Satire or Just Plain Offensive?
The Muslim world has reacted very strongly to cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad in the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten. One of these images showed Mohammad with a headdress shaped like a bomb. Another had him saying that there weren’t enough virgins in paradise for suicide bombers. In Islam tradition, one is not to depict the prophet Mohammad, as it promotes idolatry. The anger in the Muslim world has lead to demonstrations and boycotts. It is only now, after many months and such boycotts and diplomatic sanctions that the newspaper is apologizing.
I find the newspaper’s images disturbing for two reasons. The first is that it reinforces the stereotype that Muslims are terrorists and that Islam itself promotes terrorism. This is a misconception Muslims have been fighting for decades. Yes, it is true that there are terrorists who are also Muslims. However, it is not true that Islam is violent by nature or that Muslims of the world are terrorists. This is the more simple of the two reasons I find the images offensive.
The second reason is the justification given for the images. The paper said, “Our right to say, write, photograph and draw what we want to within the framework of the law exists and must endure - unconditionally!” In other words, “the law allows us freedom of speech.” I won’t disagree that they have the right to say what they want to say. I won’t disagree that censorship by a government of ideas or media is a bad thing. However, I do disagree that having the freedom of speech means you should use it to say whatever you want, no matter how much it could offend people.
More and more often, offensive material in our society is being justified by freedom of speech or as having some kind of meaning as satire on the current state of affairs. It is true, satire often offends people. It is meant to. It tries to challenge us to look at what we think and what is going on in the world around us, sometimes even effecting political and social change that benefits us all.
However, while a lot of satire is offensive, not everything that is offensive is inherently satire. A dead baby joke, for instance, is not trying to make some sweeping social commentary on abortion. It is simply there to offend. Some find such things personally offensive. Others laugh. Some even do both. No one has illusions about such jokes. No one telling these jokes tries to wrap them up in some grand political meaning. They are offensive, plain and simple.
Now, anyone who makes offensive content can claim to be making social commentary on free speech itself. “I am defending my freedom of speech” has become the rallying cry of rude people who have nothing really interesting to say, but instead are being offensive for the sake of being offensive. Personally, I think Eminem is a great example of this. Eminem is not being satirical when he raps about homosexuals, women, and just about everyone else in the way he does. He’s not some brilliant lyricist trying to overturn the status quo. He is a person who is being offensive because it will get him attention and sell millions of records. No attempt to effect social or political change here. Nevertheless, this is the argument we hear. We hear from his avid fans that he’ll say anything and how awesome that is and people who are offended just don’t get it.
That is the essence of the problem: defending one’s offensive speech with “well, they are just overreacting” or “I have a right to say what I want” is no defense, it is simply a shift of responsibility from the person who created the offensive art to the person offended by it. It is like trying to say a woman who claims she was raped is at fault because she didn’t enjoy it. To shift the blame makes it easier for the entire world to become more offensive, to respect one another less and less.
The shift of blame continues in the form of calling any attempt at tolerance “political correctness,” a phrase with a negative connotation of excessive sensitivity in order not to upset those who aren’t thick-skinned enough to take a little criticism. I agree, there are some things that push sensitivity too far. The whole “Happy Holidays” vs. “Merry Christmas” is a shining example. I never had an objection to Merry Christmas. No matter what words are used to express the sentiment, the message is still the same: a wish that one is happy during this season and has warm and friendly experiences. The message is a positive one.
On the other hand, accusing those who get upset at the depiction of their prophet as a terrorist of being overly sensitive is trying to justify offensive statements. Depicting Mohammad with a bomb as a headdress does not express good feelings towards anyone. It does not attempt to question the status quo. It does not make some broad commentary on the situation Muslims face in an attempt to bring about change. It is offensive for the sake of being offensive. It serves to reinforce stereotypes that cause all followers of a religion to be watched carefully out of fear. It angers a group of people in the hope of getting attention. It is hate speech, nothing more.
I am certainly not calling for the Danish government to punish the newspaper or to limit freedom of speech. In the same way, I don’t think Eminem CDs should be pulled from the shelves of stores. However, what speaks about us as a society is not just the freedoms we have, but how we use them. Exercising one’s freedom is a wonderful testament to those who fought to win us those freedoms and the struggle many faced to change wrongs they saw in the world.
Nevertheless, one should always keep in mind that having the right to be offensive doesn’t mean you should be. I’ve seen people say in response to the reaction on the part of Muslims that they should just cool it because other groups are subject to such offensive imagery, too. How is that a justification? Although it is a cliché, it is still true, “an eye for an eye leaves us all blind.”
So where does this leave the situation? Danish products have been boycotted in much of the Muslim world, resulting in sales in that part of the world approaching zero. In fact, Arla Foods has been forced to lay off 125 workers as a result. I have to say, good for the people who are participating in the boycott! I’m not sure I buy any products produced in Denmark. I believe I will take a little closer look, however, and make sure I do not. I hope that such boycotts send a strong message that such hate speech is not tolerable. It does not make us better off as individuals or as a society.
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Bravo! I agree! And if the intention of political correctness is to avoid offending people if possible and within reason, then I am unashamedly politically correct!
