Xymphora+and+Helena+Cobban+on+the+cartoons

Xymphora, Saturday, February 04, 2006
=Danish cartooning=

The Danish cartoon conundrum is pretty easy, isn't it? Publishing and republishing the cartoons has nothing to do with free speech. I have the right, the legal right, the free speech right, to go up to the next developmentally-challenged person I see and call him a retard. But I don't. Why not? Because I'm not six years old! I may consider all religious beliefs to be silly superstitions (and I do!). However, I know that people take their religious beliefs very seriously, and would be genuinely hurt if I were to make fun of them. So I don't. It's just a question of common courtesy. Freedom of the press has absolutely nothing to do with it. The Danes showed how far their principles went when they started to apologize only when it appeared Danish corporations would lose money from a Muslim boycott. Some principles!

The conspiracy angle of this unnecessary crisis is that the Danes knew exactly what they were doing, and intended to provoke the violent Muslim reaction that they got. Those involved are anti-immigration racists who wanted to make the point that Muslims are inherently violent and shouldn't be allowed into Denmark. This was no accident.

What the hell happened to Denmark anyway? It used to be one of the most reliably progressive places in the world. Now we see a right-wing government backed by anti-immigration racists that sent troops to Iraq, troops that even had their own little torture scandal. Denmark is actually an excellent example of the future joys of vote reform, since the far right, anti-immigration Danish Peoples Party provides the seats which allows the government to control power.


 * From: http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/02/danish-cartooning.html**

“Just World News” (Helena Cobban), February 4, 2006
=The "cartoons"=

I can understand, perhaps, if some publisher in a not terrifically lively place like Denmark decides he wants to make some money by publishing some cartoons that-- perhaps-- he doesn't even know are actively offensive to a billion-plus of his fellow humans. What I don't understand is that, after the offended people have expressed their deep hurt about these cartoons, a bunch of other publishers all over Europe should choose to reprint them.

And they call that "free speech"? To me, it is exactly like sexual pornography, which is an ideology and a billion-dollar industry that intentionally demeans and objectifies women and provides the ideological basis for the industries of prostitution and human trafficking that are built centrally on the human suffering of women and young girls and boys.

Liberal societies have laws against the free publication, display, and distribution of pornography, and I'm glad that they do. Many have laws against publications that incite race-hate.

Publishing cartoons whose main intent is-- as we all well know-- to cause predictable amounts of great offense to adherents of a religion is not a "free speech" issue. It is incitement to hate of the most childish and irresponsible kind.

Of course Muslims should also find effective and nonviolent ways to express their sense of deep hurt. The violent response that's been seen in a number of Muslim communities does nothing, I think, to either defend or honor the values of the religion. Huge, disciplined, nonviolent protests of all kinds-- demonstrations and possibly also boycotts-- would achieve those things so much more effectively. Meantime, maybe we should all have a calm and reasoned discussion about the nature of sacred-ness in our world-- and how we can all learn better to respect the feelings of others about the sacred.

What does it mean, indeed, when we say something is "sacred" to us? Is free-speech absolutism a "sacred" value?


 * From: http://justworldnews.org/archives/001709.html