:: My Divided Soul ::

Justin has made a couple posts regarding the issue of the cartoons of the prophet Mohammad that appeared in a Danish newspaper and I have responded to them as comments on his weblog. I wanted to post my responses here as well. I would ask that you go read his entries as well, to get a different perspective on the issue. (I suppose this all means I should figure out how this whole “trackback/ping” thingy works.)

First of all, in response to his February 3 entry, “Idiots with Assault Rifles”:

There was a specific reason I didn’t get into the protests and threats of violence when I talked about the issue. It’s not that I “let them off easy,” it’s that too often when Muslims or Mideast politics are discussed in the media, it always moves to the issue of “idiots with assault rifles and masks” in a way that makes it seem they speak for the majority of Muslims. It amounts to subtle racism. For instance, during the day yesterday, the BBC’s story on the portrayal of Mohammad had two pictures with it: both of them showed people with masks and assault rifles. No pictures of the peaceful protests and boycotts were visible until you specifically clicked on the “In pictures” link. And even in that batch of pictures, there was a one of a person with mask, assault rifle, and book obviously meant to imply it was the Koran. Muslims are portrayed in the media as terrorists. I wanted to avoid having my entry focus on that part of the story in any way, as I think it is being focused on plenty in other places. In fact, it is only now in the face of these protests that we are hearing anything. These cartoons were printed back in August. So it is only once we have assault rifles and threats that it matters.

I think the same is true of the reaction to the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections. Every article I have ever read that has anything to do with Hamas comes with a disclaimer: “Hamas has carried out numerous suicide bombings and is considered a terrorist organization by the US State Department and Israel,” even in articles that have to do with the deaths of Palestinian civilians at the hands of the Israeli army! Hamas did not get elected on the platform of “death to Israel.” In fact, it was not an issue they even brought up during the election. The were elected because of the social programs they have backed in the occupied territories for decades. They provided help to the people when no one else would. They also ran on a platform of removing the old, corrupt government. Up until this point, the United States and Israel have both said the Palestinians need to get rid of their corrupt officials before any true progress can be made.

Well, that is what the Palestinians did. And now aid to Palestinians is being cut off left and right because Hamas has guns and bombs (even though they have adhered to the ceasefire since August 2004). They are not even being given a chance. My hope is that the move to power will be good for Hamas and the Palestinian people. Energy spent trying to govern takes away from energy spent with more violent means. But the fact is, we won’t know until we give them a chance. Backing them up against a wall this early just makes the whole situations worse. At least Jimmy Carter has the right idea.

And in response to Justin’s February 7 entry, “Largely Ignorant Muslim Fundamentalists,” I wrote:

I think in some ways, this goes beyond just newspapers, though. This has been coming for a long time. As I understand it, Muslim immigrants are treated like second-class citizens in Denmark and other European countries. In Denmark, the current political climate is one of “immigrants, get out.” In fact, a person like me would have trouble in a country like that simply because of my last name. That is why I think the boycotts of Danish and Norwegian products are a reasonable protest.

It is true that the call for punishment of the newspaper by the government does not fit within Western governing practices. But it does with the governing bodies these protesters are used to.

I should also point out there is a major difference between speech directed towards Muslims and speech directly towards their faith. Directly speech towards Muslims themselves does not lead to this kind of uproar. It is the fact that the faith itself has been insulted. Muslim leaders may call Christians or Jews inferior (find me a religion that doesn’t call others inferior or wrong–strong belief seems based in this fact), but the Danish newspaper insulted the faith itself. It would be the difference between showing priests as child molesters and portraying Jesus Christ as a child molester when that scandal broke. That is the difference, and it is a very important one.

Europe is now trying to play the victims when they are not. They have treated Muslims and other immigrants poorly. And now that there are economic and political implications, they are blaming the Muslim countries and saying they have to be so careful dancing around topics relating to Islam and that it is unfair. Well, I’m sorry that Muslims ask for respect towards their faith. Just because other people do not does not make Muslims wrong. I don’t think Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali can claim to understand that, even if she is of Somali decent, as she once said, “Measured by our western standards, [Mohammad] is a pervert. A tyrant.”

I’m not saying that means the Danish government should punish the newspaper, but we do at least have to understand why they are calling for something that seems so radical. All of this goes beyond cartoons now. We are talking about two groups of people that aren’t even on the same field, let alone able to negotiate. However, too often is the perspective that the people in these Muslim countries are just backwards people who need to get with the program and accept the light of the west taken. As we have moved into an age of being more connected to the entire world, being sensitive and understanding of others’ beliefs is that much more important. We can’t impose “western standards” on everyone.

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.