Cartoon Brouhaha

Originally posted here, but the formatting is going wrong so reposting it

Recent controversy over publication of cartoons of Prophet Mohammed have raised questions about freedom of speech and whether publishing the cartoons was an appropriate action. This post is not intended about freedom of speech, freedom of speech is a complicated subject and I am not yet able to formulate a coherent view on it. This is also not about if there can be a reasonable limit to free speech. This is limited to discussion about cartoons in questions.

There were twelve cartoon in all published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. In addition there were three cartoons which were circulated by Danish Imams during their tour of middle east, one of which depicted Prophet as a pig,these however have been proven as forgeries with a aim to provoke Arab street by Danish Imams.

Out of the twelve cartoons(Which can be seen here) , I found two (or may be three?) of them tasteless, even derogatory.However others were harmless if irreverent. In fact two of the cartoons did not depict the prophet at all. In my view the mature response would have been to limit the protest and censure to the aforementioned newspaper.

The other aspect is that, how the exercise of publishing cartoon is being painted as bigotry. I don't think it is correct, though in normal circumstances I would have preferred if the cartoons were published with some circumspection.

However, the circumstances were not normal .

To understand the circumstances , From Wikipedia "On September 17, 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline"Dyb angst for kritik af islam"[5] ("Profound fear of criticism of Islam").
The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unableto find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book Koranenog profeten Muhammeds liv ("The Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad's life").
Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before an artist agreed to assist anonymously. According toBluitgen: One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen[5]. In October 2004, a lecturer at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen was assaulted by five assailants who opposed the lecturer's reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture[6].The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence ofself-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples for similar reasonssoon emerging. The comedian Frank Hvam declared that he did not dare satirise the Qur'an ontelevision, while the translators of an essay collection critical of Islam also wished toremain anonymous due to concerns about violent reaction."

It is clear that considering the rise of muslim population and the growing Islamic radicalism there has been significant tension in Europe. Already due to declining birth rates of Europeans and rising immigration, there is a widely held belief that coming decades may see a shift of balance towards immigrants.

The adjustment with immigration group who are orthodox creates insecurity in minds of Europians who are accustomed to a much more open culture and moral value system.
In addition there is hardly any attempt from immigrants to integrate with the society, this tendency result in formation of ghettos.
This is ofcourse not unique to Muslims communities ,however this does tend to amplify the effect of radical elements.
Here I think it will be proper to say that from what I read the European attitude to immigration is not without hostility, however that shouldn't distract from the fact that somehow Muslims immigration communities have difficulty assimilating societies worldwide.
It may be said that this is not unique to Muslims, however considering the growth of radical Islam it is of much more serious concern.Also , immigrant communities are recipient of welfare in Europe.
In Europe it was felt that prominent opinion makers and main stream media were shying awayfrom discussing this issue at all, for fear of offending muslim sensibilities and provokingbacklash .
This however was not limited to media or politicians. Due to Van Gogh incident, FrenchRiots and London Bombing an atmosphere of fear was created, combined with increasing incidents of assault and threats many intellectuals were finding it difficult to express any opinion, some times critical on Islam.

People were threatened against translating Quran or depicting Prophet.In particular an opinion was forming that self censorship was being practiced inEuropeeowing to strong arm tactics by radical elements.
There was also opinion that political correctness in effect has become appeasement against the violent mob. In the quoted article,there were incidences where artists were hesitant to draw prophet.
It is in this context that the decision by newspaper must be seen.

By publishing the cartoon the newspaper was asserting the right to be critical ofIslam, in fact right to have critical opinion even if it is offensive to others. The news paper did not do it just for malicious pleasure so it is wrong to attribute ulterior motives to it.

Any second guessing is just a futile exercise to establish moral equivalence. In other words it was a test case for muslim immigrants in particular and adherents to faith in general.

However more than that it was test case for so called liberals in the west.

However considering the consequences I do not think that either managed to pass the test. While muslim countriess indulged in the usual saber - rattling, International media out ofsheer mortification failed in their duty to cover the issue.People have not failed to note that on past occasion liberals had no compunction in covering issues which can be considered downright offensive toChristians (examples like piss Christ or dung Mary).

This is sheer hypocrisy, what is more this is a policy doomed to fail as pastexperiences havee shown that appeasement never works.

The conclusion, liberals must grow some spine, if they want to have relevance.
To theMuslims First It is immaterial if depiction of Prophet is considered as blasphemy in Islam,pictures are considered perfectly normal in the world outside islam, so it is better to become used to it.
As an aside prophet has been depicted in Islamic history, so it is not something which is unparalleled in History. Second Even if the cartoons were offensive it is unavoidable during a debate in a free society, so it is better to grow a thicker skin. What is more protest should be in proportion to perceived offense. Third By acting in this manner,Muslims are exhibiting what they criticize that is idolatry.

Here, I would like to give my stand.As a Hindu I consider cows to be sacred, in fact I consider all life to be sacred.That doesn't mean I will expect everyone to turn vegetarian. I do not have the right to force anyone to become vegetarian.In fact it would be foolish for me to hold demonstrations for this.
A second more serious example, I am offended by nude pictures of Hindu Gods and Godesses.If I protest this, it will not by using physical violence but by other means. For example, I can hold demonstration in front of the painter house or the gallery, but I will not use threat of physical violence.

Update: Following Blogs have posted on this issue

Secular Right Here, Here and Here

Deesha Here, Here and Here (Recommended)

Sepia Mutiny Here and Here

Patrix Here

Ashish Here

Here I must mention that Secular Right and Sepia Mutiny seemed to be circumspect and trying to establish moral equivalence.

Another Update:

"Here I must mention that Secular Right and Sepia Mutiny seemed to be circumspect and trying to establish moral equivalence. "

Here by moral equivalence my implication was not justification of violence, but sidestepping the real issue in my opinion.
 

Categories : Society , Secularism , Religion , International , Civilization , Politics