The Iranian Gambit

Published on February 7, 2006 By cactoblasta In Politics

Like a number of others on this board I've followed developments on those Danish cartoons with some interest. The latest move comes from the Iranian majors, one of whom has decided to launch a competition about 'the best holocaust cartoon' Link .

The concept behind this one is rather simple. If the Danish cartoons were indeed commissioned in order to prove that newspapers have the right to lambast sacred cows regardless of their origin, then naturally the Danish newspaper at the start of it all would be happy to publish the Iranian paper's results. After all, is there a greater sacred cow than the holocaust? By publishing something offensive to holocaust survivors the newspapers would be proving they value all forms of free speech equally, even those on matters which are sensitive to a majority of readers.

It's an interesting gambit, and certainly a bold one. Of course it's likely the Iranian paper would have published the cartoons anyway - 3rd world news tends to display not so much press freedom as official prejudice. And I highly doubt that anyone in the western publishing world will bother to respond, save perhaps those who delight in contrarian views (such as Australia's Crikey, a political news email/newsletter with a certain reputation for pigheadedness).

But let's indulge in a pointless theoretical exercise. Say you were the editor of a major daily, and decided to respond in some way to the Iranian case. Would you take the Iranian challenge and prove that the freedom of the press to publish anything is sacred? Or would you choose not to, deciding that there's no point choosing to fight for the freedom of the press on such a divisive and unsavoury issue, particularly when it serves no great purpose even in victory?

Of course the two positions I've put above are simplified. But I think they roughly sum up the two sides in the argument, and I think you can guess which one I side with. But what do you guys reckon?

Comments (Page 2)

Tova7

on Feb 07, 2006

And the perceptions that Islam is violence is just wrong

Have you read ANY of the Koran? Because you don't have to read far before the prophet starts preaching "Convert or kill" how is that not violent?

Look, beside every crazy terrorist Muslim is at least ONE non violent Muslim. It takes one phone call, one word dropped in the appropriate ear....but that is not happening globally.

As for the newspapers. COME ON GUYS! Newspapers are BUSINESS. I am a journalist. I can tell you money drives the ads and often the cartoons! Do you look in the NY Times for cartoons poking fun at liberals? Nope.

Why? Because they are catering to their READERS...its all about money.

The reason they could print anti-muslim cartoons is because more and more of their readers, are becoming anti-muslim!! Along with the rest of the world.

To think money is not THE deciding factor is unrealistic.

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

Excellent point, I wish to expand on that but I have to leave for work now. I will get back at you later.

I hope you contribute more. While I see your view is not universally accepted, it is very evident you have a lot to contribute and you are a very eloquent writer.

bakerstreet

on Feb 07, 2006

I consider them to be important AND bad taste. When newspapers are told that they have to keep to the religious edicts of a particular religion, what do they do? I think the Danish newspaper felt that if they didn't post some sort of response, it would be assumed that they caved to that kind of religious imposition. What would you suggest, saying "Well we won't, but it won't be because you threatened us".

It's like the "Islam isn't violent" argument that I tend to laugh at. On the one hand, we're told we ask for it when we lampoon Mohammed, and on the other we are bigots if we assume Islam to be violent. On one hand we can't impose our cultural values on Islam, and yet we're told we can't have images of Mohammed in the newspaper. Eventually, you have to stop walking on eggshells and do one or the other or tell the world threats can stifle freedom.

We don't feel it in America, because we don't have huge influx of Islamic immigrants that Europe has. We can't fathom being told what we can and can't print. I think it may have been important the the people in question to say "Hey, you can't impose your religous beliefs on us". What I, and you, and Muslims think is immaterial, it is their right to publish what they want.

cactoblasta

on Feb 07, 2006

Aku dari Jakarta tapi setelah highschool pindah ke Canada. Wah di Jogja enak tuh -- orangnya ramah-ramah. Apa kamu menikmati kunjungan ke Indonesia?

Iya, Jogja enak banget. Aq udah ke Jakarta tapi hanya utk dugem dan konser rock kayak Cupumanik dan juga satu konser pop oleh peterpan. Tapi enak sekali di sana juga. Trims banget utk kunjunganmu ke blogku anyway.

