At 11:41 08/02/2006, Badri Natarajan wrote:
Eg: Germany,etc have laws against holocaust denial. In India, the
for me, the cartoon row has mainly highlighted the hypocrisy of european
countries. (the position of the muslim countries, where state-owned media
routinely publish highly offensive images - rabbis as cannibals, say - is
moot; unlike them, europeans _claim_ to have freedom of speech).
some interesting responses:
- french hypocrisy on religion and secularism (children can't wear veils in
state-funded schools but schools themselves can buy christmas trees) was
highlighted once again when newspapers freely printed the overtly
anti-muslim cartoons, but an advertisement loosely based on the Last Supper
was banned last march by a court as "a gratuitous and aggressive act of
intrusion on people's innermost beliefs" [1]. italy banned this too; and
italian newspapers have printed the much more overtly offensive cartoons
- the US administration tries to earn brownie points: "Anti-Muslim images
are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any
other religious belief," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told
reporters." [2]
- most piquant: the arab european league (AEL), a rather odd organisation
based in the netherlands, has started a free speech campaign [3] to "test
the reaction of the West" - "Europe has its sacred cows, even if they're
not religious sacred cows" according to the AEL founder. while it started
with some of the usual anti-semitic stuff (anne frank in bed with hitler)
which has predictably led to a legal challenge [4], it has moved on to
other possibly offensive subjects such as female circumcision [5]. the
woman in the last cartoon is presumably supposed to represent a famous
dutch "ex-muslim" politician of somali origin, currently facing death
threats in connection to the film on women and islam she co-authored (the
producer was stabbed in the chest).
as the AEL notes, "if it is the time to break Taboos and cross all the red
lines, we certainly do not want to stay behind", and their cartoons could
certainly be interpreted as more humorous or satirical than some of the
danish ones.
a commentator noted that the issue is not so much of free speech (the
cartoons - danish or AEL - should certainly not be banned) but civility.
given the immigrant debate and demographics in denmark, publishing the
cartoons was like publishing cartoons in the 60s or 70s of martin luther
king as a primitive african (such cartoons were quite popular in the early
20th century).
the appropriate response would have been widespread criticism on grounds of
civility, no legal action to prevent such cartoons, and possible consumer
boycotts of all things danish.
unfortunately the extremist response of burning buildings reinforces
xenophobic stereotypes. though it such rioting is not an especially
_muslim_ response; it is a typical third-world form of "expression" to
which hindus, christians and even buddhists are not immune. nothing to do
with religion (egyptians have rioted and stoned officials in response to
the ferry disaster [6]) but a result of poverty, frustration and perhaps
most important, a lack of other outlets for expression in mostly repressed
societies.
best,
-rishab
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4337031.stm
2.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-02-03T202815Z_01_N03197247_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-CARTOONS-USA.xml&rpc=22
3. http://www.arabeuropean.org/article.php?ID=102
4. http://www.ejpress.org/article/news/5663
5. http://www.arabeuropean.org/newsdetail.php?ID=94
6.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060205/egyptferry_errors_060206/20060206?hub=CTVNewsAt11
