Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Uh ... | Raging Mad Artists »

Tuesday, February 7, 2006

Danish Cartoon On Display in Seattle—Finally!

Posted by on February 7 at 13:06 PM

Okay, it’s on Seattle’s light poles, and not in any of Seattle’s newspapers—yet—but I was pleased to find this flyer tacked up on Capitol Hill this morning.

freespeech.jpg

I’m not sure where the quote is from, or if the person or persons behind the poster wrote it. Either way, I love it. I couldn’t agree more. Bravo. If the folks who did this are reading this blog, keep putting ‘em up!

And the appearance of this poster on Capitol Hill—the most liberal neighborhood in one of the West Coast’s most liberal cities—gives the lie to this right-wing talking point: The left doesn’t care about this issue, and is willing to cede free speech to mollify Islamic haters. It’s not true, and this poster is evidence that it’s not true.


CommentsRSS icon

Yay! Liberal queers can be just as pointlessly inflammatory as right-wing fundamentalist whackos! What a great day it is for equality and free speech. We'll show those haters what 'childish' really means.

Nothing pointless about aggressively defending free speech.

I think the Stranger's graphics editor, Corianton Hale, like Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Tehran’s Hamshahri newspaper who called for Holocaust cartoons, should do a call for cartoons about the Crusades.

I mean, you know, given that the Crusades are just Muslim propaganda...a "myth" really.

If you're going to live in the Western world and take advantage of the advances of western culture you should realize that making fun of other cultures is nothing new.

We've never spared Buddha, Jesus, or L Ron Hubbard. I doubt we're going to stop now.

"Liberal queers..."

Who said the posters were put up by queers?

"...can be just as pointlessly inflammatory as right-wing fundamentalist whackos!"

They're putting up posters, not burning down embassies. See the difference?

"What a great day it is for equality and free speech. We'll show those haters what 'childish' really means."

Childish speech is also protected—and so is foolish speech, luckily enough for you. And, yes, it is a good day for free speech. If every paper on earth printed these images, what would the haters do then? Boycott everyone? And, hey, maybe if enough papers print 'em, and enough people take it on themselves to post 'em, the Islamic world will build up the same tolerance for free speech that the Western world has.

Crusades aren't a myth. I was jsut reading about a Holy Crusade in 12293 led by Sweden into... Finland.

No word on whether religious kooks in Finland are still trying to drum up war fever about it or not.

What short memories we have...as if similarly offensive images were not created of the Ayatolla Khomeni during the Iran hostage crisis while Carter was in office. Am I showing my age?

So now Iran is running a contest for Holocaust cartoons. Is that outrageous? Of course. And it is the way it should work: idea vs. idea, no matter how wrongheaded the idea is. Jews will appropriately and properly express anger. No Iranian embassies will burn.

Apparently there's no evidence the posters were put up by queers, Dan, just as there's no evidence they were put up by "liberals," or "the left." Their presence on Capitol Hill need not trigger any of these assumptions.

I'm sure you've read Al Jazeera. It seems to me "the Islamic world" has a pretty good tolerance for free speech in many respects. The people burning embassies represent "the Islamic world" to exactly the same degree that abortion clinic bombers represent "the Christian world." Your assumptions about the likely outcome of fanning these flames is about as reasonable as expecting Fred Phelps to become more tolerant if we all publish photos of Jesus raping choir boys.

We've got, what, 40,000 Muslims in the Puget Sound region? Sure, let's all publish a cartoon that says nothing specific about terrorism, yet broadly condemns all of Islam as a religion of extreme violence as advocated by the prophet Muhammed. Let's piss all those people off, insult them, make them feel alienated and unwelcome. When they fail to react violently here in Washington, then will you shut up? Or is it just a pissing contest about whose followers are more violent than whose followers?

This whole issue is about "freedom of speech" just like the war in Iraq is about "spreading freedom and democracy." What a fucking joke.

I'm all about protecting free speech, no matter how insulting or childish it is. It's not the content you're defending, but the objective standard for the right to subjective commentary.

Yes, it worries/unsettles me that embassies are burning, egos bruised, and sensitivities heightened, but do you have another measure for what is appropriate political comment?

I think it's a safe assumption that conservatives are not postering on Capitol Hill—hell, they think it should be illegal to poster. Somehow I can't picture Mark Sidran running around slapping those posters up.

As for what the Islamic world is up to, it's not just people rioting—and there's no such thing as a spontaneous riot in, say, Syria. The Saudis are backing this—go do some reading—and Islamic governments are demanding apologies, insisting that it not be allowed to happen again, etc. This is an orchestrated campaign—the cartoons were originally published back in September. Why riots now? Fake images of Mohammed are being circulated—by Muslim groups!

I agree with Andrew Sullivan:

"One massive supporting pillar of Jihadism has been the West's refusal to treat the Islamic world as it would any other part of the world. If Chinese radicals were ransacking Western embassies because of a cartoon, and were backed by the Chinese government, we would be outraged, demanding apologies, severing relations, and so on. But when Muslims do it, backed by Islamist governments, we are supposed to take it on the chin, to "respect" their religious traditions, issue mealy-mouthed statements, etc. In many ways, this is the real offense: treating Muslims as if their violation of global norms, and thralldom to medieval conceptions of politics and religion, were somehow acceptable. They are not acceptable. Islam must reform itself if it is to have a proud and noble place again among the great religions of the world. Muslim countries must allow freedom of religion for other faiths - and allow their citizens free votes in free elections. Dabbling in Holocaust denial by a current government should be treated as a form of insanity or fascism, rather than as some kind of thing to be "understood". Those who are addicted to the narcotic of religious fanaticism do not need enabling or excuses. They need an intervention. Especially when they are on the verge of wielding nuclear weapons."

