Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Boycotting the Slip Inn?
G'day. Irfan Yusuf is a regular Webdiarist. His last post was Jetlagged analysis on upcoming 60 Minutes show. Irfan gives us now his Ozzie Mozzie perspective on 'that cartoon'. Princess Mary, what do you think? Hamish.
by Irfan Yusuf
That’s it. I’ve decided once and for all. In a show of Islamic solidarity, I will not drink at the Slip Inn. After all, a Danish newspaper published 12 nasty and offensive cartoons. As a result, I refuse to drink at a pub which has anything to do with Denmark.
There’s just a few problems. I’ve never been to the Slip Inn. In fact, I don’t even know where it is. Further, I doubt Islamic solidarity could be shown by drinking anything stronger than a Diet Coke or orange juice.
But the way some Muslims (including a large number of undemocratic dictatorial Muslim governments) are behaving, you’d think the Muslim world will soon be a pastry-free zone.
Yes, it is true that the neo (or should that be pseudo?) Conservative newspaper in Denmark decided that a good way to support racist immigration policies was to upset 1.2 billion Muslims across the planet. It seems that conservative politics in some Western circles boils down to little more than provoking a civilisational war.
(In which case, don’t be surprised if some dimwitted neo-Con papers published in Australia by Americans also jump on the cartoon bandwagon.)
Now we are all told that publishing these cartoons was about freedom of speech. Really? Try publishing something questioning conventional historical accounts of the Holocaust. Imagine what would have happened if the paper wrote and published an article claiming that only 5,999,999 Jews were massacred by the Nazis and their allies.
Or try doing what Professor Bernard Lewis did. Try writing something questioning the Ottoman massacre of Armenians during the early part of the 20th century. Good luck if French prosecutors or even some private litigants don’t hit you for a hefty fine or even a jail sentence.
Hiding Prejudices Behind Free Speech
It seems that in modern Europe, free speech allows you to offend and upset some people but not others.
Personally I think many Muslims are overreacting to the whole cartoon thing. I’ve written as much on my blog and submitted to the usual mainstream newspaper suspects on both sides of the Tasman. You can find a summarised version of it also written up (with suitable links) on the blog.
But then I decided to read what Yasmin’s mum had to say. Yasmin’s mum (or Umm Yasmin in Arabic) is the closest person I’ve met to a Muslim feminist wearing a headscarf. Her analysis of the Danish situation makes compelling reading.
I should also mention the arguments raised by Danish Muslim Svend White. In an insightful analysis, Mr White provides some important background information on the political motivations of the newspaper.
It seems that many neo-Cons are trying to deliberately provoke an international Muslim response. Perhaps before neo-Con publications across Europe started reprinting the cartoons, most Muslims would never have associated Denmark with anything other than Lego, pastries and ice cream.
Of course, now the offending newspapers have realised that they might have provoked a group substantially bigger than the small disorganised rabble that makes up Europe’s Muslim communities. Heads are beginning to roll. The cowards are getting nervous. Already the editor of one French newspaper has been sacked.
The cartoons are part of a broader attempt by neo-Con media to provoke and anger Muslim audiences. It is impossible to generalise about any newspaper or indeed any media empire. But the fact is that the choices some op-ed editors make to publish (and in many cases, not to publish) reflect on the pet prejudices they present as “mainstream opinion”.
In Australia, some newspapers are prepared to print articles by Daniel Pipes which state that the best way for a nation to deal with Iraqi terrorists kidnapping its nationals is to lynch its Muslim minorities. Other newspapers publish articles claiming that Muslim cultures teach young boys to rape white-skinned women as a right of passage.
Hardly 70 years ago, similar claims were being printed about Jews in Europe. Within a decade, free speech turned into a free-for-all of xenophobia.
Hysterical Response
Yes, there are people in Europe and Australia that want us all to declare war on our Muslim neighbours and countrymen and women. There are people who think that supporting Christianity or conservative values or Judeo-Christian ethics involves offending and insulting as many Muslims as possible.
But then some Muslims often don’t do themselves any favours either. Yes, Mr White is correct in his analysis when he says that people have the right to economically punish any nation or company that offends or insults them. But since when do cartoons published in a near-Nazi newspaper represent official Danish government policy?
Further, what benefit does boycotting all Danish goods bring? Are there proven financial or ideological links between the newspaper and ice cream manufacturers or Lego?
Mr White rightly speaks about the racist tone of much conservative political rhetoric in Denmark and other parts of Europe. Yet surely attributing the idiocy of a few neo-Con newspapers to all Denmark would in itself constitute a kind of racism.
Some Muslims say that their protests are being done to protect the honour of the Prophet Muhammad. But does the honour of a historical figure honoured and loved by almost a quarter of the planet need protecting? And is it not demeaning to the great man’s honour that we take seriously the rants and ravings and scribblings of pseudo-conservative nutcases?
And what makes me want to laugh and cry simultaneously until the halal cows come home is how popular ignorant sentiment is being manipulated by undemocratic corrupt Muslim dictators, generals, kings and emirs. These are the same pack of thieves who steal and squander the resources of their people. They throw anyone they deem a threat to their regimes into prison, abusing every human right known to man.
