On the recent Islam nonsense & Free Speech (World Thinking Day Part 3)
This is a post more for clarity and for keeping in with the spirit of the day. The thoughts are Kate's, or rather, she said it in such a way that I understand it better than I had when I had read similiar views in Time and Newsweek. Possibly because I was able to discuss it with her and voice worries. Possibly because she's deadly.
Essentially:
The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten had the right to print those 12 pictures of Mohammed.
It was not, however, right to do so.
The Muslims had the right to protest, and they also were right to do so.
However, those Muslims who called for death on the cartoonists and, indeed, most of Europe, neither had the right, or were right, to do so.
The French and German magazines who reprinted the pictures were not right either - they were fighting fire with fire, and all that creates is more fire. It was stupid and self-righteous.
So who has the moral highground? The moderate Muslims. And certainly not the French and Germans - in Germany, mass-producing any image of Hitler, denying the holocaust, or creating an image of Hitler that casts him in a favourable light is a jailable offense. An Austrian outspoken idiot got three years for it recently. Freedom of speech? I think not.
However, there is hypocrisy on both sides - there is an episode of South Park where Mohammed is portrayed, and no-one raised a finger.
There is a large element of extremism in Muslim culture - it has to be weeded out if Muslims can integrate properly into Western society. However, who decides what's unacceptable? Muslim schoolgirls aren't allowed wear their headdresses in schools - an example of intolerance, or a blow against barbarian sexism? Who's the judge?
I have a suspicion that anti-muslimophobes present us with a too-sanitised version of Muslims. I've heard various reports of completely unacceptable ubiquitous behaviour in Muslim countries, and the last thing we need is more lies. Is anyone telling the truth? And how can we even know?!
Essentially:
The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten had the right to print those 12 pictures of Mohammed.
It was not, however, right to do so.
The Muslims had the right to protest, and they also were right to do so.
However, those Muslims who called for death on the cartoonists and, indeed, most of Europe, neither had the right, or were right, to do so.
The French and German magazines who reprinted the pictures were not right either - they were fighting fire with fire, and all that creates is more fire. It was stupid and self-righteous.
So who has the moral highground? The moderate Muslims. And certainly not the French and Germans - in Germany, mass-producing any image of Hitler, denying the holocaust, or creating an image of Hitler that casts him in a favourable light is a jailable offense. An Austrian outspoken idiot got three years for it recently. Freedom of speech? I think not.
However, there is hypocrisy on both sides - there is an episode of South Park where Mohammed is portrayed, and no-one raised a finger.
There is a large element of extremism in Muslim culture - it has to be weeded out if Muslims can integrate properly into Western society. However, who decides what's unacceptable? Muslim schoolgirls aren't allowed wear their headdresses in schools - an example of intolerance, or a blow against barbarian sexism? Who's the judge?
I have a suspicion that anti-muslimophobes present us with a too-sanitised version of Muslims. I've heard various reports of completely unacceptable ubiquitous behaviour in Muslim countries, and the last thing we need is more lies. Is anyone telling the truth? And how can we even know?!