Re-posting this allegedly contrversial images is not just a childish attempt to offend. It is an adult refusal to be intimidated.

And, I'm sorry, the Stranger has printed far, far more offensive images that offended Christians—from our Dina Martina Mary-with-raw-chicken cover to our Pope-and-Schaivo-race-to-the-grave cover. The point is, we do publish "images of priests raping choir boys." And it gets a reaction, but not death threats, arson, the Vatican on line three demanding my head.

I echo Mr. Summerlin's comments. This has nothing to do with freedom of the press. Mr. Savage has turned into our own little Bill O'Rielly. Reprinting these cartoons is doing more harm than good.

"The construction of the Arab terrorist in a Danish cartoon is not harmless or a simple experiment in free speech, it is deeply hateful and affects the inherent dignity of all Arab and Muslim people. The Bush Administration and sensationalist media outlets depend on both the cartoons and the subsequent images of violent Arabs to justify their racism and to sell their illegal war." From an article by Harsha Walia at:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=30&ItemID=9678

Do you really feel comfortable applauding people for flyering a neighborhood with the image of the bomb-coiffed Muhammad? The image, divorced from it's original context, looks like little more than racist propaganda. If the poster proclaimed "free speech" over an image of a swastika or a sambo character, would you be as happy with the effort? This can't be the high water mark of the free speech debate.

Hm. And all the anti-semetic cartoons that run in the Arab press? It seems that they can dish it out...

Even so, attempts to blame the violent reaction to this cartoon on the cartoonists is idiotic—and racist, frankly. Why do we accept reactions from Muslims that we wouldn't tolerate from anyone else? Oh, they're rioting—poor things. Must have been something *we* said or did.

That's bullshit.

So are we talking about free speech, or the more Judeo-Christian concept of "an eye for eye?" Is our racism excused by their racism?

And given that the Muslim world's response has been unbelievably disproportionate to the offense, do you think the furor is all over a drawing? No, it's more about the perceptions of the West's views and treatment of Muslims overall.

"If the poster proclaimed "free speech" over an image of a swastika or a sambo character, would you be as happy with the effort?"

That's the whole goddamn point! Unpopular speech is the only speech worth protecting. This is why you'll find the ACLU defending neo-nazi groups. If you don't allow Mohamed with a bomb in his turban, or sambo or swastikas, where do you draw the line? Sure those images are offensive. That's the point. Offensive and/or unpopular speech is the only speech that needs defending. Someday you might have something to say that offends people, don't you wish you'll get a chance to say it without worrying about being stabbed?

Religious fanatacism is indeed one of the most dangerous problems humanity faces. I'm well aware that the Saudis are fanning this violence, and that there was nary a peep when the cartoons were published four months ago. That fact has informed my opinion.

Andrew Sullivan is way off the mark here to think that we have one method of dipolmacy for the rest of the world, and another method for Islamic theocracies. Diplomacy is what it is because it takes circumstances into account.

Sullivan would have us, on principle mind you, "intervene" throughout the whole Middle East. Lucky him, that's exactly what we're doing, but not on principle. (I read Sullivan, so I'm aware I'm misrepresenting his larger views by taking this out of context).

We wouldn't give a shit about Islamic theocracies if they weren't sitting on top of 90 percent of the remaining accessible oil reseves on planet earth -- as long as our "intervention" prevented them from developing a threatening military presence. Our diplomacy is a matter of necessity: security and oil.

So you wanna say Muslim extremists are more violent that extremists from other religions? Fine. I agree. You wanna say free speech is a good thing? Yep, we totally agree.

Now, rallying around a cartoon that is generically offensive to all of Islam in the name of protecting free speech against -- what, exactly? What is the threat to free speech? You light a match and throw it in a powder keg, then act surprised when it goes boom? Hey, it's gun powder -- it is my problem it has that reaction to fire?

Good luck with that.

Daryl,

The posters of Muhammad aren't out of context. This is a giant news story right now. It's obvious what the posterer is talking about.

If there was a controversy right now involving a reaction to a pro-Nazi editorial cartoon, then your swastika poster example would make sense. But your analogy is off point because it reveals that no one is burning buildings and issuing death threats over any anti-Jewish cartoons out there.

If I saw a swastika free speech poster up, I'd be inclined to ask what's the point? They've got every right to hang the poster, and well, they did.

"Unpopular speech is the only speech worth protecting. This is why you'll find the ACLU defending neo-nazi groups."

My problem is that this image isn't unpopular. I'm guessing the person who posted the image doesn't find it offensive, and doesn't care about the people in his neighborhood who might. Do they have the right to post them? Yes. Would I be proud if it was happening in my city? No.

Sullivan just put up this graphic and the story. Stranger webmaster, prepare for a massive bandwidth suck!

Well, there is an internal contradiction here. The poster says no nation or culture has the right to tell another nation or culture what to think or say, and then uses this quotation to tell Islamic people what to think and what to say. And how to feel.