When it suits them, these Muslim rulers treat their subjects like slaves. Now they have the hide to stand up and declare their love for the Prophet when that very Prophet condemned their oppression in the strongest of terms.
Princess Mary
A good reason for Tasmanian Muslims not to boycott all things Danish is the presence of that spunky Tasmanian Princess Mary. And I hope Prince Frederick doesn’t mind me stating for the record that Mary is so spunky, she would easily win a look-alike competition.
What makes Mary look so fab is that she bears a striking resemblance to a supremely gorgeous Muslim lass I was seeing last year. Sadly, that liaison didn’t travel very far. Ah, the pain of unrequited love! Or as they say in certain parts of Bondi, stuff shut.
Yes, the above two paragraphs really make little sense. What does Princess Mary or some crazy woman resembling her have to do with the work of a neo-Nazi cartoonist? Similarly, what does Lego, Danish pastry or the EU have to do with it?
When Muslims boycott all Danish goods, it might make a strong economic statement. But it makes about as much rational sense as my boycotting the Slip Inn.
Surely there are better ways to respond than burning flags and rioting. This sort of behaviour should be left to inebriated and stoned surfies at Cronulla beach. Or to those crazy Middle Eastern crims that the NSW Police allegedly cannot touch because they are used to stack out Bankstown Young Liberals.
Or was that the Lakemba branch of the ALP? Who cares. It's all the same people anyway!
Now it's your turn to comment. Go on. Tell us what you really think...
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Hypocrisy and Cartoongate
He refers to a Guardian article titled Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons. An extract: Juan also links to a Wikipedia List of Riots. Of interest is that Sydney features 3 times in the 21st century - Redfern riots (2004), Macquarie Fields riots (2005) and Sydney race riots (2005).
I think they should have published
I think they should have published them, but in a free society a newspaper editor has the right to publish or not publish as he or she decides.
I think the piss should be thoroughly taken out of all religions. This is a common attitude in the West, which is why the Iranian President decided to retaliate by calling for lampooning the Holocaust rather than Judaism or Christianity - he knew the latter approach wouldn't evoke any reaction at all from the more civilised side in this absurd conflict. (Yes I regard secular democracy as more civilised than theocratic fascism and I do not apologise for that.)
On humour ...
There are a lot of comments on Leunig on this thread, so I though it might be appropriate to include his comment on the issue at hand. Adding my own commentary on this cartoon would be redundant, although I'm sure there are plenty of others ready to let fly. Go for it.
And a thought. Muslims need to start asking themselves, 'What would Jesus do?'.
David, I'm curious:
Cartoon interpretation
Mike, I’m curious as to how you got that interpretation from the cartoon. My own take is that it’s suggesting some Muslims - like, say, the family of that little boy - might have just one or two teeny weeny reasons to feel a bit humourless towards the West. But really it’s just a bit of ’armless fun.
Fanatical
David,
I guess many fanatical Muslims have good reasons to feel humorless towards Buddhists, too, given the recent slaughter of Buddhist monks by Islamic radicals in Thailand. And to little Christian schoolgirls in Sulawesi, Hindus in India, Jews everywhere, and....(insert your belief system here)
Lack of humour
The lack of humour does not just concern the west. See today's Australian.
Semiotics 101
It's interesting how the logic of the "another humourless Muslim" cartoon works, isn't it?
Because it equates the plight of the wounded child with that of those violently protesting the Danish cartoons and threatening to kill the artists.
That this group includes, of course, the political leadership of a number of countries whose official media promotes aggressively racist, especially anti-Jewish images and cartoons reveals the semiotic and political function of the "another humourless Muslim" cartoon.
It is to create moral equivalence between the child as victim, on the one hand, and on the other hand the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the racist President of Iran, nihilist reactionaries like the Taliban, who are offering to murder the Danish cartoonists, and others like them.
The intention of the "another humourless Muslim" cartoon is to discourage critics of those whipping up hysteria amongst "protestors" in the Middle East, and to otherwise portray the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a peacemaker and defender of innocent women and children.
This is a role the Iranian leader himself affects in between murdering homosexuals and threatening Jews.
The aim of the "another humourless Muslim" cartoon is not to help the child - but to "disarm" critics of Islamists and anti-Western governments.
Apologies to The Age
Hamish, http://www.farisqc.observationdeck.org/?p=380
The artist is Leunig and I have just discovered that it was refused publication in the Age, however was shown on Media watch so I guess I owe the Age an apology although not their cartoonist.
Although in the spirit of free speech I would not have had a problem with them publishing this particular cartoon.
Hamish: thanks Jay. I'm very glad I asked. Your correction is very important. I think your general point is still made though.Mark Sergeant...
Yes I have, the very fact we are discussing the issue (veteran affairs payments) proves that the journalists were free to publish and discuss the issue. The laws relating to public servants and criminal investigations are entirely different.
"And Jay, Andrew McRae gave you an out. No outs, show us The Age cartoons you think are anti-semitic (on a par with the Nazis)."
Now I personally think in this case the cartoonist is attempting to say there is no difference between Auschwitz 1942 and Israel today. As far as I am aware there are no plans of mass genocide for a particular group of people nor forced slavery for that same race operating in Israel?
