Freedom of Speech.
Saturday night here, so I'll be brief: I strongly believe that freedom to express ourselves is essential for true progress of any civilization/community. I have no issues with people either feeling offended, or protesting, but asking for a public apology from the governments in question, or for the editors' arrests, and grossly enough beheadings, is surely, approaching insanity.
Incidentally, I suppose I should include this disclaimer given recent events in the country of my residence, but do not click the above link if you're easily offended. I have the utmost respect for all of world's cultures, but I have an even greater respect for the idea of free expression.
Update: Mohammed through the ages (via Metafilter), but disappointingly enough, the website mixes traditional art with post-Jyllands-Posten dirt. Interesting to see Mughal-isque representations in there though.
Further Update: Big Brother Singapore has finally gotten on the act; this page has been blocked by MDA. Apparently highly offensive.
Some sanity from a Muslim observer.
posted by The Cydonian @ 7:30 pm
13 Comments:
At 3:33 pm,
Mark said…
Now this is something I have to comment on.
The Danish editor has apologized if the cartoons caused offence to muslims. (Which really does not mean anything)
But he is totally unapologetic for printing the cartoons. Which means that he is insensitive to his readers (especially muslim readers). A newspaper is entitled to print the truth(facts), i.e news. The news can be sports, entertainment, science, education, technology, fashion etc... And finally opinion and editorial. Now the offensive cartoons fall into none of the previous categories; and can only fall into the last 2 catagories of opinion or editorial. The fact that editorials and opinions are also based on facts and news is the reason that make them worthy to be printed in a newspaper(the editor is careful to NOT print opinions that are not based on facts and figures). Which eliminates the cartoons being able to be published under those 2 categories as well.
Therefore, we are forced to question where in the place of a newspaper do these cartoons really belong. Do they belong in the Headlines? (which was where Jylland Posten placed them). One could argue that the cartoons could be placed amongst the political news, which is where an occasional satirical cartoon is placed. But for such offensive cartoons pertaining to religion, to be placed at the political page would be wrong. Hence they should be placed at the Religions page. Let me just flip to the religions page in the paper in front of me, just to see if there are any cartoons derogating religions in the section. Oh wait, I forgot, there's no such section in a newspaper. Scanning several newspapers today, I seem to note significantly that there are no sections pertaining strictly to religion. If newspapers consider it taboo to write articles with respect to religion, why would the editor of Jylland Posten go further even ridicule a religion as he has done.
I need hardly go on that there is sufficient proof that the cartoons were printed by the editor TO CAUSE the specific reaction that is occurring now. Otherwise why would he print it? Needless to say that protests are not the way to react to such a situation.
Freedom of speech is important. It is also necessary. But to extend this freedom to the press is not right. If the newspaper was a place to express opinions (in this case the cartoons are the opinion of 1 person towards Islam) no one would buy it. (Which is why there exist publications called magazines, books, etc... ) To say that only muslims would have reacted thus would be a poor joke. Any other religion insulted similarly would have brought about similar reactions by the respective followers. Established newspapers hire editors to ensure that the material in the newspaper are factual and are not opinionated. The editor has no doubt forgotten the fundamental of his job. To say that expressing opinion is a part of news is wrong. The two should not be confused. By all means if the Jylland Posten continues to employ an editor who is opinionated, they can scratch their heads as they wonder why sales on their papers are dropping, while the general public switch to the alternative impartial papers. Pretty soon Jylland Posten will diminish to the scale of a magazine targeting the few conservatists who would subscribe to them, where they can publish all the caricatures of any religious figure they want. NO ONE will complain! Trust me! This has happened to many a newspaper that has died due to being opinionated in their content. (I'm sure that there are hundreds of magazines derogating Islam today. The 0.0001% of the population who want to see those, buy those magazines, the other 99.9999% of the population who want to read impartial news buy the newspaper)
Therefore, as far as freedom of expression is concerned, this is not an example of it; and the paper should not use it as an excuse to print lampooning content relating any religion. Which is sad that the other newspapers were also dragged into printing the very opinionated content buying the farce of freedom of expression.
Therefore, it is incumbent on the Newspaper or the editor to apologize for printing the offending material if they wish to remain an impartial paper. Therefore, again, as far as freedom of expression is concerned, a person can express his opinions as far and as wide as he wishes in blogs, in books, in magazines, in leaflets; but should it be in a newspaper? This is the question that an editor or rather the newspaper owners must ask themselves....if they wish for the paper to survive.
Just my opinion...What do you think? Am I right or wrong?