I think the stink over the cartoons is pathetic, and it's even worse that it was whipped into a frenzy by Danish Muslims who travelled through the Middle East to get people angry. But freedom of expression is freedom of expression, and if people want to march against the representations of Muhammed, let them. Aren't they free to speak out?

"Iranian protesters hurled petrol bombs and stones at the Danish Embassy in Tehran for a second successive day on Tuesday and Tehran announced it had cut all trade ties with Denmark." from the Washington Post, "Iran Daily Holds Contest for Holocaust Cartoons" Feb 7th, 2006.

Not saying Iran is the poster child for the Middle East, but an entire nation is cutting trade ties with the Danish claiming some cartoons (granted pretty offensive) to be the turning point... Um, yeah... That is totally the same thing as the abortion clinic bombings and international reaction to that. Totally...

Still waiting to here a different standard to by which we can judge legal and illegal speech or art. Y'all seem to have drawn a pretty good standard for irrensponsible, but illegal? Not quite yet.

Antoher thought... take an identity of yours (me=queer girly) and ask yourself the worst things that can be said about it racist, bigotted, etc (I am a big horrible child-milesting sinner, whose going to burn in hell.) Would you be willing to give up a little freedom to not have to hear that stuff? Didn't think so. I wouldn't either. Yes, Pat O'Reilly makes me want to ralph, but I don't have the right to tell him to stop.

Actually, you do have the right to tell him to stop. You just can't make him. Especially since you're girlie. ;)

hey, are you gonna print them in the stranger?

The full quote is: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few."

Wendell Phillips was an American abolitionist and orator. (1811-1884)


It's cool that someone in Seattle, esp. near/on Capital Hill is standing up for free speech in this debate.

Perhaps The Stranger could take this on with a little historical analysis including offensive cartoons from a variety of sources, attacking a variety of groups and discuss/debate the relative merits of free speech as well as how such cartoons have been used to quell the rights of others?

or maybe the guys from I love the eighties can do a half hour retrospective on all the wonderful american anti/pro/religious/political cartoons.

I applaud the posters, and I hope that they *are* leftist in origin. We on the left have been shamefully slow to react to Islamofascism, an ideology diametrically opposed to every core principal of traditional liberalism. In a free society you have the right to mock any ideology, including religious ones. This right is automatic, it is non-negotiable, and it is not conscribed by the sensibilities of a few pre-offended medievalist fundamentalists and their followers. Get over it guys. I’m not going to stand for fundos of any stripe telling me what I can write and what I can read.

Happily, many liberals from Islamic backgrounds (Tarek Fatah, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, several writers at www.aqoul.com, etc.) have been speaking out on this, so it’s not just the extremists that have the mike.

i did not read any of this thread, maybe someone said it already, but that picture should be the cover of a Stranger issue...

How very thoughtful of everyone to include Jews in these festivities.

I'm still not precisely clear on why cartoons mocking the Holocaust are the logical response to a Danish political cartoon depicting Mohammed wearing an explosive turban. (To me, the tit-for-tat element seems obscure, if not altogether absent.)

But it is, after all, the thought that counts. Frankly, as a Jew, I was starting to feel a little left-out and was wondering if anyone was going to bother to identify Jews as the center of this controversy and promote Jewish misfortune as the most obvious target for ridicule.

Hey, Barton:

In response to this...

"Well, there is an internal contradiction here. The poster says no nation or culture has the right to tell another nation or culture what to think or say, and then uses this quotation to tell Islamic people what to think and what to say. And how to feel."

I would point out that the poster says NOTHING about how "another nation or culture" should think or feel about the cartoons. It says...

"No individual, nation, or religion has the right to tell another what to SAY or what not to SAY, what songs to sing or what songs not to sing, what images to display or what images not to display."

The poster says NOTHING about what you can feel or think or say yourself—except for telling other people that they can't say, sing, display, etc. There is no contradiction. Muslims can be angry, and say so. They can think it's offensive, and say so. They can feel hurt and communicate their hurt—like, say, Jews do when folks run around denying that the Holocaust happened.

But they can't insist that their feelings take precedance over your right to say, think, post, draw whatever the fuck you want. They can't call for your execution for thinking, saying, drawing, or posting things that hurt their feelings or insult their prophet.

Period.

Barton-
Additionally, the poster would allow the Muslims to protest but not to the extent of being VIOLENT...that is the main difference.

Well that is great about the poster...but I really would have figured the Stranger would have reprinted that cartoon. I was just flipping through the rag and the cartoon was nowhere to be found. Not sure how Dan Savage can bemoan that the cartoons haven't yet been published in any Seattle papers when he is the editor of a Seattle paper and hasn't re-published the image. C'mon, you guys are such "badasses," aren't you? or is that all just a lot of posturing?

I don't understand how boycotting all Danish products can be considered an appropriate response to these cartoons. I believe that, if a group is offended by something printed in a newspaper, broadcast on television or radio, then they have a right to boycott that newspaper, TV station, or radio station, and, perhaps, the advertisers. How is all of Denmark responsible for the actions of one newspaper?

Some liberals have pointed out that conservatives recently tried to organize a boycott against the LA Times over a story it printed. However, those conservatives never proposed boycotting every product manufactured in Los Angeles, or California for that matter.

Yo, FIXIE: the Stranger is pretty cool, but they don't yet have a TIME MACHINE. You're looking at last week's paper for this week's news.