If the cartoonist is saying that the roles of nazi Germany and Jews (notice the star of David in the right hand picture, the star of David is not merely a zionist symbol, it represents all jews) have been reversed than this person is saying a entire race of people behave in exactly the same fashion as hardcore wartime nazi's.
Clearly untrue and outright racist (anti-semitic).
Hamish: I made the cartoon quite a bit smaller, conscious of copyright concerns. Jay, thanks for providing your example, but can you please provide a link, or at the least a reference to the date of publication. Until you do it's still not a resource that others could use, and it's discourteous at best to the author and publication.
Leunig, anti-Semitic?
Jay – I can see why people might be offended by Leunig’s cartoon, but I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call it ant-Semitic. There is certainly self-righteous anger at Israel’s policies on Palestine in there, but that’s not the same thing as anti-Semitism.
Firstly, neither of us can speak for Mr Leunig (does anybody know if he has spoken about this cartoon?). Only he can offer a definitive explanation of the point he was trying to make. But we can infer certain things.
The first frame reminds us how horrible the holocaust was for Jews, hardly an anti-Semitic thing to do. An anti-Semite would be more likely to dismiss or downplay the enormity of the holocaust, wouldn’t he? A la David Irving or some of his admirers on Webdiary.
The focus of the first frame is ‘Work Brings Freedom’, the English translation of Arbeit Macht Frei, the truly Orwellian phrase that greeted new arrivals in Nazi concentration camps. The idea that slave labour would ‘free’ those subject to it is of course supremely ironic, although I don’t know if the Nazis picked up on it (they generally weren’t big on irony). I saw that sign at Dachau, by the way, and it sent a shiver down my spine.
The focus of the second frame is a sign saying ‘War Brings Peace’, with a background of bombs exploding etc. The Orwellian contradiction of the phrase is obvious, so that surely is the main link with the first frame. Leunig seems to be saying that Israel, of all countries, should be sensitive to that kind of Orwellian logic. That perhaps the endless tit for tat with Palestine will not, in fact, bring any kind of peace for Israel.
Now, I agree that using a reference to the holocaust to illustrate what Leunig sees as a self-destructive Israeli policy is provocative, to say the least. Even insensitive. But anti-Semitic? I don’t see it.
Leunig set up as anti-Semite
Ever more laws
Jay White, you haven't shown that the Melbourne journalists case is not about free speech. You have shown that free speech is circumscribed not only by defamation and security law, but also by the criminal law and laws regulating the Public Service and Contracts.
Perhaps properly. But then you have (or should have) defences of public interest (apparently different from the national interest), fair comment, even whistleblower legislation. Not free speech. It is, in fact, a case about free speech, but free speech is not legally relevant. Perhaps we should have a constitutional amendment.
And Jay, Andrew McRae gave you an out. No outs, show us The Age cartoons you think are anti-semitic (on a par with the Nazis).
Andrew McRae You have
Andrew McRae You have made a statement agreeing you are for freedom of speech. You have also made a statement agreeing violence is not the answer nor acceptable in this case. That is all I was ever trying to find out about in the case of your views.
"Don't tell me, Jay, you're going to say there are other laws that prevent people from doing that".
There actually is not any laws about a person writing a letter or openly talking about such things in the USA.
"David Curry's point remains absolutely intact and correct. And you, Jay, would act in that way, with empathy and respect, every day of your life, because I’m sure you don't go around saying publicly everything that passes in and out of your mind just because you are free to do so".
No actually I do not. I would personally consider it to be very bad manners going out of my way to offend people. This is not the point, I would not want it made illegal or censored for those that wish too. I just would not choose to keep their company nor read their words.
"Since you are always asking for others to “show you” things, how about examples from The Age of “anti-Semitic cartoons of the kind that were published in Nazi Germany”? I'm not asking for anti-Sharon or anti-Zionist cartoons, either".
They would have been the examples that I would have shown you. Again we have personal opinions and my opinion is that these cartoons had anti-Semitic undertones. You are free to disagree with that view and they are quiet within their rights to publish the cartoons.
As are any who wish to publish the cartoons after the great Iranian cartoon contest!
Raylians
Conficious says...
Jay White: "As a Guardian editorial pointed out, no Western newspaper would publish anti-Semitic cartoons of the kind that were published in Nazi Germany and which are still published in many Arab countries today".
Here's a tip. What's the bet now that anything satirising Islam will be denounced as "racist."
But any attempt at restraining satires on Christian themes will be be denounced as "censorship".
And attacks on Jews will be 'anti-Zionist', of course.
Also, while we are on the topic, what do people think of those statues of Buddah that seem to grace the entrances of every second Chinese takeaway restaurant in Sydney?
I mean, are these meant to mock Buddhists? I mean, most Chinese are not Buddhists are they?
Also, is it okay to take the piss out of New Agers?
Especially Raylians?
Cartoon controversy
There are now several blog sites asserting that the offensive cartoons were fabricated and distributed by the radical Danish Imam Abu Laban, after losing a court case alleging that the original 12 were blasphemous. The following are excerpts from those websites. Without confirming investigative journalism in Denmark, we cannot know the veracity of these claims.
