fcheblog: Frank Ch. Eigler's insignificant weblog² »

Trackback link:

Well said. I was making this exact point to my students in class this morning. We have a social responsibility not to incite riots and perpetuate cultural sterotypes, which encourage and reinforce racist and xenophobic idealogies. One can argue that the aim of these depictions was to simply entertain a non-Muslim audience; culturally insensitive and void of any true meaning.
Will (Email) - 2006-02-13 18:34

Thing is, we are not inciting riots – the rioters and their organizers are.
Other thing is, some of those cultural stereotypes are, like many stereotypes, at core accurate.
Last thing is, some of those cartoons actually are clever and proper criticisms of the culture (like the one with the covered ladies).

Still, reprinting them does not appear to further the argument.
Frank - 2006-02-13 18:38

One more last thing about cultural insensitivity. There is only so much sensitivity one should be willing to show when the recepient is unwilling to reciprocate. I don’t know what fraction of the islamic world that is, but it is a reasonable question to ask.
Frank - 2006-02-13 18:45

Here are some sad/funny meta-cartoons:
http://www.cagle.com/news/Muhammad/main...
Frank - 2006-02-15 00:04

Yes, the question is reasonable. However, if [we] are to claim the moral high ground (as is often done), then [we] cannot, or at least refrain from engaging in activities which are known to be offensive to others. And furthermore, there cannot be any great deal of surprise if a negative reaction results from said activities. I speak of the example in particular of the cartoon image of the Islamic Prophet Muhammed with a bomb on his head. To Muslims, drawing him at all is deemed disrespectful. If I may paraphrase a strong point from the very first commentary on the matter: “Having to right to free speech does not mean we always have to use it.” Of course, important to bare in mind is the notion that while the violence occurring in recent days is organized and participated by only a relative few, the effects of these negative depictions have been felt by many. The “right” to free speech is only valid to the extent that it does not infringe on other people. And while it is easier to be apathetic to individuals protesting on the other side of the world, those Muslims devoted to the true meaning of Islam, and representing a significant portion of the population in North America and Europe (Denmark), may perhaps argue the point of insensitivity.

With respect to the cleverness of some of the cartoons, one can certainly agree.
[Will] - 2006-02-16 16:38

> However, if [we] are to claim the moral high ground (as is often done), then [we] cannot, or at least refrain from engaging in activities which are known to be offensive to others.

Maybe… But some folks will be offended no matter what we do. Regarding the pictures, I don’t know if there is much “moral high ground” anyway. Many of the people who republish them agree that they are offensive, rude, stereotypical, nasty.

> And furthermore, there cannot be any great deal of surprise if a negative reaction results from said activities.

That’s true. It’s kind of funny how some publishers have used this not just for whatever free-speech assertion they felt was justified, but also to boost the visibility of their publications. This can backfire too, by evoking boycotts (like the Western Standard episode in the last few days). And yet, if the “negative reaction” consists of acts that would be criminal if done here (death threats, arson, outright murder of that Dutch filmmaker and that Turkish priest…), one might be forgiven for not expecting that much negativity.

> The “right” to free speech is only valid to the extent that it does not infringe on other people.

Speech that is merely offensive is widely understood in the western world not to be any “infringement”. It is constitutionally protected in these parts here.
Frank - 2006-02-16 18:46

I am enjoying these discussions, Frank. Addressing your last point:

Speech that is merely offensive is widely understood in the western world not to be any “infringement”. It is constitutionally protected in these parts here.

While free speech is constitutionally protected in Canada (Section 2b of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), as well as other countries in the West, recall that they aren’t protected fully. Section 1 of the Charter gives the government the right to remove fundamental freedoms if it is deemed to be in the best interest of society. Hate legislation in Canada maintains legal authority because of this clause. White supremacists and anti-semitics alike cannot simply express whatever they wish publicly without consequence. Dare the situation arise that the legal powers that be decree these cartoons (yes, editorial commentaries) tread beyond the realm of free speech, albeit unlikely, it can be argued that the government is within its legal right to do so.
[Will] - 2006-02-16 20:22

Yeah, I’m slightly familiar with section 1 of the charter, and its various uses. Among those with a more libertarian bent, or those who think the political correctness movement got away with too much in the 90s, you will find that the anti-“hate speech” laws are not that popular.

But at least, a section 1 defense for a charter override is supposed to require a high level of argument. I don’t know if the Oakes Test is still case law, but its prongs form a high bar.

And, in case the supreme court does go a bit amok, there is still the notwithstanding clause.

So, for the forseeable future, there is little likelihood that your right to offend me is going to be curtailed. :-)
Frank - 2006-02-16 20:31