I think the reason why they are protesting all Danish products is because they may see the cartoons as speaking to a larger cultural disrespect. I'm sensitive, but don't follow the jump either.

It's ok to tell people how to behave when they are behaving stupidly.

I'm sure Wendell Phillips, the abolitionist, was not shy about telling Southerners who owned slaves whether they should or not. Was he being culturally insensitive?

And I don't think Westerners should be shy about telling Moslems who burn down buildings OVER A FREAKING CARTOON whether they should do that or not.

Stop being so culturally sensitive and get a backbone. I've never sounded like Bill O'Reilly so much in my life, but people--get serious.

And, seriously, who in Seattle, in 2006, gives a shit if something is offensive or not? Haven't hundreds of hours of Klansmen on Jerry Springer inured us to that yet?

"I think it's a safe assumption that conservatives are not postering on Capitol Hill [...]

Bullshit. Go to Broadway and Madison and you'll see the remnants of posters castigating lefties for "not supporting the troops."

dan! i think you outta put the poster on the next cover.

Uh... we're a weekly, not a daily. Please check tomorrow's paper, Fixie.

And I've posted links to the images on our website—twice—as well as examples of them. But I only get my chance at newsprint once a week.

Very glad to hear you are printing them, Dan Savage, but, uh, you didn't need to be a daily and don't be such a smart ass. This thing's been going on since the end of January. A Norwegian paper republished the cartoons in January and a French paper had the guts to republish them on Feb. 1. and I think a German paper did too at the same time. You could have been the first in the US if you'd wanted! But they were published by the Phila. Inquirer on Feb. 4 -- yep, beaten by the MSM!

"You could have been the first in the US if you'd wanted! But they were published by the Phila. Inquirer on Feb. 4 -- yep, beaten by the MSM!"

So this is a race now?

I am frusterated to read about this happening only because I didn't have the guts to do it myself. I did draw the Dannish flag along with writing "I love Denmark/I hate facism" and/or "Go little Denmark Go! Sink your teeth into the facists" (okay I was drunk and got silly) on walls of bathrooms in a dozen nightclubs and cafes around town. Unlike posting the cartoons it makes it harder for people to demonize it as being bigoted. I say we should have Denmark night at Chop Suey, eh?

Race? Nah -- but it would be a very cool distinction to be the first to stand up for free speech in print on this issue. Anyway, my point was simply that this whole thing was an issue before the Feb. 2 pub date of the current Stranger.

Point taken, Fixie. But this issue didn't explode until our last issue two issues were planned out—when the story began to grow, I commissioned a piece by Bruce Bawer, which is in tomorrow's paper, and we will use the cartoons to illustrate it. They all won't fit, but a sample will be in the paper.

I suppose I could have run a piece back in Jan, but no one in this part of the world had even heard about this stuff. I would have looked Dane-centric had I done that. There's timely, and there's before-it's-timely.

well i think it is great you are reprinting them. i am honestly stunned at how cowardly most of the press is in sticking up for our fundamental rights against this kind of bullying.

The only bad assumption from Mr. Savage is that this will bring the right and the left together. The left has no interest in uniting against terrorism and islamo fascism, because their basic creed is that America is the great satan.If it weren't for President Bush according to the left the whole world would unite and be happy.This cartoon flap shows the insensitivity of the Islamists and the killings and riots clearly show a disdain for Western values and culture not Islamic values. If anyone wants to defend the Islamic reaction to this press publication because of insensitivity to their values let them eat cake.

Hm. I'm of the left and I don't think America is the great Satan—that's another bullshit right-wing talking point.

And I never said this would bring the left and right together—Andrew wrote that, and he expressed it as a "hope." It was not a prediction. So long as the right continues to libel the left with charges like "their basic creed is that American is the great Satan," it will be impossible for the left and right to come together on much.

And who says we should? Or that it would be beneficial? If anything, the left hasn't been partisan enough. The right is poisonous in its partisanship, and the left tries to make nice, and gets its ass handed to it. No more nice, no more coming together—ask Max Cleland who he feels about buddying up to Bush, and where it got him.

Is it the most important thing you can think of to be doing with your time?

Sure, we can be take offence at the rioters. But before we expend time and resources doing so, shouldn't we be sure that we're doing everything in our power to curtail the (almost infinitely more destructive and pervasive) violence caused and/or tacitly condoned by our own actions?

Those among us, in other words, who can claim to never pay a dime of War Taxes, to never drive a motor-car, to never purchase products made in China, to never consume a product manipulated by Monsanto or ADM, or to in any other manner in any way gain profit or convenience via another's misfortune -- all while spending every waking moment beating swords into plowshares -- should feel free to denounce the rioters.

Dan, until I see The Stranger organize (for example) a benefit for Fallujah, your fulminations will ring pretty hollow.

So, Eddie, ideological purity of a rather disgusting type is required to protest people burning down embassies over cartoons? I don't understand this! Why?

You should also print in the Stranger a selection of cartoons printed in their media depicting Jews, Hindu's, gays. It would both show how hypocritical they are and stop people from saying you have a double standard in what you will publish.

Uh, no; but maybe a little "ideological" honesty would help in acknowledging that the daily activities of those so righteously aghast at the anti-cartoon rioters contribute a far greater deal to human immiseration.

Or, Rebecca, maybe you should organize a benefit for Fallujah.