Fabricated cartoons worsened Danish controversy
THE LIES OF THE DANISH IMAMS
The Counterterrorism Blog has also acquired and translated the lie-filled pamphlet spread by the Danish imams here.
Here are some of the fake cartoons.
These are of a very different character to the original 12, here.
Jim Hoft has much more on Abu Laban, including a video link to Fox News Channel reporter Jonathan Hunt's interview with the terror-sympathizing Laban and this partial transcript:
Hamish: thanks Greg, and welcome to Webdiary.
I'm not entirely surprised
There can be no doubt that it is in the political interests of a number of Islamist and Arab Nationalist causes to whip up the controversy.
This may also help explain how at least one of the cartoons I saw on an SBS Worldwatch news item from Spain last Saturday morning turned out not to be among the 12 being circulated elsewhere.
It is also noteworthy that the Iranian leadership are constantly trying to link the controversy with Israel.
David Curry...
Yes it does, if say you live in the USA
Nothing there about "empathy" and "respect" that falls under the notion of manners and there is not a Amendment about them that I am aware of.
"As a Guardian editorial pointed out, no Western newspaper would publish anti-Semitic cartoons of the kind that were published in Nazi Germany and which are still published in many Arab countries today".
I take it he has never read the Melbourne Age? Although being that the Nazi era was 60 odd years ago things are just a little more up to date.
Hamish: where in the Age Jay?
What is your point, Jay???
Ah... because there's no reference to empathy and respect in one of the laws of theUSA
Or are there in fact so very many Americans, including newspaper proprietors and editors, who understand that empathy and respect are the corollary of “free speech”. Don't tell me, Jay, you're going to say there are other laws that prevent people from doing that. This is one of those comments where it is quite unfathomable what on earth you are trying to say. David Curry's point remains absolutely intact and correct. And you, Jay, would act in that way, with empathy and respect, every day of your life, because I’m sure you don't go around saying publicly everything that passes in and out of your mind just because you are free to do so. Since you are always asking for others to “show you” things, how about examples from The Age of “anti-Semitic cartoons of the kind that were published in Nazi Germany”? I'm not asking for anti-Sharon or anti-Zionist cartoons, either.
Andrew McRae...
Andrew McRae: "No, you haven't. But you have stated outright support for laws that millions of Australians, including lawyers, newspaper editors, entertainers, bloggers, nobodies, even members of the Liberal party, have been able to discern as so draconian that criticism of the government, harmless discussion or plain old 'fair comment' COULD be interpreted as seditious. How many times does it need to be stated?"
Show me the part of the law that states criticism of the government is to be taken away. As I said before you cannot because it does not exist in any new law. As I have already stated time and time again I believe in lawful free speech and will stand up for the rights of those wishing to practice that lawful right.
"By the way, Gerard McManus and Michael Harvey, journalists for the Herald Sun, face possible prison sentences for refusing to name their source for a government leak of their plan not to deliver $500m in extra pensions to veterans and widows. Now, there's an interesting case (in the Melbourne County Court) that shows how freedom of speech or freedom of the press may come into conflict with the law if a government is not pleased with what is published".
By the way you might find with a little research this is not a law brought in by the now government, it also does not fall under the guise of free speech. The journalists have not committed a crime by printing the story, the public servent has committed the crime by leaking secret documents. As all public servents would be aware there are laws governing (to which they sign agreement on employment) as to what a public servent can and cannot openly speak about in the public domain with regards to his/her position.
The crime being committed by the journalists is in the fact of hampering a offical investigation into the leaking of the documents.
"What utter nonsense. I love the way you say I 'condemn people for going about their legal rights' (sic) as if everything that falls within the strict letter of the law is just fine and dandy. Which legal rights, Jay? The publishing in various countries of these unfunny cartoons has absolutely nothing to do with 'free speech', but you're too myopic to see that".
The legal right of being able to go about ones business if no crime is being committed! Are you saying it should be illegal? I mean on the one hand you cant be for the legal right to publish something than on the other hand be against standing up for the very same people when they do, see the inconsistency?
Free speech is not only about the things one agrees with. It is about defending the right of people to say the things you also do not agree with. Sure come on here and say what you like about the cartoons but condemn the actions of those wishing to impede through violence or otherwise the publication of said cartoons. So far you have not!
Jay White: 'Please show me the passage of the new laws that states one cannot make criticism of the government? You cannot because it does not exist.'
"Well, you sound like Phil Ruddock. What a reassurance! It is precisely the question of whether or not such a law now 'exists' that all the debate has been about. If you can be so blandly reassured by Phil and John, then you are a free speech supporter for nothing, but certainly a Liberal through and through".
Well if it does exist, show me? If I sound like Phil Ruddock not being concerned about a law that does not exist, who do you sound like not going into bat for people threatened with violence that are exercising their legal right? Maybe have a think about it?
Lunch break copy-pastes
All I have time for on this working day is a few copy and pastes from earlier comments I have made - not in response to you. I don't blame you for not looking for them, by the way. The fact is I defend free speech, but reserve the right to criticise the use to which it is put. What could be fairer? I think the distinction has completely escaped you. I also think the reaction to these cartoons has been predictably over the top and quite ridiculous. I think most religion is ridiculous, actually, but for balanced, sensible people it's probably harmless. It's a good thing I have the freedom of speech to say that, isn't it? Hope you haven't been offended.