February 4th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
A couple of things… The newspaper who published the drawings probably shouldn’t have done so… The initial reason for them doing so, was to show how difficult it was to get people to go against islam… There had been somewhat a discussion about this last year in Denmark, which got them to print these drawings. It did offend a lot of people, and this is something they should have taken into account when they decided to publish the drawings. Should they have did it? Probably not.
A lot of things have happened in this issue making it very difficult to sort it all out. There have been muslims in Denmark travelling to the arab world to show them these drawings. However, they actually brought many drawings which have never been published in Denmark (one depicting the prophet with pigs nose and ears). What these people (imams) did sure did create a very angry opinion in those countries because they were wrongly informed about the situation in Denmark. Following this the arab world reacted strongly against Denmark and the danish government. The government stood strongly (and rightfully) on the fact that they could not and would not take any actions against the newspaper. In the arab world this has been taken as a statement saying the drawings were danish policy. This is WRONG! The reason why the government can’t take actions against the newspaper is merely the fact that WE have free press in Denmark.
The newspaper has said they are sorry for hurting so many muslims around the world, however this has not been enough, probably because the arab world thinks the newspaper is governed by the government of Denmark (which is also not true) and as such it should have been the government bringing the apology.
Some (many) arab countries issued a complete boycut of danish produce, holding the entire danish industry and society as hostage, simply because ONE newspaper published some drawings they felt offended by (not being a muslim I can’t see exactly why, but if they feel that drawing Mohammed is a syn, I respect that). I fail to see the justification of this total boycut as I don’t see the connection between the newspaper and the industry.
The drawing of Mohammed with a bomb on his head was a mistake to print, and probably did reinforce the stereotypes of all muslims being terrorists (which is wrong), but then seing what has happened in the last 24 hours surely doesn’t help neither (the destruction of the Danish Embassy in Syria). This will probably cause many people (in Denmark and EU in generel) to confirm this stereotype, instead of giving their dissatisfaction with the newspaper they burn down an embassy, what on earth could justify this action?
I don’t support retaliation, but on the other hand I don’t see how Denmark can continue to give support to countries who are officially against the entire danish way of thinking and living.
Some perspective in this issue, one could imagine that the entire world (or ‘just’ the EU) officially should boycut EVERYTHING from the USA for something printed by ie. the New York Times or maybe even just said by some extreme thinking politician in the US. If individual people think that boycutting danish milk is justified by the publishing of Mohammed in a danish national newspaper, I respect it… But when a government takes the step and decides to officially boycut everything from Denmark, I think that they are infact overreacting, and it simply shows the failure of then respecting the way of thinking and living in Denmark (or the rest of the ‘western’ world). The government of Denmark DO respect other countries and their way of living, we try not to force our way of thinking onto them (the war in Iraq doesn’t support this statement) out of respect of them…
So basically…. mutual respect is the way forward, unfortunately it appears that (some of) the arab world request us respecting them, but not the other way around… simply wrong!
(and yes, I’m from Denmark, and I’m proud of it ;-))
February 5th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
You make some good and interesting points (and having not seen the images myself, I really don’t know much about them.)
But it seems to me that those burning buildings and rioting don’t do much to distance themselves from those around the world who wrongly presume Muslims are violent and angry people. In fact, I can’t imagine much more of an over-reaction on the part of muslims (many of which are reportedbly being spurred on by clerics.)
The act of publishing offensive speech is wrong but should be protected. The act of destroying property and lives is in an entirely different class of wrong.
I suppose I should probably look at the images before I comment any further, though. :)
February 5th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
I also recommend taking a look at Justin’s entry about the issue and my response. I give my perspective on the violence that has resulted.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Well, CNN just had my favorite headline on it so far:
“Cartoon protesters stone embassy”
I actually thought, “wow, that’s just going to make those protestors even angrier. The cartoon is what got them started, and now they’re making new cartoons about them?”
Then I realised perhaps it didn’t mean that the protestors were in a cartoon, but that they were protesting the cartoon. Ahh, clarity. A hallmark of cable news.
February 6th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Holy Angry Moralists! Does anybody believe there is actually a universal solution to these types of problems? One of the fundamental rights of America is the right to self-governance. This right is guaranteed under the presumption that humankind is moral and good. We are also guaranteed the right to pursue happiness, as if happiness is a choice. These rights are universal and endowed by the creator, thus they are extended to non-Americans. Okay, now that I think I understand free-world idealism, I have to ask some more questions: If individuals are free to choose to be happy, aren’t they free to choose not to be offended? Are individuals even capable of self-governance? Okay moralists, chew on that.
G
February 21st, 2006 at 5:46 pm
There is a serious asymmetry in this cartoon situation. I think an appropriate response for
muslims who feel offended is *not* to riot and
kill innocent by-standers who are most likely
other muslims, but rather to publish offensive
cartoons about Danes that cause angry riots in Denmark and perhaps Danish rioters killing innocent Danes. But I doubt that anyone could provoke Danes to riot. They are too culture bound,
and their culture abhors physical violence.