, the rightful colour of freedom. Every drop of dew on which the sun shines glistens with an inexhaustible play of colours, but the spiritual sun, however many the persons and whatever the objects in which it is refracted, must produce only the official colour! The most essential form of the spirit is cheerfulness, light, but you make shadow the sole manifestation of the spirit; it must be clothed only in black, yet among flowers there are no black ones. The essence of the spirit is always truth itself but what do you make its essence? Modesty. Only the mean wretch is modest, says Goethe, and you want to turn the spirit into such a mean wretch? Or if modesty is to be the modesty of genius of which Schiller speaks, then first of all turn all your citizens and above all your censors into geniuses. But then the modesty of genius does not consist in what educated speech consists in, the absence of accent and dialect, but rather in speaking with the accent of the matter and in the dialect of its essence. It consists in forgetting modesty and immodesty and getting to the heart of the matter.


The universal modesty of the mind is reason, that universal liberality of thought which reacts to each thing according to the latter's essential nature. Further, if seriousness is not to come under Tristram Shandy's definition according to which it is a hypocritical behaviour of the body in order to conceal defects of the soul, but signifies seriousness in substance, then the entire prescription falls to the ground. For I treat the ludicrous seriously when I treat it ludicrously, and the most serious immodesty of the mind is to be modest in the face of immodesty. Serious and modest! What fluctuating, relative concepts! Where does seriousness cease and jocularity begin? Where does modesty cease and immodesty begin? We are dependent on the temperament of the censor. It would be as wrong to prescribe temperament for the censor as to prescribe style for the writer. If you want to be consistent in your aesthetic criticism, then forbid also a too serious and too modest investigation of the truth, for too great seriousness is the most ludicrous thing of all, and too great modesty is the bitterest irony.


Finally, the starting point is a completely perverted and abstract view of truth itself. All objects of the writer's activity are comprehended in the one general concept "truth". Even if we leave the, subjective side out of account, viz., that one and the same object is refracted differently as seen by different persons and its different aspects converted into as many different spiritual characters, ought the character of the object to have no influence, not even the slightest, on the investigation?


Truth includes not only the result but also the path to it. The investigation of truth must itself be true; true investigation is developed truth, the dispersed elements of which are brought together in the result. And should not the manner of investigation alter according to the object? If the object is a matter for laughter, the manner has to seem serious, if the object is disagreeable, it has to be modest. Thus you violate the right of the object as you do that of the subject. You conceive truth abstractly and turn the spirit into an examining magistrate, who draws up a dry protocol of it.


Or is there no need of this metaphysical twisting? Is truth to be understood as being simply what the government decrees, so that investigation is added as a superfluous, intrusive element, but which for etiquette's sake is not to be entirely rejected? It almost seems so. For investigation is understood in advance as in contradiction to truth and therefore appears with the suspicious official accompaniment of seriousness and modesty, which of course is fitting for the layman in relation to the priest. The government's understanding is the only state reason. True, in certain circumstances of time, concessions have to be made to a different understanding and its chatter, but this understanding comes on the scene conscious of the concession and of its own lack of right, modest and submissive, serious and tedious. If Voltaire says: "Tous les genres sont bons, excepte le genre ennuyeux", in the present case the genre ennuyant becomes the exclusive one, as is already sufficiently proved by the reference to the "proceedings of the Rhine Province Assembly". Why not rather the good old German curialistic style? You may write freely, but at the same time every word must be a curtsey to the liberal censorship, which allows you to express your equally serious and modest opinions. Indeed, do not lose your feeling of reverence! The legal emphasis is not on truth but on modesty and seriousness. Hence everything here arouses suspicion: seriousness, modesty and, above all, truth, the indefinite scope of which seems to conceal a very definite but very doubtful kind of truth. 

A South Park episode Bloody Mary has been "deferred" in Australia following complaints from Melbourne's Catholic Archbishop.

According to "The Australian" Thursday February 16 2006 (p20) the government owned Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) had scheduled it for March 6 but its programming director now says:

"Given the worldwide controversy over cartoons of religious figures, we've decided to defer this program and give some thought to its scheduling."

Appeasement has very real consequences.

Here's the link.

BTW Much the same should be said from the Israeli side, where hatred of the "Arab enemy" is likewise taught to young children as part of the "culture" and to distract from the total failure of the Zionist regime to meet the peoples needs while "triumphantly" managing to kill more Palestinians than Palestinians kill israelis.

Unlike his usual stuff, the Lenig cartoon that was not published helped convey that quite well. It's just as shocking to see Zionism's "War Brings Peace" compared with the the Auschwitz "Work Makes Free" as to see Mohammed's turban wrapped in a bomb. Both are sometimes needed to make people think (along with bleeding statues of the Virgin Mary to make them laugh).

"Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief."

What does "unacceptable" mean? That it should be forbidden? And how abysmal that a "spokesman" cannot distinguish between criticism of a belief system and slander against a people.

There can be no negotiation under duress or under the threat of blackmail and assassination. And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts, and it is positively outrageous that the US Administration should have discarded them at the very first sign of a fight.

I couldn't locate the Australian (16 Feb) report about the South Park censorship on-line until today. Here's the full report:

SBS parks cartoon episode
D.D.McNicoll
February 16, 2006

SBS has "deferred" an episode of the cartoon series South Park that caused outrage in church circles when it was screened in the US just before Christmas. Dubbed "Bloody Mary", the episode features a statue of the Virgin Mary that bleeds "out her ass".