Furthermore, the reaction to the reaction is also over the top, and predictable generalisations about Muslims have been made.
Below are the quotes you could find in this comment area if you searched for them. They show that I do not defend the extreme Muslims who are over-reacting, and I am in fact critical. Perhaps they will satisfy your need for confirmation of your detestation of the burning and pillaging.
1. 'The cartoons ARE mild even by comparison with the cartoons of Leunig, and not even funny. As you can see, though, there are about 1 billion Muslims who are not burning buildings and issuing fatwas etc. They have a right to be offended, but not to resort to criminal violence, something they are as capable of understanding as you.'
3. 'I don't argue the newspapers have no 'right' to publish the cartoons; surely I can defend that right yet criticise their actions.
In this case, yes, it looks like there are quite a few over-reactions amongst Muslims to a fairly pathetic cartoon several months old. And some here have drawn attention to the constant vilification of Jews and their so called 'conspiracies' in some Muslim publications. No doubt the majority of the world's Muslims are capable of shrugging off a cartoon about Mohammed or a tract about the world Jewish conspiracy.'
BTW, how many government leaks have cause official investigations to be set up? How many times have newspapers that are now claiming to be exercising 'free speech' also waxed lyrical about the 'public's right to know'? Are they one and the same thing? Interesting, if you say yes. The one circumscribed, clearly, by laws, according to you. But the other?
One final hypothetical question: what would YOU do if the government of Australia passed laws that YOU believed removed freedom of speech? Would you argue that only 'legal' behaviour is acceptable in opposing them?
Fellow travellers
Stephen Smith: "Blair, in now rushing to draw attention to his own blog, has forgotten that hypocrisy does not sit well with freedom of the press."
Did Tim Blair offers rewards to kill Michael Leunig or burn down his office?
"A man who dressed as a suicide bomber during a (London) protest about cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad has apologised for his behaviour. Omar Khayam, 22, from Bedford, "wholeheartedly" apologised to the families of the 7 July bombings."
- BBC Report
What was interesting about the protest attended by Omar Khayam (what a great name, by the way) was the careful preparation someone had put into it.
I saw bits of its on television last night. A small protest, maybe 20 people, attended by men carrying placards of almost identical size, written with a similar hand announcing various slogans.
Amongst these were 'To hell with freedom of expression' and 'Massacre those who insult Islam'.
Clearly Omar himself had been something of a reluctant participant, perhaps the beneficiary of some 'community leadership'.
Talking of which, ABC Radio Classic this morning reported that the Iranian Fuhrer, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has announced a national competition for the best cartoon mocking the Holocaust.
Without a hint of irony, this was followed by a staged protest outside the Austrian Embassy in Tehran which was pelted with stones.
Damian Lataan: "Freedom of speech is one thing – abuse of that freedom is something else."
Hi Damian. That was priceless.
You might be interested in this article;
" Freedom of Speech - Is It Being Abused?"
And this one;
"Freedom of Speech In The Home. Is It a Ticking Time Bomb?"
- they're from the Jehovah's Winesses newspaper 'Watch Tower'.
And this from the Taiwan president Chen Shui-bian on his official presidential news website;
"According to some people, the recent scandals that have been reported by the media are examples of abuse of freedom of speech and press."
- original Chinese language version here.
And this;
"General Prosecutor of Kazakhstan Yuri Khitrin came forward with a request to start a criminal case in relation to all Kazakhstan mass media, for the alleged abuse of freedom of speech."
Hamish: a general note. I'm not interested in blog-war stuff on Webdiary. Blair and other bloggers have attacked Webdiary for years, it's boring, I ignore it, and I'm not interested in biting back. If you want to talk about Blair, go to his site and do it there, or go somewhere else please. I haven't not-published anything yet, and this is a request, but if the blog-war dialogue continues I'll consider censoring it.
Censor please
Hey Hamish, just to say PLEASE censor such posts. And soon.
Hamish: your vote is noted Ross.Then here's my vote, Hamish.
Then here's my vote, Hamish, against such censorship. There was nothing offensive or inappropriate in CP's post, and certainly no violation of Webdiary guidelines. If Ross wants you to censor posts he doesn't like, I suggest you censor Ross's posts instead.
Hamish: re: CP's post, I agree! He hadn't contravened Webdiary's guidelines at all. But here's a new guideline and I ask people to respect it: no blog war stuff. It bores the sweet crap out of me. Various blogs snipe at Webdiary and we are utterly uninterested in firing back. There's plently of interesting things to discuss.
People have taken issue here with Blair publishing 'the cartoons', and accused him of some hypocricy re: some Leunig cartoons. There it is. Big deal. If there is to be a big debate about this it won't be here. Apologies to any who were getting all excited about it.
Hamish, forgive my ignorance
Hamish, forgive my ignorance, but I have no idea what the term "blog wars" means.
Hamish: ok, I'll be less coloquial. Please leave out sniping at other blogs. If you want to have a look at sites which regularly have a go at Webdiary, check out Blair's site, Damian Lataan's or Harry Heidelberg's. You might even want to participate. Have fun, but please don't tell me about it.
