The Shotgun Blog
« We're guessing MP Keith Martin, at least, will show up | Main | Media derisions aside, Iraq really is getting better »
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Danish cartoon controversy redux
This time, major Danish newspapers, like Politiken and Berlingske Tidende, are republishing cartoons of Muhammad in order to show their commitment to freedom of speech and as a response to the arrest of three people accused of plotting to murder Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist responsible for the image of Muhammad with a bomb for a turban.
For the story, check out Ori Rubin's first offering in his three-part series entitled "The HRC on Trial" published on our website two weeks ago.
The Jyllands-Posten, the paper that originally published the cartoons in 2005, reprinted the bomb-for-a-turban cartoon yesterday.
Excerpt from the story:
"We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper will always defend," said the Copenhagen-based Berlingske Tidende.
"Tabloid Ekstra Bladet reprinted all 12 drawings.
"At least three European newspapers - in Sweden, the Netherlands and Spain - also reprinted the cartoon as part of their coverage of the Danish arrests.
"Intelligence police arrested two Tunisians and a Danish citizen of Moroccan origin in western Denmark on Tuesday for allegedly plotting to kill Westergaard."
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 13, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5504dbdd98834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Danish cartoon controversy redux:
Comments
If I were to write to them and tell them that I loathe "The Family Circus" with every fibre of my being and I will blow up their presses and murder their editors if they dare to put "The Family Circus" on the front page, do you think they would respond by printing "The Family Circus" on the front page and say "We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper will always defend"? Somehow, I think not.
I agree 100% they have the RIGHT ro publish the cartoons, but I can't help but think that their decision to publish them is just childish stupidity.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-13 2:12:27 PM
Specious argument at best. They would probably report you to the authorities.
Posted by: Paul | 2008-02-13 2:15:48 PM
Specious argument at best. They would probably report you to the authorities.
Posted by: Paul | 2008-02-13 2:15:52 PM
Fact Check: I think you're wrong here. The issue is much more complicated than a lone nut thinking the Family Circus is offensive.
If the Family Circus offended, say, the Roman Catholics, and they threatened newspapers with destruction, and governments responded by issuing new laws and decrees, and publishers were taken to courts of either proper standing or of the kangaroo variety, then it would make sense to republish the cartoons as a stand for freedom of speech/expression, and for freedom of the press.
Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five," was banned in several places. If a magazine were to publish excerpts of the book, I would consider that a laudable and praiseworthy act.
Similarly with Voltaire's audacity to undress Kings and Christians in his satirical tracts. They wanted to shut him up, and publishing his work would be similarly praiseworthy.
I believe that this cartoon issue is like the Voltaire and Vonnegut cases, and very unlike the Family Circus case you put forward.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-02-13 2:23:25 PM
Jaws: "The issue is much more complicated than a lone nut thinking the Family Circus is offensive."
So do I, but (as I am sure you know) often the point of offering an analogy is to simplify and focus on the core issue. Now if you think I have missed the core issue, then....
"Kurt Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse Five,' was banned in several places. If a magazine were to publish excerpts of the book, I would consider that a laudable and praiseworthy act."
First, I love Vonnegut, so you picked a good example to engage my sympathy. Second, as I understand it, the book was banned because of one sentence "Get out of the road, you dumb motherfucker." So actually a magazine could only really claim to be acting in solidarity if they reprinted that sentence.
Third, the "offending" nature of the Vonnegut book raises an interesting question. Remember Christopher Holder? ( http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0205081rap1.html ). Do I need to go around saying the word "motherfucker" to people on the street to stand in solidarity with his right to free speech? Does a newspaper have to print to word to stand with him? How about David Ahenakew or BC White Pride? Do I have to give a platform to their speech in order to stand with them in claiming their right to free speech?
In the end I think the answer must be "no". I can stand with them in full solidarity of their rights without repeating the speech itself. Repeating it is not merely to support their right to say it, but to endorse the content of the speech itself. I think that is what Ezra did in publishing the cartoons and I think that is what the danish papers are doing now. I also think it is a decision that demonstrates childish stupidity.
