h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I was just catching up on the news through the BBC News homepage. I read the story about the cartoons published in the Danish newspaper which have led to street protests all over the Muslim world; read about the editor of Le Soir getting fired for reprinting them as a gesture of support; read about the various continental European newspapers that have done the same; even read a very informative piece explaining in great detail why devout muslims were liable to be offended by representations of the prophet.

I then went looking for the cartoons themselves.

Nope.

A piece explaining why a belief in the freedom of speech can be every bit as deeply-held as faith in God.

Nope.

Something about the traditions of satirical cartoons in western journals and papers, perhaps - dash of Hogarth, bit of Goya.

Nothing.

What I wanted to ask is this: shouldn't every newspaper and media outlet in the western world - in support of the Jordanian paper that plucked up the courage to show them, if nothing else - be reprinting these cartoons on a daily basis, purely as a matter of principle?

>>EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson also criticised the European papers which re-ran the cartoons, saying they were "throwing petrol onto the flames of the original issue and the original offence that was taken".<<

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4675462.stm

(Just because that's made me even more pi$$ed off)

This post has been removed.

Well, at least we've got one BBC site linking!

I have seen the cartoons: I'm just perturbed by the idea that the UK media's not got the courage of its (supposed) convictions.

I think its fair enough for people to feel insulted or angry about the content of the cartoons (hell I'm not in the business of telling people how they can or can't feel), but certainly not to respond violently, make threats etc.

But I also think that the newspapers had every right to print those, and that since this right has been challenged, a stand should be made on the issue.

I remember that Jerry Springer - the Opera being allowed to go ahead despite outcries of blasphemy by Christians, so why no reportage of the cartoons? Is the sketch of Muhammed with a bomb for a turban too near the truth?

I was going to respond that BBC is spineless and they'll cover their bbutts any time someone claims to be offended.

But then I remembered how Greg Dyke, director general of the BBC for a while, said that 'the BBC was an "800lb gorilla" that was capable of holding off the Government's attempts to interfere in editorial decisions, he said.'
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=400113

...Then again, that was before he quit/got forced out because the Government disapproved of his editorial decisions.

equestrian_statue,

Just to clarify ... it is not only the nature of the cartoons that is causing offense - the Muslim religion does not allow ANY images of the prophet.

I agree that while the outrage may be justified the violence and threats of retaliation is not.

It's not much more than a silly cartoon. A measured response would be not to take it seriously. But aren't the gunmen rather foolishly proving its point? There are misguided reactions from politicians too, and these exaggerate its importance, thus making it important.

The British public ought to be able to see this cartoon and decide for themselves. This self-impoosed censorship is craven.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/02022006/325/mohammad-cartoon-row-sparks-backlash.html

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

J.

It also seems that the cartoon pictures that have been shown in the Muslim world are not the original ones. Instead some other more offensive ones have been shown. Seems somebody wanted this reaction.

This post has been removed.

I would have thought that just for once the UK media was showing admirable restraint.

We know that the cartoons offend the sensibilities of Muslims. We are all trying, in these difficult times, to be a little nicer to each other. Whether or not the violence in other parts of the world is justified is actualy beside the point here. The point here is whether or not it is acceptable to re-print something which is *known* to cause great offence to a certain proportion of the population on the pretence of 'reporting the news'.

As I say, I think it makes an admirable change fromthe standard 'Paper X has been criticised for publishing pictures of Royal A/sleb B, which we reprint here *purely* in the interests of allowing you to exercise your own judgement'. It's a horse-sh*t excuse for for publication of anything.

Besides, it appears the problem goes deeper as Denmark has become something of a hotbed for anti-Muslim feeling (a senior Danish politician recently described Muslims as 'a cancer') and there is every reason to suppose the pictuires, which are hardly news now as the original printing was some six months ago, wretre published bythe paper concerned in a deliberate attempt to provoke the reaction they almost inevitably got.

Seems two things being overlooked here. One is that regardless of what the religion says about images of the prophets, it can only, befinition, apply to members of the religion and thus demand that those outside the religion don't do it either because of this rule seems to be missing a fairly fundamental point.
Either that or showing an incredible arrogance that the rest of the world has to conform to your rules.
Secondly I believe that the reason for the rule is to prevent followers from creating icons and idols and worshiping them. Much the same as the christian commandment #3 - 'Thou shalt not make for thyself any graven image'. Seems to be an element of taking the letter of the law and not the spirit.

But all that aside, it has to be said that it is generally better to respect other peoples beliefs and ways of life.
I think there are occasions when such acts are required and should be done, but you have to be making a pretty good point, and not be able to do it as well by any other means, to get away with it. Otherwise you are just demeaning yourself by taking cheap potshots, and we all know how impressive doing that is

"belief in the freedom of speech can be every bit as deeply-held as faith in God"

Well said Trin.

I fail to understand why you would *want* to exercise your freedom of speech at the expense of offending people for no practical purpose, or do you find jokes about Mohammed particularly amusing?

The responsibility of free speech is inextricably linked to recognizing that others have rights, not just you.

Well I haven't really heard any good ones about Mohammed yet, but South Park's 'Jesus and Friends' always made me giggle, so there's potential.

>>The responsibility of free speech is inextricably linked to recognizing that others have rights, not just you<<

Yes - everyone has the right either to disagree or to protest or to look away. No one has the right to say the cartoons in question shouldn't exist in the first place and to use threats of violence in support of that point of view. As I said in my first posting, when that happens, it becomes a point of principle. Even more so when the editor of Le Soir gets sacked for reprinting them.

>>I fail to understand why you would *want* to exercise your freedom of speech at the expense of offending people for no practical purpose<<

Because otherwise it's not freedom of speech. 'I am offended by this' just isn't enough - some group somewhere is going to be offended by pretty much anything.

>>or do you find jokes about Mohammed particularly amusing?<<

There are plenty of liberal muslims who themselves find jokes about Mohammed amusing - including, as I said earlier, the Jordanian paper that decided to reprint these cartoons under a headline calling for a sense of proportion and for people to be a bit more reasonable.

Woah! Who yikesed posting 3?

For anyone reading the backlog, that provided a link to one of the cartoons in question. I'll be interested to see if that comes back.

No, its nothing to do with finding jokes about Mohammed particularly amusing. Its to do with finding every single kind of organised religion very amusing indeed. I don't believe in it, so I can say whatever I like about it. After all, Muslims and Christians will say I'm going to burn in hell as an infidel/heretic, and that's not very nice is it?

Frankly it seems to be about the same point of principle as the American pornographer who defended himself under 'the right to free speech' banner. That was horse-sh*t as well.

But I still think the principle point here is why the Danish newspaper in question decided to reprint those particualr cartoons *now*, months after they were 'news', during a period of particular unrest in Denmark with regard to the Muslim population, and apparently being backed by senior political figures.