At 3:13 pm,
The Cydonian said…
Naah, that's your opinion; I can only agree or disagree, not say whether you're right or wrong. :-D
See, don't get me wrong; I fully understand that the cartoons might be considered offensive, and fully support the right to protest against caricaturizing things we hold sacred. My point is, that somewhere down the line, the response in the Middle East's streets have gone from the commendable, to erratic, to finally inexcusable. There is no way I can ever support violent mobs anywhere; been consistent on this position for *all* mobs, even those in India.
Essentially, my main grouse is that somewhere down the line, folks (and more importantly, governments) have lost a sense of perspective on this issue.
In fact, I see it less of a clash of civilizations thing and more of a hijacking of civil society in Islamic communities; as William Darymple points out in this wonderful book I'm reading, "From the Holy Mountain", for most of Europe's history, it was the Muslim-controlled lands that were more tolerant of multiple religions. Until the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Istanbul, for instance, had thriving Greek, Christian, Jewish and Armenian communities within its city-limits, an amount of diversity that's simply not seen in most of Europe's capitals until the post-WW2 era.
Fact is, free expression is not just *convenient*, but also *necessary* for any community to thrive; the ancient Ottomans knew it, hence you have (ancient) Istanbul, the modern Wahabbists ignore it, hence you have the *Chilean* (which is as far from Denmark as Korea is) embassy burning in Damascus.
Good of you to drop by anyway, keep those comments coming!
At 5:00 pm,
Mark said…
You misunderstand my point. I am not justifying the recent reaction of the muslim world to the cartoons. The right way to react to the situation would be to hold discussions with the people responsible in order to enlighten them that it was wrong. If they continue to print similar content, muslims should continue with discussions. Thats about all the muslim world should do. Protests(even peaceful ones) on the streets are just snapshots in time, forgotten the next day. The need is to bring an understanding to the people responsible so that future similar content are not printed.
My point is; is a "newspaper" entitled to print opinionated articles not based on fact? What distinguishes a newspaper from all other publications? The fact that all content on it is based on fact, and that it is not opinionated and that it is distributed to the masses. Therefore, the newspaper then has a responsibility to satisfy the above criteria when releasing its issues.
Please note that the cartoons were not based on fact. Therefore, then the question arises if the newspaper then is in fact an actual newspaper? In my opinion, if the paper continues to print articles that are not based on fact, the matter should sort itself out because the paper would soon lose credibility. And other proper newspapers would take advantage and replace Jylland Posten as the major newspaper of Denmark.
But I'd like to get back to my point of freedom of expression. Ok, here, I'd like to make a distinction between freedom of the press and freedom of expression. While I fully support "freedom of the press" for newspapers, I DON'T support "freedom of expression" for newspapers. Freedom of the press is the freedom of the press to report ALL news unbiasedly, even as u say..."in the face of mobs". But can the same be said for "freedom of expression" to a newspaper?
If you think about it, it makes sense. Anarchy would result! (as it has). The support for freedom of expression for newspapers would result in a burst of anarchy every time a newspaper expresses its opinion (only opinions that are NOT based on fact). And in each of those times, other newspapers overtake the so called "Freedom of expression newspapers", and the status quo is maintained. Nothing has changed. Except for the fact that some lives were lost in the anarchy, and another newspaper takes over the No 1 slot in the respective country. Considering that the Jylland Posten knows this, it seems that a burst of anarchy in the muslim world is just what it was after. This becoming more evident in their adamance in not apologizing.
I hope you see my point now. And the reason for Jylland Posten to apologize for printing the material. It therefore becomes incumbent on the government of the country to pressure the Jylland Posten to apologize. Otherwise, it would seem, as it does, that the government is in support of the chaos caused by Jylland Posten. Which is why the governments of some muslim countries are not allowing this matter to rest. Although, their direction for justice is instead resulting in more chaos and more people dying.
At 9:03 pm,
The Cydonian said…
Right.
We'd have to disagree then, coz I fundamentally see no difference between freedom of expression and freedom of the press. The press exists not necessarily as a gazetter of public information, but also as a place where issues are raised; which is why you have Cartoons and drawings are a very normal way of commenting on issues, and have been so for the last so many centuries. And I'm not sure why you think the press exists to print only accurate fact; newspapers and magazines have traditionally printed fiction as well, as a way of discussing certain topics du jour.
And certainly, in this net-connected world, I read newspapers not necessarily for news, but for informed opinion. Let me take a cricketing example to illustrate my point. Given two sources for a cricket match, which source would you read, a dry ball-by-ball account, or a witty and personal take on the match? I know what I would prefer; it isn't the first option.