For some balanced thoughts
For some balanced thoughts about the reaction to the cartoons people might find this interesting, from today's Age:
Blair Watch Project
I see that Tim Blair has seen fit to publish the 12 cartoons. Curious, his championing of “freedom of the press”. If you go back to his blog entry for 10 January this year you will find a rant against cartoonist Michael Leunig. Blair does not seem to equate freedom of the press with Leunig’s cartoon of ailing Israeli PM Sharon. Blair cries foul saying “how revolting this Leunig cartoon is”. The 75 comments that follow call for the sacking of Leunig, or suggest his cartoon should not have been published by The Age. There is also much abuse and threats against him. Blair, in now rushing to draw attention to his own blog, has forgotten that hypocrisy does not sit well with freedom of the press.
Damian Lataan...
Damian Lataan: "This is garbage! Sedition is the suppression of some aspects of free speech that does not necessarily have to include inciting “violence” or “criminal activity”. The sedition laws are designed to suppress dissent against Howard’s fascist policies if and when he feels the need to activate them".
Which parts would you be referring too? Examples please?
Arrogance?
Juan Cole's Fact File on Reaction to Danish Caricatures explains why the initial action by the Danish newspaper was, indeed, either profoundly ignorant, or deliberately provocative:
It seems the Danes could have done better, to resolve the dispute. But maybe it's the beginning of Islam's Reformation.
Jay White...
Jay White reckons: “Sedition is not free speech but an attempt to incite violence and or criminal activity.”
This is garbage! Sedition is the suppression of some aspects of free speech that does not necessarily have to include inciting “violence” or “criminal activity”. The sedition laws are designed to suppress dissent against Howard’s fascist policies if and when he feels the need to activate them.
Tim Blair Demonstrates His Hatred Of Islam
The fascist and extreme right-wing Islamaphobic Tim Blair has indeed published the cartoons on his website using, of course, the somewhat feeble, overused and tiresomely abused excuse of ‘freedom of speech’.
Freedom of speech had nothing to do with his decision to publish the cartoons. His frothing-at-the-mouth hatred of Islam (not to mention his desire for plenty of publicity) had everything to do with it.
Freedom of speech is one thing – abuse of that freedom is something else. A total lack of respect for other people’s religion is something completely different again.
I guess "Life of Brian" was also an abuse of free speech then.
the Danish Empire
In my comments on the Danish Empire I restricted myself to Denmark which is the vector of the present controversy. I wished to show that Denmark is not the fairytale kingdom it makes itself to be.
Denmark was the home of the Vikings who were the first predators and slavers who plundered and despoiled all where there ships could reach.This tradition was imitated by the Christian West in the form of the crusaders who were not fussy with whom they fought - Byzantine, Muslim - it did not matter. When the loot was to be got on the Spanish Main the Danes were not shy in taking their cut. Fort Christianborg in what is now Ghana was from where the Danes and Norwegians got their slaves to cart off to the Danish West Indies.
This Viking tradition is being practised until this very day especially since Napoleon visited the Pyramids by various groups from west Eurasia and their North American brothers. In collaboration with other European power the Danes have not been backward. The background to Danish history is more than mermaids on rocks.
One Post Might Have Been Irony. But Three ...?
Have a close look at what is going on here.
A small peaceful democratic liberal tolerant European country has managed to stumble in to the sights of the Islamofascists through absolutely no fault of its own. A single editor decides to publish some innoculous and harmless cartoons in a single newspaper. Nothing to do with the Danish Government or the Danish people.
The country's embassies and consulates are set alight by rioters, its nationals are threatened with murder, its officials and citizens are forced to flee a dozen countries, its industries are boycotted, amateur cartoonists are forced into hiding and its cities are threatened with terrorist attack. And it still shows no sign of abating.
So what happens? Someone is able to find the time to troll the country's history to dig up some dirt. Vikings for chrissake. Looting the Spanish Main.
Such is the state of the modern "Left". The surest way to find yourself and your country suddenly subject to the demonisation process is to get picked on by a mob of fascist bullies.
Hamish: I like you Geoff. I just wish you would drop the big 'Left' label when you make your (oh God I can't believe I'm coining this word) meta-criticisms. There's silliness everywhere, on all sides - it's the human condition, not an ideological residue.
Andrew McRae "Fiona's
Andrew McRae: "Fiona's point is that you support laws which in effect threaten discussion or public utterance that you would normally consider to BE 'free speech'. Or perhaps you wouldn't consider criticism of the present government to fall into that vague category, which explains everything".
Would you like to direct me to any person arrested for criticism of the present government? All I see is a strawman attack. Have I ever stated criticism of the government should be illegal?
"I think you need to find out what sedition is in order to determine if there's any inconsistency in your own views".
There is no inconsistency in my views. It should be against the law to support the overthrow of any Australian government through any non-democratic means. Example being through the use of inciting violence. Our constituation states that governments are to be elected by democratic means.
Please show me the passage of the new laws that states one cannot make critism of the government? You cannot because it does not exist.
You have only shown me why you believe free speech should be curtailed with your condemnation of people going about their legal rights publishing cartoons. Your position is much closer to a wide ranging crackdown on what people can or cannot say than mine has ever been.