Excellent point, I wish to expand on that but I have to leave for work now. I will get back at you later.

Please do. I had trouble figuring out a friend of mine's response when I emailed him in indon yesterday. Your english is much better than his Inggris or my Indo.

In the end, it doesn't matter if they were necessary, or if they were in good or bad taste. A newspaper wanted to print them, and they were being told they couldn't. What would you suggest, saying "Well we won't, but it won't be because you threatened us.

Well personally I would be against printing them in the first place. They're deliberately antagonistic and do nothing to further the cause of free speech because they show that the consequences can be worse than the benefits. Do you think there were many governments who've come out of the last few weeks with the impression that free speech is worth promoting even when it pisses someone off? From a security perspective it's drastically lowered Danish security both abroad and at home, particularly where terrorism is concerned. Where once they were ignored, now groups are taking notice.

I think it's a poor choice of battleground for a free speech argument, and does the papers in question no credit that they pursued it. Sure, they had the right, but I think they made a stupid choice when they decided to publish. And I'd consider anyone who published the Holocaust cartoons to be much the same.

Leauki

on Feb 07, 2006

If Jews had been imposing their religious edicts not to lampoon Moses

Considering the very large number of Jewish comedians and Jewish comedy on American television and movie theatres all over the world, including Mel Brooks' appearance as a Jiddish-speaking Moses in "History of the World - Part 1", I think a case could be made for the Jews imposing too much lampooning Moses on the world.

I like Jewish humour and I won't complain.

bakerstreet

on Feb 07, 2006

The most telling aspect of this Iranian twist is yet another stereotype. We look at this and say "Huh? What does the holocaust have to do with Danish cartoons?" Easy. Islamic radicals believe the Jews are behind everything, and there is always some Zionist plot at work.

So, I figure this is just lashing out at the standard villain. Add anti-Semitism right below "Islam is violent" on the list of sterotypes this whole mess has helped to confirm. They didn't even have to make an anti-Semitic statement; they just opted to to put icing on the cake, I guess.

bakerstreet

on Feb 07, 2006

I'd add, again, that it wasn't like this Danish newspaper decided to make a statement on freedom of the press, and drew "irritate Muslims" out of a hat of things to do. An innocent cartoon depicting the gods of all major faiths brought so much venom from Muslims for the depiction of Allah, that the newspaper reacted with the recent contest.

Bad or good idea is subjective, it's their newspaper and it was for them to decide how to respond. If the press is about shedding light on the world and bringing issues into the public mind for discussion, they've certainly done it.

I don't think it is nearly the random act of bad taste people are making it out to be. If anything, it has been such a violent response that not even Islam can help but take a good hard look at itself.

"Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar told the Italian daily il Giornale on Saturday that the cartoons were an offense that should be punished by death.
"We should have killed all those who offend the Prophet and instead here we are, protesting peacefully," Zahar said.

Link

That's gonna be a fun guy to negotiate with...

cactoblasta

on Feb 07, 2006

Well he didn't kill all the ones responsible - I suppose he thinks that was both generous and a sign of restraint. Does sound like the Middle East is back to normal now.

If the press is about shedding light on the world and bringing issues into the public mind for discussion, they've certainly done it.

You're right. They certainly have brough it out into the public arena, with several embassies destroyed, the Danish reputation in tatters in the middle east and at least 5 people dead. I hope it was worth it.

MythicalMino

on Feb 07, 2006

hmmm....

"You have offended me. Therefore, I will hunt you down, and murder you in your sleep with a pitchfork, as I rape and kill your wife, and put your children into slavery....all while burning your home to the ground. Your offense to me is because of my religion, and therefore, is justified. Oh, by the way....I am a Christian, and the 10 Commandments said so."

Does that make any sense? No...it doesn't. But....that is what you are (seemingly) saying....except, you wouldn't stand for a Christian or a Jew saying that....but rather a Muslim....

Although, perhaps I am misunderstanding you? Why should we dance around Muslims in fear that we may offend, but any other religion, we should just say, "Oh well, damn Christians need to get their butts under control!!"

Sounds hypocritical to me....unless you want to bow facing Mecca and pray all those times per day. Or, maybe you are a muslim, already?