Indeed, papers exist to sell, and at best, raise issues. Fact is (oh the pun), there can never be a complete objectivity in reporting; bias is built into the system simply because it is so human. The way to negotiate it is to EXPECT it; you turn to, say, FoxNews.com fully expecting to see a right-wing spin on news, and not necessarily for "accurate" news. Jyllands-Posten certainly was right-of-center in its bias; Danish readers know it, there's a popular joke on them punning "Jyllands" and the Danish word for "fascist", most moderate readers choose it for understanding how the right-wing thinks, not necessarily because they think the paper publishes *fact*.
Which brings us to the main issue I have with your viewpoint here: Why do you think there won't be anarchy (as you said) even if papers print fact alone? Or more importantly, how do you, or more critically an enraged mob on the streets, distinguish between fact and fiction? There have been violent mobs (not Islamic), even when a respected historian published a highly rated academic compilation of commentary on a prominent historical figure. Regulating what we say just to avoid anarchy as you put it is a slippery slope I'd rather not tread on, mostly because there is no way you can objectively say "right" or "wrong" with opinion.
Jyllands-Posten had apologized even by the time I wrote this piece.
At 10:27 pm,
The Cydonian said…
Here's another commentary I side with.
At 5:15 am,
Mark said…
Ok.
I see your point. But there are several issues we need to address here. The first being the line between freedom of press and freedom of expression. Freedom of the press is for the press to have the freedom to write about the truth(news, fact etc...) without being harrassed, blackmailed etc... Freedom of expression is for a person to express his views without it being against the law. Whether he gets into trouble for it or not is a different matter.
The second issue is your example on the cricket commentary. Both examples given are perfectly in line with the freedom of the press. I will not dwell on the first example. But taking the second example, you will notice that all opinions are based on fact. Things that happened. Therefore, it is perfectly in line with the freedom of the press. Whereas, saying for example that pakistan won, would be fiction and not correct. Therefore, the material will be contestable by the indian team(the offended party) if they wish.
The third issue I'd like to highlight is the difference between opinion and bias. All newspapers are biased in some way or the other. It is not a matter of making stuff up. It is a matter of giving emphasis on certain material and in extreme cases ignoring other material. That is bias. A newspaper can be accused of bias, but even biased news have elements of fact in it. And biased news can also be opinionated. Whether right or wrong, doesn't matter as the opinions were based on fact as in the cricket example you have provided.
But to make something up completely, and then publish it as fact, which the offending party knows to be not true, demands an apology. But as you said, who is to say that the material is fact or fiction? That is a good point. But considering that 1 billion people know it to be fiction, and the remaining 5 billion are unable to provide proof that it is fact, forces us to conclude that it is indeed fiction, which should not have been published.
Again, the apology is that they are sorry if the drawings offended muslims. Which is what I said earlier. But they are not sorry for printing them. Which means that they would print similar drawings again, and apologize for offending muslims again. Which does not solve the issue at all. The point is to ensure that similar printings of non-fact based material does not occur again, which is what the muslim world is after.
At 10:36 pm,
The Cydonian said…
Freedom of the speech is the freedom to express ourselves in a public space. There are many ways to express ourselves in a public space; press certainly is one of the major ones. The press exists not as a purveyor of facts, but as a place to publish, whether fact or not. That's how the press works in liberal democracies; you validate and discuss articles only after they are published, not before.
Indeed, I must assert that you haven't quite thought through this point of newspapers not being allowed to publish anything other than fact (or what you call as 'fact-based-opinion'); if that was the case, then we clearly can't have Dilbert or Wizard of Id. Naturally, it is very easy to argue that non-fact-based, if you will, cultural objects such as Dilbert or the Daily Show are a very traditional and real part of our public discourse; Bugs Bunny cartoons, for instance, were part of the recruitment drive during WW2.
Now, the so-called Muslim world is a collection of many viewpoints and individuals, so it's difficult to say if there's a coherent demand across Muslim communities worldwide. (Naturally, I'm not really in favour of this Muslim world concept; my hometown is mostly Muslim, been through Middle East and have always felt that sensibilities were quite different in, say, Dubai and most of the sub-continent. But that's a different discussion altogether) There is a consistent, and possibly understandable, anger, but I don't know if there's a consistent demand to the protests, given that none of them are actually co-ordinated by a central organization, for instance. So I'm not sure if uniformity in worldwide protests, and even if there was, I doubt anyone is protesting for greater accuracy in a right-wing rag from the Middle of Nowhere anyway. Greater appreciation of Muslim sensibilities yes, greater accuracy, perhaps not. If they were, the protests would have started in October itself, when a certain Egyptian newspaper re-published the set on its front page. Clearly, it isn't as if the the Muslim community in Egypt didn't care; obviously they do, but there weren't really bothered about the paper's inclination, they know the paper is with them.