Furthermore, Jay...
I nearly forgot! Jay White: 'You have only shown me why you believe free speech should be curtailed with your condemnation of people going about their legal rights publishing cartoons.'
What utter nonsense. I love the way you say I 'condemn people for going about their legal rights' (sic) as if everything that falls within the strict letter of the law is just fine and dandy. Which legal rights, Jay? The publishing in various countries of these unfunny cartoons has absolutely nothing to do with 'free speech', but you're too myopic to see that. The papers which have done so have deliberately provoked and inflamed, simply made an 'issue' of Muslims' reactions. Read some of the other posts in this area or Crikey.com.au (you know, that hard left web newsletter).
You continue to talk about 'free speech' as if it were an absolute. In fact, it is ill-defined and selectively invoked, and like any other 'right' must be circumscribed by obligation or responsibility. You don't seem to understand that, but you are fabulously insouciant about new Australian laws that WILL curtail 'freedom of speech' as it applies to entertainment, satire, fair comment and criticism of the government.
"unfunny" cartoons?
You don't get it
Jay White: 'Would you like to direct me to any person arrested for criticism of the present government? All I see is a strawman attack. Have I ever stated criticism of the government should be illegal?'
No, you haven't. But you have stated outright support for laws that millions of Australians, including lawyers, newspaper editors, entertainers, bloggers, nobodies, even members of the Liberal party, have been able to discern as so draconian that criticism of the government, harmless discussion or plain old 'fair comment' COULD be interpreted as seditious. How many times does it need to be stated?
By the way, Gerard McManus and Michael Harvey, journalists for the Herald Sun, face possible prison sentences for refusing to name their source for a government leak of their plan not to deliver $500m in extra pensions to veterans and widows. Now, there's an interesting case (in the Melbourne County Court) that shows how freedom of speech or freedom of the press may come into conflict with the law if a government is not pleased with what is published.
Jay White: 'It should be against the law to support the overthrow of any Australian government through any non-democratic means. Example being through the use of inciting violence. Our constitution states that governments are to be elected by democratic means.'
Of course it should be against the law to overthrow a government in that way, but it is arguable to say the least whether merely talking about it, even in the context of satire, should be. Once again, I have to say to you, you have simply not a clue about the 'debate' that has been raging. Further, you don't have to 'incite violence' in order to be arrested for sedition. The new laws refer to making comments and discussing things, not merely taking actions or inciting.
Jay White: 'Please show me the passage of the new laws that states one cannot make criticism of the government? You cannot because it does not exist.'
Well, you sound like Phil Ruddock. What a reassurance! It is precisely the question of whether or not such a law now 'exists' that all the debate has been about. If you can be so blandly reassured by Phil and John, then you are a free speech supporter for nothing, but certainly a Liberal through and through.
Pay my legal bills, Jay?
I'm glad you have such strong confidence in the new security powers Jay. Oh yeah and in the competence and good will of those agencies endowed with them.
On the other hand I'm feeling a bit vulnerable in my practice of nonviolence.
While the new security laws provide a "good faith" defence for any speech or publication about government that is otherwise within the meaning of seditious intent, sadly the onus is on the accused to establish "good faith".
Once an illegal act has taken place, and it may be no more than publishing information about detained people, or disobeying a direction from a police officer - that defence ceases to exist and strong criticism of a government, or a call for civil disobedience, becomes vulnerable to a sedition charge.
At present I advocate nonviolence, including civil diobedience as means of exerting influence. Is that sedition?
At some stage I'm going to teach workshops on how to break into and disrupt the Pine Gap terrorist base. Is that sedition?
At some point I'm going to move further towards a ploughshares disarmament action, and will advocate that others do the same. Is that sedition?
I know that you're a champion of free speech, and I ask you as a friend. Will you guarantee to pay my legal bills if I ever am charged with sedition? It would be a real good thing to do for any genuine democrat.
Cartoons
What the cartoon publishing has shown is how fragile peace is in our world.
If publishing a few cartoons can tip masses on to the streets to burn and destroy what then are the crowds capable of if something really offensive occurs? Like a Bible burning, etc?
Clearly the publishing has been taken advantage of by the rabid on both sides of this issue, but it is the majority who have to wear the outcome. Which is a slightly more irrational world stage.
When will people realise that religion is dangerous and should be kept private at home as other private actions should be? Now would be good, as I am sick of hearing others bewail the lack of interest etc in their religion and how they suffer for their religion. To be so sensitive about one's religion makes me doubt the level of so called belief.
What really worries me about this is that people are ready to explode at any offense, be it real or imagined. Crowds don't need much to get them going as we have seen, both at Cronulla and now overseas with the cartoon attacks.
What would it take to bring out the same reaction from Christians? Any ideas? Perhaps playing footy on a Sunday would do it? Whoops that's already happened, what next? Why are the supposed Muslims so sensitive about their religion? Or are all people the same on that issue?
Fiona Reynolds...
Fiona Reynolds: "Don't say that it can't happen here. Look very close to home: look at the ways that Singapore and Malaysia have used their respective Internal Security Acts. Look at South Africa not so very long ago".