So Eddie, how is your benefit for Fallujah coming?

Well, I'm not the one bitching and moaning about the 'toon riots. Which isn't to say that I'm not a fucking hyprocrite. But at least I don't take pride in the fact.

And you walk amongst us, Eddie. We are all honored and humbled.

The cartoon jihad is a revealing episode. It serves as a test to evaluate the compatibility of Western and Islamic cultures. The verdict seems clear -- in important ways, they are not compatible. Oil and water (guess which one is the oil...).

Now my view of this is as follows: it's none of our business to try to convince Muslims to reform or to adopt a worldview that doesn't take offense at perceived slights against their religion. But it _is_ our business to defend our right to publish or say whatever we want in our own lands. I might not say or do this or that if I were visting Saudi Arabia, but I'm not going to follow such precepts in the United States, and Danes shouldn't have to in Denmark.

Wishing that the two cultures were more compatible cannot make it true. It seems more fair and appropriate simply to acknowledge our differences, and to stand up for our side of those differences.

If Muslim immigrants in Western countries can't take it, they should leave. Similarly, if Western immigrants in Muslim countries don't like the rabid anti-semitism, the extremely thin skin, the ban on promoting any religion other than Islam, etc., they too should leave.

Oh, maybe that's why there aren't any Western immigrants in Muslim countries.....!

If you're saying that I'm little more than a holier-than-thou prick, then, we're in agreement. Go team (and all that good stuff).

That settled, you wanna maybe address my argument?

Look, nobody's saying that the 'toon rioters are in the right. And if you think it'll help you feel like a man, go ahead and take the three or four seconds needed to say so.

It'll have as much effect on them as putting up posters, or printing solidarity cartoons in your paper, or whatever else you've got planned (viz., none).

But if your goal is curbing violence (and lessening injustice generally), and not mere grandstanding, then there's a lot more shit you could be spending your time on (especially given the prominence of your forum) that would have an effect -- however small the drop may seem in this big bad old globe of woe and misery.

"But if your goal is curbing violence (and lessening injustice generally), and not mere grandstanding, then there's a lot more shit you could be spending your time on (especially given the prominence of your forum) that would have an effect -- however small the drop may seem in this big bad old globe of woe and misery."

What if that is not one's goal? What if one's goal instead is simply to live one's life free from restrictions imposed from abroad by a foreign religion?

You and Salman Rushdie, eh Sean?

If "restrictions imposed from abroad by a foreign religion" are putting a crimp in your lifestyle (or if the fear of them is keeping you awake nights), but you can't be bothered to do anything about "restrictions" (to put it mildly) upon other people, imposed from abroad (via your tax dollars) by George "God told me to strike at Saddam" Bush, then why not consider relocating to the Yukon (or some shit)?

Or, if your goal is really important to you (and, again, your true concern is in doing more than grandstanding), you could hop a jet airliner to Denmark, and try to convince the rioters of the righteousness of your position.

It's nice to see some on the Left finally coming out against Islamofascism instead of bowing and scraping to it. In fact it IS true that some leftists have been making excuses for such (read comments from others more than once and it sure is disturbing but predictable), but it is here so noted that Dan Savage isn't a weenie when it comes to fighting Islamofascism.. congrats to you. I'm with ya'

On this flyer that the Stranger has reproduced here, is a statement which has some strange parellels to a statment made by the president of Iran less that a week before this hoopla broke out. He was responding to the protest re his holocaust remarks. He stated that he would not hold back out of fear of offending because it is ones right to to speak freely in ones own country and it is wrong for other countries to impose on that. I tried in vain to find the exact quote but I couldn't.

Eddie says: "If "restrictions imposed from abroad by a foreign religion" are putting a crimp in your lifestyle (or if the fear of them is keeping you awake nights), but you can't be bothered to do anything about "restrictions" (to put it mildly) upon other people, imposed from abroad (via your tax dollars) by George "God told me to strike at Saddam" Bush, then why not consider relocating to the Yukon (or some shit)?

Or, if your goal is really important to you (and, again, your true concern is in doing more than grandstanding), you could hop a jet airliner to Denmark, and try to convince the rioters of the righteousness of your position."

Eddie, your rhetorical trick is getting a little old. My "true concern"? Why is my motive important to you?

Every time someone points something out, your device is to "turn it around right back on 'em." What a burn! Except that every time you do it, you reveal your own views on the moral equivalency of (1) protesting against speech restrictions thru a benign gesture like publishing a cartoon, versus (2) burning down embassies and causing other mayhem because a cartoon got you all worked up.

No, I need not fly to Denmark (there aren't any riots there -- they are in the Middle East). I can simply ensure that no foreign religion interferes with my preferred lifestyle and speech choices by making it clear that under no circumstance will I allow it to do so. That means, in this instance, demonstrating clearly that I'll look at whatever cartoons I want.

Don't try to "turn it back around" on me or suggest some additional obligation, such as a bake sale fundraiser to promote healthy political cartoons in Fallujah or the Gaza Strip. Not my job. Nor is it Muhammad's job to tell me what to do. That is the point that I and many others wish to make entirely clear to the world, especially the Islamic world. You call this 'grandstanding' only because you place greater importance on what you view as the needs and entitlements of The Other than you do on the preferences of your own fellow citizens. Do that to your heart's desire, but do not tell me or others about some vague obligations you believe we have vis a vis Muslims halfway around the world. Those are your moral imperatives, not mine.

