Comments on: Freedom to offend

By: MatGB

MatGB — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:13:27 +0000

Blimey; sorry about those trackback spams Owen, didn’t realise when I switched it would auto ping all the links in my old posts as well. Ah well.

Hope the move is going well and new job is ok.

By: Those cartoons: Freedom, offense, stupidity - Voting TaKtiX

Those cartoons: Freedom, offense, stupidity - Voting TaKtiX — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:27:07 +0000

[...] February MatGB12:28 am5 Comments Biodun asks why we haven’t covered the cartoon fuss. Can’t speak for Paul, but given my reaction is similar to Nosemonkey’s, I’m guessing it’s because, well, the whole thing is so overblown and stupid. A small, right-wing Danish newspaper published some badly drawn, unfunny cartoons. An extremist cleric reprinted them into a booklet, alongside 3 fake cartoons that really were offensive, and circulated them in the Islamic world. Fuss happens, some people apologise, people proclaim it a ‘freedom of speech’ issue, more fuss happens, and extremists stoke up reactions. Owen muses: I am offended when the Pope argues against using condoms in Africa, even though they would help to prevent the spread of AIDS. I am offended by the treatment of women by Christian and Islamic religious traditions. I am offended by the way that Judaism treats homosexuals. But just because I am offended by these things does not give me the right to prevent others from believing them, or to try to stop them from acting in accordance with their beliefs. [...]

By: Ephems of BLB

Ephems of BLB — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:25:59 +0000

Those cartoons: support the Danes!…

It was silly to exercise the undoubted right to publish those cartoons, but the hysterical reaction across the world has been an outrage, and we should give far more support to our Danish friends and partners [More >>>]……

By: Bloggers4Labour

Bloggers4Labour — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 23:16:30 +0000

Ob fusc,You did give the distinct impression that while freedom of expression (as part of a post-Enlightenment, secular ideology) might work for some – in the West – it might not work for others, i.e. that these principles might not be universal, and that people in other countries might well freely choose an alternative system. Where has this happened? The fact that Western governments have, in the past, taken away these choices for geopolitical or economic reasons (alongside Communist regimes that couldn’t even claim to offer these rights), might well be classed as hypocrisy, but it doesn’t support your argument that basic liberal human rights are inapplicable worldwide.If people have been systematically twisted by totalitarian and religious manipulation (give me free trade any day), then maybe we should turn our attention to those manipulators rather than say, "Oh, you’ve suffered enough, freedom of speech and a free economy would be too much of a culture shock."PS. If I had to sum up, Ahmadinejad, I don’t think ‘incompatible with Western interests’ would be the first thing I mentioned, funnily enough…

By: Ob fusc

Ob fusc — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:30:35 +0000

B4L,
I presume "democracy and freedom" are going to be delivered at the tip of a Cruise missile?
Your argument points up neatly the false assumptions I was trying to get at – many countries in "the rest of the world" *have* tried democracy, and their democratically elected rulers have been toppled when they are not deemed congruent to Western interests (Allende in Chile for example; and watch out Ahmadinejad); meanwhile many of the generals and kings you refer to are propped up by the U.S. (the House of Saud, Mubarak).
We do *not* live in a world in which the dominant power is an enlightened "liberal" democracy which is trying to spread positive values; we live in a world dominated by an imperial power which explicitly and entirely unapologetically has an amoral foreign (not to say domestic) policy; which deploys military force and economic coercion to safeguard its sources of energy and other resources. See the Project for a New American Century, and many other sources available on the internet. There’s no excuse for ignorance on this.
If you entirely flipped your argument round, it’d be right – and if you had been born in any one of many Muslim countries, that flipping of the argument would have been forcibly enacted for you.
Sorry to be combative on what is a friendly blog, but I guess I’m just enacting the polarity or invertedness of our viewpoints – I do so in a friendly spirit tho.

By: blog

blog — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 09:37:13 +0000

FT today: But they also asserted that while that free speech was a right, it was
one that entailed “responsibility and discretion”, and “should respect
the beliefs and tenets of all religions. Statement by UN, EU and OIC

By: blog

blog — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:27:33 +0000

A friend tells me that the Danish cartoons are racist (comparable to Nazi cartoons about Jews)…Is this true? I can not see this but maybe I am not sensitive or "respectful" enough? Can anyone help? Owen?

By: Bloggers4Labour

Bloggers4Labour — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 17:30:26 +0000

Sorry about the bold at the end – wasn’t meant to be significant.

By: Bloggers4Labour

Bloggers4Labour — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 17:28:49 +0000

Ob fusc, some people would say that you were apologising for tyranny and theocracy. Let’s give people around the world the chance to enjoy democracy and freedom before suggesting it’s a ‘Western thing’ and that the oppressors are liberals rather than Generals, kings, Ayatollahs, and state-sponsored media bosses.

By: Ob fusc

Ob fusc — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 11:47:14 +0000

Owen and others, do you understand that your upholding of the right to free expression is part of a post-Enlightenment, secular ideology which is not shared everywhere in the world?
Your argument that this ideology should apply everywhere in the world reveals your assumption that we set the rules, that others must follow them (presumably if they wish to receive the benefits of our aid); in other words it’s couched in imperialism, and unfortunately for your argument, our civilising mission is not yet complete, so it’s invalid.
Where different ideologies exist in the world, relations between them must be conducted with respect. We can’t insult others and then say, oh you’re not playing by the rules, when they react (because we have set those rules; other rules may apply for other worldviews, and we have to respect that).
The reactions of a minority of Muslims in many places around the world have to be understood in the context of imperialist military aggression by Western secular states (those which espouse free speech – =insults; free trade -=exploitation) against Islamic countries.
It’s not their fault if others have not become enlightened enough to smile when we add insult to their injury.