I have never said that it is impossible for it never to happen here, anything is possible. I personally find it highly unlikely that if western democractic principles are adherd to it ever will.
If this was to change I would be in full support of your position against the laws.
Andrew McRae: "If you were merely discussing not 'a murder of another' - which is not actually an example of sedition, you know, unless it's the Queen perhaps, though it could certainly be a crime - but just the ideas of revolutionaries, say, who believed that murder is permissible or necessary in the achievement of political aims or just causes etc, and you sounded uncritical of their methods and/or supportive of their aims, perhaps that would seem seditious to someone nearby! Perhaps".
To support violence against any member of the public and or to incite in this process is illegal and always has been. This is not freedom of speech.
There are a whole host of subjects that cannot be supported by freedom of speech because they directly clash with crimes. The fact that showing religious material in a light that may offend others is not against the law in either Denmark nor for that matter Australia seems to have passed over more than one head.
Australia cannot be dictated to about how we as a majority frame our laws and live our lives. If somebody does like a legal message bad luck and best learn to deal with it using legal means.
Over Jay's head
Jay White: 'To support violence against any member of the public and or to incite in this process is illegal and always has been. This is not freedom of speech.'
Never said it was, and agree wholeheartedly - it should be illegal to incite violence against anyone, no matter his or her race, religion or nationality. But it is NOT the same as sedition! Do you not recall Howard's denunciation of those who he falsely claimed had thrown their children into the sea? Some would say that was a kind of 'incitement'.
Fiona's point is that you support laws which in effect threaten discussion or public utterance that you would normally consider to BE 'free speech'. Or perhaps you wouldn't consider criticism of the present government to fall into that vague category, which explains everything.
Jay again: 'The fact that showing religious material in a light that may offend others is not against the law in either Denmark nor for that matter Australia seems to have passed over more than one head.'
Never said it was against the law. Offending others is also NOT sedition. Something appears to have passed over your head.
Once more from JW: 'Australia cannot be dictated to about how we as a majority frame our laws and live our lives. If somebody does like a legal message bad luck and best learn to deal with it using legal means.'
This time, defiant but almost incomprehensible. Perhaps there's a word missing. I presume 'legal means' include non violent protest.
Look, it's being dictated to by the Liberal party about what kinds of harmless anti-government things we can say that is causing many to condemn the sedition laws; that is not inconsistent with thinking there may be some limits to 'free speech' (legal or otherwise), and 'free speech' does not have to be invoked to support that view. The 'freedom of speech' may be circumscribed by good manners, wisdom or taste as much as by the law.
I think you need to find out what sedition is in order to determine if there's any inconsistency in your own views.
Miss World in Nigeria
Remember this related story, screened on Four Corners last year:
Fiona Reynolds
Fiona Reynolds: "So what – apart from the aforementioned encomium – did you do in the great anti-terrorism / sedition laws debates, Jay?
I agreed with the laws.
Sedition is not free speech but an attempt to incite violence and or criminal activity. For example, it would not be considered free speech to discuss between ourselves a murder of another would it? It would be viewed as a crime and this has always been the case.
Further rejoinder
I should have added that for someone on what I imagine is the 'libertarian right' you place an inordinate trust in the 'state', Jay. I can't understand how a belief in absolute free speech can be reconciled with such meek obedience.
If you were merely discussing not 'a murder of another' - which is not actually an example of sedition, you know, unless it's the Queen perhaps, though it could certainly be a crime - but just the ideas of revolutionaries, say, who believed that murder is permissible or necessary in the achievement of political aims or just causes etc, and you sounded uncritical of their methods and/or supportive of their aims, perhaps that would seem seditious to someone nearby! Perhaps.
I feel so much better now
I am well-aware that you agreed with those laws, Jay. I must also remind you (as have so many others) that these laws are so broadly drafted that virtually any action or statement that could be regarded as inciting opposition to the government of the day (oh, sorry, you prefer the term "regime", don't you?) could be found to be seditious. So I'm (probably) safe at the moment to say "The PM is a silly old git and should retire," - but how much of a change in the outlook of whatever government of the day would it take before I'm baxtered – or worse?
Don't say that it can't happen here. Look very close to home: look at the ways that Singapore and Malaysia have used their respective Internal Security Acts. Look at South Africa not so very long ago.
And remember that in the good old US of A, the Declaration of Independence expressly upholds the right to rebel against tyrannous governments!
Fiona...
I disagree, Mike
I disagree, Mike. It's about 'freedom of speech' isn't it? Fiona is justified in asking if libertarians who support it are also supporting draconian sedition laws. It seems they are, strangely enough.
Where on earth have you been, JW?
Feeble reply, JW.
The whole point of most of the condemnation of the sedition laws is that they are so wide/vague that almost anything you uttered, Jay - not just your murder plots but your mildest criticisms of the 'state' if you ever have any - could be interpreted as 'sedition'! Newspapers would not even be able to report the mere opinions of terrorists! Where have you been?
You can read at several web sites of the last successful prosecution of someone under the existing sedition laws, a Native Affairs official who suggested in 1960 to the people of Papua New Guinea that they demand independence from Australia. He lost an appeal and committed suicide. Just type 'native affairs brian cooper' into google.