The statue sprays blood over everyone who walks behind it, including Stan's father Randy, who declares it a miracle as it stops him drinking. Pope Benedict XVI turns up to investigate and is also sprayed. A reporter says: "The Pope investigated further and determined that the statue was not bleeding out its ass, but its vagina." The Pope is then depicted saying: "A chick bleeding out her vagina is no miracle. Chicks bleed out their vaginas all the time." Hardly surprisingly, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights in the US was outraged and called for the episode to be scrapped. It was not run in the season end wrap-up. Melbourne's Catholic Archbishop Denis Hart recently wrote to SBS and asked that they not screen the episode, scheduled for March 6. He received an allegedly unpleasant reply from the network's programming director Matt Campbell, telling him to mind his own business. But someone clearly overruled Campbell. When Diary called yesterday to check what was happening, Campbell replied: "Given the current worldwide controversy over cartoons of religious figures, we've decided to defer this program and give some more thought to its scheduling. It's an entertainment program so timing of broadcast is not a critical issue as it might be if it were news and current affairs."

We've had major computer problems at home for the past fortnight and so I've been unable to participate. Hope to become more involved again, as the posts have been really good, in my opinion.

What is missing these days is the spirit of rebellion and its irreverence to tradition and authority that some of us experienced in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It's surprising that in the C21st a secular broadcaster like SBS would back down to an archbishop but it's even more surprising that so many people are not expressing outrage. On the contrary, the mainstream idea seems to be that there are limits to freedom of expression and these limits are based on not offending others. This would mean no freedom at all.

'South Park' actually comes close to the irreverence of the late 1960s.

Defend South Park! Offensiveness is a democratic right!

Barry

There could be yet more photographs to come. "I believe major newspapers in the U.S. like the Washington Post have scores more photos which are evidence of torture at Abu Ghraib, but they won't publish them due to pressure from the U.S. government," an attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City told IPS.

http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=8563

All photos and images of torture - including vidoeoed rape scenes - by the imperialist fascist occupying forces in Iraq and elsewhere should be published. I wonder what sort of response there would be to graphic scenes of a child being tortured in front of his father to extract a confession?

Still, no censorship is the go. Nothing should be censored.

After all access to the truth, as well as, offensiveness is a democratic right!

The core members of this site have argued for the exposure and full punishment of those responsible for war crimes like those at Abu Ghraib. I think the crimes should be exposed, and maximum penalties imposed on the perpetrators and commanders.

Opposition to censorship does not imply opposition to a ratings'/warning system, which I think covers both the notion of graphic scenes of a child being tortured as well as the screening of sacreligious episodes of South Park.

Television and radio can easily carry these ratings and warnings prior to a program but newspapers cannot. Should anyone see an offending image in a newspaper they should quickly turn the page or complain to the editor. This makes more sense than censorship, in my opinion.

There is probably an anti-Muslim sentiment behind the original publication of the Danish cartoons and such sentiment should be opposed by exposure and argument (not by killing, stoning or censorship). On the other hand, there is a sentiment that can best be described as 'appeasement' which seeks to censor anything offensive to religion on vague multicultural grounds (which I think misses the point about multiculturalism as a recognition of difference). The latter is condescending to Muslims when it seeks to protect them from offensiveness and/or seeks to place them in a special category: it's okay for the Sydney Morning Herald to publish 'Piss Christ' on its front page but not a cartoonist's image of Muhammed. Both sentiments - prejudice against Muslims and appeasement via censorship - suck.

That Australian editors, who enjoy a tradition of considerable freedom in publishing cartoons, can buckle under the mere fear of violent reaction (a fear almost certainly unfounded) and under pressure from a government seeking to cash in on the trade boycotts against Denmark is outrageous.

That such editors do not even seem to have considered acting in solidarity with Muslim editors in six countries - at least two editors having been arrested - is also deplorable. But it is much more deplorable when such lack of solidarity comes from people claiming to be on the Left politically.

It sounds to me like Bpors does not want the full exposure of US war crimes in Iraq and is happy to have censorship of cartoonists when they offend religious groups.

On both points, this ain't the site for him.

Barry

From byork:

It sounds to me like Bpors does not want the full exposure of US war crimes in Iraq and is happy to have censorship of cartoonists when they offend religious groups.

Your misinterpretation of the point I made in my post, aside, I do agree that this forum is not for me. Its a delicious irony that you are hinting I stop posting here. Maybe you could arrange to have me banned from posting here.

I'll go looking for a left wing forum. I know you call yourself left-wing. I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as a left wing imperialst that supports fascist occupations. As far as I know.

The Danish editor responsible, Fleming Rose, is an ardent fan of extreme Islamophope Daniel Pipes. Daniel Pipes runs a group in the U.S. that pressures American campuses to ban any view on Middle Eastern politics that doesn't match his own rabid zionist perspective. More Irony.

I read Rose's so-called motivation for running the cartoons. My immediate thought was: liar. That this was done under the right-wing racist government of Denmark doesn't surprise. And your support of it, also doesn't doesn't surprise. And your support for infantile American crap doesn't leave me speechless either.

I won't be posting here any more. If I want to read your political views all I have to do is google up some American forums that have red-neck Murkan posters who claim to get "hard-ons" when they view night-vision radar videos of what might be insurgents getting killed by AC130 gunship weapons.

This is a fascist site. Happy Bush-worshipping, y'all.