When The Arab-European League published the cartoon of Ann Frank having sex with Hitler their point was
"People are saying we overreacted but look at the reaction when we insult the Jews". There was no reaction, only a few words of contempt, then I forgot about it. So now don't I get to say with certainty that Muslims react in a way that no one else does? They proved that themselves. Subsequently, because my feelings were hurt by their cartoon I didn't go out and make a cartoon of some poor Cambodian villager having sex with Pol Pot or a black man having sex with the Grand Dragon of the KKK. Unlike many Muslims, when I feel demeaned by racism I don't wish to cause other people, who have done nothing to me, to also be hurt. I guess we're supposed to euphamistically call that a "cultural difference".

People in the west need to understand a word called "respect". These cartoons, regardless of free speech and all the other excuses used to create them, are completely disrespectful. How will this bring peace to our world? Stop focusing on the radical fundamental Muslims and think of respecting all the Muslims in this world who work every day to make this a better place for every human being regardless of creed or race. In my opinion there is a limit to free speech when it spreads blatent hatred and disrespect which this is doing. We are only truly free when we are responsible for our actions. Posting these is irresponsible.

The KKK can legally march in Skokie. Gay people could have gay pride marches even though, thirty years ago when they started, people felt it was taking free speech too far.

Responsible speech is so subjective that how do you determine what is and is not responsible speech? Who decides? Not theocrats, thank God.

David, what a silly set of remarks. You say: "Stop focusing on the radical fundamental Muslims and think of respecting all the Muslims in this world who work every day to make this a better place for every human being regardless of creed or race."

Who are these people? Do they outnumber the vast majority of Muslims who work every day to make the world better for themselves and really don't have time to devote to the pursuit of utopian undertakings? Do they outnumber the number of Muslims who honestly believe that Islam is the greatest religion, that Arab culture is the greatest culture, and that anything that gets in the way of their ascent to power and their right to dominance is evil and should be destroyed?

You also say: "In my opinion there is a limit to free speech when it spreads blatent hatred and disrespect which this is doing. We are only truly free when we are responsible for our actions."

Well, I'm glad that's just your opinion, and not a rule that the rest of us need to worry about. Many previous posts have noted that it is unpopular or rude speech that most needs protection from legal or extra-legal censorship. Rest assured that starting riots and burning down embassies over cartoons is intended to ensure that such cartoons are never printed again. If such an effort is effective, you can expect it to spread to any other area of expression that Muslims find offensive. Is that the system you would like to live under? Serious question, and I suggest you try to answer it.

It would have been good before cheering for free speach to find out more about the Danish cartoons. Did you know that the Danish newspaper had a competition to draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad and the cartoons are the result of that competition? The newspaper CHOSE to INSULT the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

The main issue is the INSULT to the Prophet Muhammad, it is not only about drawing his pictures. I do not believe insulting the Prophet Muhammad stands for free speach.

For those who say that arab newspapers have cartoons that ridicule jews, you are comparing apples to oranges. They are not ridiculing the Prophet Moses, they are ridiculing the israeli government. I am sure if the Danish cartoons were about arab governments there would be no riots.

I will ask you to think before you jump up and down and call muslims names. The issue is not about FREE SPEACH, it is about INSULTing the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Muslims love the Prophet Muhammad and will always stand up against those who chose to insult him.

Sorry, Vohid, but we don't have to follow your rules regarding whether or not to draw Muhammad. The Danish contest was designed, and has succeeded, at showing that on this issue, Western and Muslim values are not compatible. So be it. We will leave you to your rules, but you must also respect ours. And if you don't like it, too bad.

Peace be upon you.

I'm still not precisely clear on why cartoons mocking the Holocaust are the logical response to a Danish political cartoon depicting Mohammed wearing an explosive turban. (To me, the tit-for-tat element seems obscure, if not altogether absent.)

Iran is holding a contest to publish Holocaust denying cartoons. Denying that the Holocaust occurred, or that parts of the historical record of it are inflated or otherwise inaccurate, is a thought crime in most Western countries. You can actually be arrested, deported, and jailed if you question the reported history and statistics of the Holocaust.

Iran wants to publish the Holocaust cartoons as a test of the West's commitment to free speech. The Danish editor who first ran the cartoons said he would indeed publish the Iranian Holocaust cartoons.

Eddie, your rhetorical trick is getting a little old. My "true concern"? Why is my motive important to you?

Well, you solicited my advice (or at least I'd thought you did -- I now see that it was a rhetorical question).


Except that every time you do it, you reveal your own views on the moral equivalency of (1) protesting against speech restrictions thru a benign gesture like publishing a cartoon, versus (2) burning down embassies and causing other mayhem because a cartoon got you all worked up.

Perhaps I'm just not writing clearly enough. But my intent is to reveal my own views on the moral "equivalence" of burning down an embassy and bombing two already-downtrodden countries to smithereens.

They're both wrong. (I think it's kind of absurd, given the scale, to equate them -- but, whatever.) But one of the wrongs is our responsibility, and we are capable of mitigating it. The other is not, and we are not.

So if we're going to huff and puff, shouldn't we, given the limited number of hours in the eday, huff and puff over our own crimes -- both as a practical and a moral matter -- before huffing and puffing over the crimes of others?