By: Rob Spence

Rob Spence — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 10:25:50 +0000

I absolutely agree with every word you wrote Owen. Very powerfully put. And the subsequent dialogue in the comments shows that people of opposing views can have a civilised debate.Hilariously, one of the protestors against the cartoons in Britain, who dressed up as a suicide bomber for the day (no, I don't know either) has been revealed as a crack dealing convict...

By: John

John — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:43:58 +0000

Owen, the respect is mutual. And I don’t mind being called crazy by someone who runs half-marathons before brunch.Although we disagree over religious belief, there are also sufficient areas of common ground that we can and do agree on, motivated by our different worldviews to arrive at the same conclusions.

By: Owen

Owen — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:17:12 +0000

John

Thanks. For the record, I want to make it absolutely clear that while I do not agree with a single word of your religious beliefs, my respect for you as a person is undiminished by this disagreement; if anything, it is enhanced by the sincere and intelligent way that you live your life in accordance with your ideals.

Owen

By: John

John — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 14:37:39 +0000

Owen, as you know I approach this argument from the perspective of a Christian faith. (If you recall,you called me crazy in one of our previous discussions!) I agree with your opinion here. People who hold to a particular faith or worldview (or none) should expect to be challenged, criticized, disagreed with and even insulted. Religious people should not be surprised that others do not share their worldview, and should be even less surprised that others sometimes misunderstand, distort or caricature their faith or beliefs. In fact Jesus Christ said that this would be a real daily experience of his followers, but called on them not to retaliate. Marks of a mature faith are the ability to hold robust debates and dialogues with others who do not share your faith or opinion, but to treat people with respect, even if you find their views insulting, and not to threaten others with violence. And I'm not just criticising Islam; Christianity has its share of fundamentalist hotheads, both through history (think the inter-denomination violence in the 16th & 17th centuries) and today. I cannot identify with that strand of intolerant and absolutist faith.

By: Jim

Jim — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:11:35 +0000

Well, ‘blog’,I have seen the cartoons, some of which are non crude, stereotyping and offensive, and a few of which are. I do not expect everyone to agree with my "artistic" appreciation of them, but I would expect people to expect others to be offended by some of them. I don’t think the journalists should be prosecuted, but I do think they need to consider their positions for choosing to defend free speech, as they put it, in such a wilfully offensive manner. I don’t know how many have received death threats, I certainly don’t support any such kind of threat, and I have no idea how you could have construed from my comments that I thought such threats "a fair punishment"- perhaps you would like to explain how I implied that? Lastly, I am indeed sickened by the burning of embassies and threats of terrorism you mention, which is why I said I was sickened "from every angle".

By: blog

blog — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:46:01 +0000

link from slate from one of the cartoons above (full version)http://www.humaneventsonline.com/images/islm_cartoon_8.jpgalso other cartoons with translation

By: blog

blog — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:39:53 +0000

I wonder if Jim has seen the 12 cartoons. If so, how many of the 12 cartoons he thinks are crude, stereotyping and deliberately offensive (as in his money-grubbing child murder category)? 1, 6, 12? How many of the cartoon does he think actually refer to the risks/fear of producing the cartoons? Does Jim expects everyone to agree with his "artistic" appreciation of the cartoons? (…not happening). Should Danish public prosecutors reverse their decision and prosecute the "cartoonists" or the newspaper? Does Jim know how many of the cartoonists have received dead threats? I guess, a fair punishment for producing crude, stereotyping, offensive cartoons, Jim…Is Jim only sick by the non debate (to which he is enthusiastically contributing) or also about the burning of embassies and threats of terrorism because "crude" cartoons?

By: David

David — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 02:56:13 +0000

Thank you for the well-stated position, especially as regards the things that offend you. I’ve been looking for a way to say much the same thing, and now I feel like verbalising a few things myself. The cartoons are nearly irrelevant in this brouhaha, but if they are what it takes to reveal the hypocrisy of people who demand respect on one hand and preach intolerance on the other, then they should be published every day until the people who react violently to gratuitous offence acknowledge that their actions – and some of their beliefs – are offensive to some, maybe even many of us. In other words, the cartoons can be seen as a European reaction to an earlier offence against our own sacred ideals. If I support the separation of church and state, the freedom of women to participate in public life on their own terms, the freedom of people to take lovers of any sex or gender, then it’s an offence to hear of people who think misogyny is okay, who think it’s okay to kill women rather than let them lead independent lives, and so on. Maybe I am offended that such things are permitted in any society. In that case, I can understand why someone would want to give offence in return, and think cartoons are a very low key way of going about it. I wonder what would happen if people in Western liberal democracies decided they were well and truly angry with people of some other nation. (I don’t see that happening, but it’s an interesting thought nonetheless.)Rant over. Thanks again. Oh, and Jim, the thing about being deliberately offensive is that it’s highly valued by – among others – teenagers and people who feel put upon in some way. It’s fine with me if they work it out by doing stupid and violent cartoons. Better that than Columbine.

By: Jim

Jim — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 01:33:59 +0000

I really don’t see why upholding the right to free speech has to mean abusing it by publishing crude, stereotyping, deliberately offensive cartoons. I value that right, and I will defend it if I think it is under threat, but I don’t feel it necessary to prove my commitment by reproducing cartoons depicting Mohammed as a bomber, any more than I feel the need to prove it by reproducing cartoons of Jews (or Christians or any other group) as, say, money-grubbing child-murderers. Sorry, but this whole non-debate leaves me feeling sick from every angle.

By: AJE

AJE — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 01:15:39 +0000

Owen – why don’t you republish them?http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/Mo_Cartoons.jpg