And so it goes.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-13 2:41:43 PM
FC,
If the content of the speech becomes news - worldwide news, like in the case of the 'toons - and you are press, then yes, you may decide to give a platform to the speech itself.
RG
Posted by: RightGirl | 2008-02-13 2:50:10 PM
I hate the Family Circus. It is demeaning to those of us who are not a perfect family, have no children and are always happy and gay.
I demand redress.
The MO "cartoons" were never meant to be entertainment. They, like cartoons of old, were meant to make a political statement.
Fact Check, your argument is specious.
Posted by: ralph | 2008-02-13 3:35:35 PM
It's a show of solidarity, a diversion to keep the radical's sights off one target, and an attempt to desensitize the oversensitive radicals.
A very wise maneuver.
Posted by: dp | 2008-02-13 3:53:27 PM
I have a lot of experience with Muslims (Bosnian war) and you should view them as you would any other culture - All different. The cartoon is trying to force a few radicals to grow up, which won't happen. Also, it's important to exercise any issue of freedom we enjoy, especially if some group will pushback against it. Use it or lose it!! The issue is too important to view as being a mere childish or uneeded publication. The cartoon has become a respected icon of freedom.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-13 4:21:56 PM
I'm with DP--the radicals need to be taught moderation. If that involves provoking them until they become immune to it, then fine. I'm a devout Catholic, but I would support the printing of anti-Christian cartoons under similar circumstances, because I would rather have my religion's reputation trashed by sketch artists than by terrorists.
One thing lost on people is that this debate is not like most of the ones we face in Canada. Islamic terror is endemic in Europe. Several people have been murdered or have had fatwas placed on them for publishing material some radical found offensive. Europe has a sizeable Muslim population that has acquired a reputation for intense disruption. They need to learn that the freedoms they enjoy also apply to their neighbours.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-02-13 5:02:16 PM
It is good to see that they do understand what is a stake and that they at least have the courage to walk the talk. Where are the newspapers and magazines in North America showing the same courage of conviction?
Posted by: Alain | 2008-02-13 5:11:38 PM
Alain wrote: "Where are the newspapers and magazines in North America showing the same courage of conviction?"
At the human rights tribunals, mostly.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-02-13 11:10:41 PM
Drink Carlsberg!
Posted by: Darrell | 2008-02-14 10:17:55 AM
Jaworski,
Why are you and the other neocons on this site giddily promoting the ridiculous Danish cartoons and their irrelevant re-printing? Slow news day?
If I wanted to read incessant obsessive coverage of this neocon provocation dressed up as a fight for free speech, I would go to ezralevant.com .
Posted by: Fip Bevis | 2008-02-14 8:07:07 PM
Fip Bevis
Why do you come to this site if you don't like what you read? Is it to post your 'deep' thoughts on the topic at hand or is it so you can call people 'neocons',feel superior and then lick yourself?
Lookup the definition of neocon looser. It applies to you crypto-commie types not righties.
Posted by: missing link | 2008-02-14 9:09:30 PM
Fip: The Western Standard published the cartoons, and it made international news.
We'll continue covering the cartoon issue, since it is relevant to our history as a magazine, and because it is an issue libertarians, like myself (I am not a neo-con, incidentally), should take seriously.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-02-14 11:45:02 PM
When I read about the Danish Mohammed cartoon hoopla in the Muslim and/or Arab press there will always be complaints about not being able to get cartoons that ridicule or deny the Holocaust printed in the west. Strange, not once do I hear Muslims complain about not being able to ridicule or deny Bosnian ethnic cleasing, slavery, imperialism, colonialism, Rwanda, Dafur, etc. What's up with that? Muslims always complain they're unfairly accused of anti-semitism but they complain ALOT about not being able to openly ridicule dead Jews (although they can and do legally do so in many muslims countries), but never mind the media censorship of questioning or ridiculing atrocities when the victims are Muslims, Arabs, Pakistanians, Africans, Iranians, Afgans, etc.
Posted by: jane doe | 2008-03-03 11:45:19 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.