No, I need not fly to Denmark (there aren't any riots there -- they are in the Middle East).

My bad. I had thought that they started among Muslim populations in Denmark -- I admit to not following the story very closely.


I can simply ensure that no foreign religion interferes with my preferred lifestyle and speech choices by making it clear that under no circumstance will I allow it to do so.

What good does "making it clear" do? It's about as effective, I should think, as going shopping after 9/11 was in "defeating" bin Laden.


That is the point that I and many others wish to make entirely clear to the world, especially the Islamic world. You call this 'grandstanding' only because you place greater importance on what you view as the needs and entitlements of The Other than you do on the preferences of your own fellow citizens.

No, I call it grandstaning because it will have exactly zero effect on the rioters, yet you nevertheless make a big show of doing it.


Do that to your heart's desire, but do not tell me or others about some vague obligations you believe we have vis a vis Muslims halfway around the world. Those are your moral imperatives, not mine.

Clearly. But are you denying the hypocrisy in your stance?

Eddie, you say: "What good does "making it clear" do? It's about as effective, I should think, as going shopping after 9/11 was in "defeating" bin Laden."

Making it clear does a whole lot of good. It demonstrates, in no uncertain terms, that we will not be influenced or frightened by the violent actions of rioters and fundamentalist zealots. The point the Danish newspaper was trying to make (and I think it has made it very well) is that people in the West tip-toe around Islam, in a way that they do not about other religions, particularly Christianity. My point is that we should show that our Western values, such as free speech, are absolute vis a vis simple religious preferences. I and many others wish to make this profoundly clear.

You, on the other hand, want to talk only about the 'crimes' of the West. I'm more interested in defending and encouraging what is good about us than in boo-hooing over what some (not all) perceive as bad about us.

There is no hypocrisy in this position. Period.

Thats right europe should be only christian and pure!!! here are some facts:

The most controversial issue in Europe today is the fact that Europe is no longer purely European. One out of every twenty residents of Europe is a foreigner or born with foreign blood in their veins. That is an alarming statistic for the citizens of the ‘civilized’ continent. Having so many people with ‘inferior’ pigmentation walking around their neighborhoods disturbs them to no end. It seems just like yesterday that they managed to rid themselves of their yarmulke wearing population. Now, they have to deal with the hijab. For all the trouble they went to building concentration camps and destroying Jewish ghettos – they now have a bigger demographic problem with the many Arab, Turkish, Kurdish and South Asian communities who appear reluctant to accept ‘their values.’ If these ‘foreign intruders’ had the decency to demonstrate a little self-contempt – it would go a long way to reducing European bigotry. If they would just pick up their bags and ‘go back where they came from’ – Europeans would be more than happy to visit them in their native domicile and treat them with contempt ‘over there’.

DONT FORGET THE SECRET PRISONS THEY HAVE IN EUROPE!!!!

"Jesus"(sic), you seem angry at having been forced to face the fact that in important ways, Western and Islamic cultures do not appear to be compatible. Why does this anger you so much?

And with the Andrew Sullivan link, so come the mouthbreathers.


LEFT BOW SCRAPE WHERE IS YOUR SECULAR GOD NOW BLAAAARRRGGG


How do these people even manage to breathe? Instructions? PRINTED BY THE LIBERAL MEDIA????

when ever europe stops assertings its rights on others (aka war) the muslims will stop their agression. That is all you need to know my child.

I keep hearing supporters of reprinting these cartoon (specifically Mr. Savage) talk about how the KKK is free to march in Skokie. Yes, they are, but does that fact require us all to don Nazi regalia to show our support for thier free speech rights? So why then does showing our support for the free speech rights of Danish cartoonists require the reprinting of these cartoons?

Seems to me that all that is required to show support for free speech is an editoral on the controversy supporting free speech and condeming the riots. Republishing the cartoons is an endorsement of them & their content. Supporting free speech doesn't require participation in offensive speech.

I'm only commenting to bump the comment count to eighty. A record!

John you were always my favorite.

Jesus saith: "when ever europe stops assertings its rights on others (aka war) the muslims will stop their agression."

At the risk of blasphemy, I think this is almost certainly wrong. According to the doctrines of the most serious Islamists, the aggression will only stop once the world is united in an Islamic caliphate governed by sharia law.

Some angry dude says: "And with the Andrew Sullivan link, so come the mouthbreathers.
LEFT BOW SCRAPE WHERE IS YOUR SECULAR GOD NOW BLAAAARRRGGG
How do these people even manage to breathe? Instructions? PRINTED BY THE LIBERAL MEDIA????"

Color me puzzled. Who on Earth are you talking about? And what is the specific basis, with examples, for this evaluation?

John says: "Seems to me that all that is required to show support for free speech is an editoral on the controversy supporting free speech and condeming the riots. Republishing the cartoons is an endorsement of them & their content. Supporting free speech doesn't require participation in offensive speech."

The problem with this is that showing the cartoons is an inherent part of understanding the news story. Because the American media has mostly refrained from showing the cartoons, it has failed to tell the whole story. I have a feeling that most people would be surprised by how banal the cartoons really are.

The bigger point is that the media would be rushing to print the cartoons if the subject were anything other than Islamic sensitivities. Recall the extensive, sometimes gratuitious displays of "Piss Christ" and the erotic photos of Robert Mapplethorpe.