I guess I do not understand why we should bow down to Muslims....why?

cactoblasta

on Feb 07, 2006

I'm not sure who you're talking to Myth. If it's me I don't know how you got all that from what I wrote. My line about the Hamas leader's restraint was supposed to be a joke - you know, the Middle East is back to normal when the Palestinians are preaching death to the infidel.

I don't think anyone needs to bow before a Muslim in order to see that provocation of a faith, especially when the reprisal is likely to be violent, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I can't figure out where anyone has benefited from the incident, and it's done nothing to improve the reputation of free speech, particularly in those nations that are newly democratising. So what was the point?

And also, what would your statement be in response to the Iranian's proposal? That's what I'm particularly interested in at the moment.

bakerstreet

on Feb 07, 2006

"I don't think anyone needs to bow before a Muslim in order to see that provocation of a faith, especially when the reprisal is likely to be violent, doesn't make a whole lot of sense."

If that is true, then the reality is Islam is violent, and we should expect violence when we offend them. In return, when Muslims call us infidels and say we should die like the satans we are, we are to take the high road and congratulate them on their use of free speech.

If that is reality, then we aren't equal, and saying so is a lie. Islam would be a lesser religion that can't be trusted to take part in a modern, free society. I don't believe that. I believe that Islam can fit in well, as it has in the US and many other places. But only once we start ridding the world of violent radicals and holding Islam to the same standard we hold other religions.

cactoblasta

on Feb 07, 2006

That's not entirely true. There's a difference between expecting violence from fringe elements that have proven track records of responding violently to provocation (the terrorists) and expecting violence because Islam is a violent religion.

It's safe to publish against Christianity because the vicious Christian fringe doesn't use violence quite so often. It happens, but only very rarely. I think the last time was at least a decade ago, if not longer.

But everyone knows that there are elements in Islam which are belligerent towards western interests, and can be expected to react with great anger and violence in the event of such a poorly handled issue as the cartoons (the Danish government's response was particularly stupid; refusing to meet with foreign diplomats seeking an apology was moronic).

The fact that it can be expected that a heavily armed and dangerous fringe element, supported by a number of regional dictatorships, will attack doesn't mean you can tar the whole religion with the brush. It's only the fringe elements that act up. As you yourself have noted Muslim groups have started to get fed up with their growing marginalisation on this matter.

But only once we start ridding the world of violent radicals and holding Islam to the same standard we hold other religions.

Of course. But I don't believe that this is best achieved by goading the radicals. I suppose we can agree to disagree about that though.

bakerstreet

on Feb 07, 2006

"But everyone knows that there are elements in Islam which are belligerent towards western interests, and can be expected to react with great anger and violence in the event of such a poorly handled issue as the cartoons (the Danish government's response was particularly stupid; refusing to meet with foreign diplomats seeking an apology was moronic)."

Same thing. You can mess with Christianity and the rest, but you'd better not say anything insulting about Islam. It doesn't matter if it is the whole thing, or a few nasties, it still makes us treat Islam different under threat of violence, and we shouldn't.

and frankly it was moronic for diplomats for demanding and apology from people who had nothing to do with the offense. The Dutch government has no business offering an apology, and I dunno why they'd want one from people who didn't cause the offense in the first place.

"Of course. But I don't believe that this is best achieved by goading the radicals. I suppose we can agree to disagree about that though."

You call it goading, I call it refusing to walk on eggshells due to the threat of criminal violence. Of course we can disagree.

cactoblasta

on Feb 07, 2006

and frankly it was moronic for diplomats for demanding and apology from people who had nothing to do with the offense. The Dutch government has no business offering an apology, and I dunno why they'd want one from people who didn't cause the offense in the first place.

Yes that's true. But I seriously doubt that the minister would have undermined himself had he spoken to them and then refused to apologise. That's what the Australian government does every time a local paper pisses off the Indonesians, or the Samoans, or anyone else. I assume it's what the US gov does as well. It's as much good manners as anything else.

You call it goading, I call it refusing to walk on eggshells due to the threat of criminal violence. Of course we can disagree.

Yeah. To my mind it's not walking on eggshells to not publish 12 cartoons featuring Muhammad. It would be walking on eggshells if the publishing served some observable purpose other than becoming a particularly unsavoury test case for press freedom.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!