Which brings us to my final point. The most well-articulated Muslim response so far, has been that there's a certain Islamophobia pervading in western Europe, and that this cartoon episode is merely a reflection of this spreading xenophobia. Now, this is a point that can exist seperate from free speech, in that it discusses what led to the cartoons, instead of saying whether the cartoons should be allowed in the first place. Allow me to muse on it a little, if only to expand the discussion into a more relevant juxtaposition.
Now, personally, I was a trite unwilling to accuse western Europe of not being multicultural; when I was travelling through the region three summers back just as the Iraq war was starting, the overall impression I got was of solidarity with moderates, and a certain openness to peoples of other cultures of a degree more than what it is here in South East Asia. For instance, this elderly German lady in a certain Swiss town patiently sat with me on a tired afternoon, looking up her French atlas, just to see where I was from. And then, there was this Turk acquaintance of mine who got a 10 minute hearing from the Australian ambassador in the middle of a workshop on the Iraq war; the impression I got was that people there felt that viewpoints such as hers needed to be heard, if only to be inclusive in their outlook. This was distinct from the way Americans, for instance, generally seem to steam-roll over others, or how South East Asia compartamentalizes culture so ruthlessly.
However uplifting my personal experiences might have been, I'm still open to suggestions that there is a possible Islamophobia now; it's quite possible that after the Madrid bombings in Spain, the Van Gogh murder in Amsterdam, and the riots in France, things might have changed from what they were in 2003. I'm no European, and have no special insight into the situation there, but cartoons-as-Islamophobia is a point I'm willing to consider, and indeed, the ways in which Islamophobia needs to be effectively countered. Mutual cultural dis-affection is definitely unwelcome in a globalized society as ours; clearly, there are economic and social ramifications for everyone involved.
What I'm not willing to consider, however, is the notion that free speech is not absolute, and that there could be some allowed expression and some disallowed ones. This is a slippery slope I'm not willing to step on. It is possible for greater sensitivity towards things that we consider sacred, and yes, free speech, like another right, comes with personal consequences for its use, but to suggest that, in a general sense, we should legally restrict expression just because someone may or may not feel offended is, I'm afraid, not how liberal democracies ought to work.
At 10:52 pm,
The Cydonian said…
... free speech like any other right.. etc Typos, typos, typos!
At 6:34 am,
Metlin said…
European publications make fun of everything. They make fun of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and just about everything else. Freedom of speech comes at a price, and that price is pissing off some segment of population or the other.
In fact, the Islamist reactions to the cartoon summed up pretty much what it's all about much more than the cartoon ever could.
Burning embassies and ordering the deaths of people for a *cartoon*? Please. Do you even know how ridiculous that sounds? This is the 21st century, not the 8th century BC.
Freedom of speech is important. It is also necessary. But to extend this freedom to the press is not right.
What are you talking about?! Do you even know what Freedom of Speech is? The press has in fact been the root cause behind several freedom movements. The press is pivotal to free speech.
An individual can be overturned. A single man can say something and you would torch that poor man. If I published a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his head, I'd get stoned by idiots who think that they're in stone age. However, a magazine or a newspaper can in fact do so without worrying about reprisal (to an extent, of course - that extent being defined by the stupidity of the people), and spread the message to a larger audience.
And satire is one of the best ways of spreading this message, because humor strikes a chord in a way that a lot of other things don't. Oh, millions of pages of comments on Islamic sentiments wouldn't have done the thing that this simple cartoon highlighted - that while Islam may originally have been a religion of peace, today it's a violent and backward religion that is in dire need of change, or elimination.
And incidentally, Britain's new religious hatred law makes special exemptions for comedy and satire, so any hypersensitive souls here shouldn't assume that Europeans will kick their right to satire goodbye because of some killjoys.
/rant
At 6:43 am,
Metlin said…
The Danish editor has apologized if the cartoons caused offence to muslims. (Which really does not mean anything)
Which is the right thing to do. Sorry if you don't get my sense of humor. The rest of us do. And oh, the world does not revolve around Muhammed. News at 11.
*shakes head*
At 10:46 pm,
The Cydonian said…
today it's a violent and backward religion that is in dire need of change, or elimination.
Elimination?! Wouldn't go near that man, really wouldn't.
At 6:38 am,
Metlin said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 6:39 am,
Metlin said…
Religions evolve and survive, or fight and lose. You choose.
Christianity is a classic example - they adapt, accept and change, a perfect example of embrace and extend - and they've survived.
Unless Islam is willing to do so, it's likely to die out. You see, you piss off enough people and they are gonna want to get rid of you. You cannot have barbaric, stone-age, in-human laws designed for 10 century BC in this day and age.
And religion is a sensitive topic to a lot of people, and the "religion of peace" hasn't been doing anything that's been even vaguely peaceful lately. Maybe it's time someone put it to "peace" once and for all.
Post a Comment
<< Home