When I visited Denmark, I was disgusted by the prevalence of anti-Muslim sentiment. It was explained by my relatives that the mass immigration that had taken place throughout the 70's and 80's was unwelcome by many Danes who saw it as jobs lost to non-native residents. Just more typical bigotry that you find everywhere. It blew me away that this country I had so much blind pride in, was really as ugly as the Southern states of the US.

I believe in freedom of speech - I also believe people should think before speaking.... unfortunately, troglodytes like the cartoonist that drew the picture don't care how much it pains true believers to see their prophet in such a hateful light.

If you're a Catholic, you can easily put yourself in their shoes by imagine a cartoon where Jesus is portrayed in a disgusting pose with a choirboy. Hardly unfair, if you call all Muslims terrorists because a few ARE terrorists, then what do you call Catholics when a few are molesters.

Please don't congratulate these hatemongers for protecting free speech

I'm away today, and not much time to lurk in the comments—the diff re: Skokie...

If after the Nazis had marched in Skokie, under police protection, Israelis had burned down the US embassy and threatned to kill all the cops, every resident of Skokie, etc., etc., there would be a free-speech point in need of making. I wouldn't make it by marching around in Skokie in a Nazi uniform, and that's an unfair comparison. Nothing about these toons is offensive on that level.

Dan,

If marching around Skokie in Nazi regalia is an unfair comparison, then you probably shouldn't have made it, no?

As far as this current bro-ha-ha not being offensive on that level, offense and the level thereof is all in the eye of the beholder. Who are you to tell millions of Muslims the correct level of their offense. And before you get sidetracked here I'm not defending firebombing and death threats - they aren't justified in either case, but you are clearly making a judgement here on how offened others should be.

The Seattle text is wrong. Yes, nations, individuals and religions have the right to *demand respect*. The problem is that the demanding party should *earn respect*. They should earn it by *manifesting respect* toward others in general, and in the manner of making the demand. (I think this framework really clarifies the situation.)

The danish should stick to making danishes and not cartoons. The muslims are not afraid of the weak and fragile army of denmark. I have a feeling that denmark will really regret making these cartoons in the near future if you know what i mean.

Jesus, shouldn't the Muslims turn the other cheek?

yes the real muslims do sean but its the idiot extremist who make it impossible. You cant make fun of the prophet of 1.3 billion people without getting some bad reactions. Not to mention the cartoonist is a known racist.

But yes one should turn the other cheek and if it comes to protests it should be peaceful like the one held in london.

all i am saying is that the only people who benefit from these drawings are the exremist (aka islamist or neo nazi). Not the people who just want to live their life.


HERE ARE SOME FUN FACTS!

* On Valentine’s Day, 1989, the Iranian government issued a fatwa requiring Salman Rushdie’s immediate assassination for Rushdie’s publication of “The Satanic Verses.”

* On February 24, 1989, five people died in anti-Rushdie protests outside the British Embassy in Bombay.

* In the months immediately following the Iranian fatwa, Muslim communities throughout the world publicly burned hundreds of copies of Rushdie’s book.

* In July, 1991, on the campus of Tsukuba University, Rushdie's Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarishi, was stabbed in the face until he died.

* In July, 1993, in Svas, Turkey, a mob attacked the hotel where Aziz Nesin, Rushdie’s Turkish translator, was staying. The mob, after demanding Nesin’s death, set fire to the hotel and prevented firefighters from approaching it. Although Nesin escaped, THIRTY-SEVEN of the hotel’s guests died in the fire.

* In October, 1993, Rushdie's Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was shot and severely injured outside his home in Oslo.

* In February, 2005, Iran reaffirmed the fatwa against Rushdie, increasing the bounty from $2.8 million to $3 million.

Here are some REAL facts about christians

#1. Started a war in Iraq that is ILLEGAL!!!! Killed Thousands of people including their own.

#3 War on christmas (you idiots i was born in spring not december)

#4 Vietnam War where america thought it could assert its rights on other people and it lost. HAHAHAHA.

#5 Korean War This time china showed their military might.

#6 Cambodian War you people just cant get enough killng can you?

#7 El salvador War great job on that one.

I could keep going on but i need some rest from the stupidity i just read in the above post.

What a wonderful and compelling history of free speech this blog is.... (I can't get my exclamation point to work)...

No, truly, all of you have such wonderful profound ideas . . . I feel blessed to have stumbled upon this thread in my free time.

This issue is not about free speech!
It is an attempt to inflame the muslim world!
Remember when Sinead O'Connor tore up a photo of the Pope on Saturday Night Live? No embassies were torched, but many Catholics were extremely offended, and Sinead's career tanked. Let's see those papers that published these cartoons publish similar one's making fun of Jesus, the Pope, Etc. When and if that happens, THEN it will be an issue of Free Speech, since OUR heroes will then have been trashed!

You know, I have been WAITING for someone to point out the obvious correlation between the tanking of Sinead's career and the issue at hand. It's like...

But, did Saturday Night Live lose ratings?

I've seen and heard many jokes about the Pope. Tearing up his photo wasn't a joke.

Dan, any death threats yet?

what about all the jokes about catholics and jews and other religions they don't react like this surley it is another reason to cause trouble which they seem pretty good at at the moment and certainly now how to pass the blame

Hi there! Your site is cool!

Hey man...sorry I missed the party.

Your pictures are great.

I am here to say hello and you have a great site!

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).