We Are All Danes Now

[The Question]

Boston Globe

We are all Danes now

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | February 5, 2006

HINDUS CONSIDER it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage. India recalled its ambassador to Copenhagen, and Danish flags were burned in Calcutta, Bombay, and Delhi. A Hindu mob in Sri Lanka severely beat two employees of a Danish-owned firm, and demonstrators in Nepal chanted: ''War on Denmark! Death to Denmark!"In many places, shops selling Dansk china or Lego toys were attacked by rioters, and two Danish embassies were firebombed.

It didn't happen, of course. Hindus may consider it odious to use cows as food, but they do not resort to boycotts, threats, and violence when non-Hindus eat hamburger or steak. They do not demand that everyone abide by the strictures of Hinduism and avoid words and deeds that Hindus might find upsetting. The same is true of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons: They don't lash out in violence when their religious sensibilities are offended. They certainly don't expect their beliefs to be immune from criticism, mockery, or dissent.

But radical Muslims do.

The current uproar over cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper illustrates yet again the fascist intolerance that is at the heart of radical Islam. Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest daily, commissioned the cartoons to make a point about freedom of speech. It was protesting the climate of intimidation that had made it impossible for a Danish author to find an illustrator for his children's book about Mohammed. No artist would agree to illustrate the book for fear of being harmed by Muslim extremists. Appalled by this self-censorship, Jyllands-Posten invited Danish artists to submit drawings of Mohammed, and published the 12 it received.

Most of the pictures are tame to the point of dullness, especially compared to the biting editorial cartoons that routinely appear in US and European newspapers. A few of them link Mohammed to Islamist terrorism -- one depicts him with a bomb in his turban, while a second shows him in Heaven, pleading with newly arrived suicide terrorists: ''Stop, stop! We have run out of virgins!" Others focus on the threat to free speech: In one, a sweating artist sits at his drawing board, nervously sketching Mohammed, while glancing over his shoulder to make sure he's not being watched.

That anything so mild could trigger a reaction so crazed -- riots, death threats, kidnappings, flag-burnings -- speaks volumes about the chasm that separates the values of the civilized world from those in too much of the Islamic world. Freedom of the press, the marketplace of ideas, the right to skewer sacred cows: Militant Islam knows none of this. And if the jihadis get their way, it will be swept aside everywhere by the censorship and intolerance of sharia.

Here and there, some brave Muslim voices have cried out against the book-burners. The Jordanian newspaper Shihan published three of the cartoons. ''Muslims of the world, be reasonable," implored Shihan's editor, Jihad al-Momani, in an editorial. ''What brings more prejudice against Islam -- these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras?" But within hours Momani was out of a job, fired by the paper's owners after the Jordanian government threatened legal action.

He wasn't the only editor sacked last week. In Paris, Jacques LeFranc of the daily France Soir was also fired after running the Mohammed cartoons. The paper's owner, an Egyptian Copt named Raymond Lakah, issued a craven and Orwellian statement offering LeFranc's head as a gesture of ''respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual." But the France Soir staff defended their decision to publish the drawings in a stalwart editorial. ''The best way to fight against censorship is to prevent censorship from happening," they wrote. ''A fundamental principle guaranteeing democracy and secular society is under threat. To say nothing is to retreat."

Across the continent, nearly two dozen other newspapers have joined in defending that principle. While Islamist clerics proclaim an ''international day of anger" or declare that ''the war has begun," leading publications in Norway, France, Italy, Spain, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have reprinted the Danish cartoons. But there has been no comparable show of backbone in America, where (as of Friday) only the New York Sun has had the fortitude to the run some of the drawings.

Make no mistake: This story is not going away, and neither is the Islamofascist threat. The freedom of speech we take for granted is under attack, and it will vanish if it is not bravely defended. Today the censors may be coming for some unfunny Mohammed cartoons, but tomorrow it is your words and ideas they will silence. Like it or not, we are all Danes now.

Aside from one very important point Mr. Jacoby got very, very wrong early on, this is right on the mark.

 

[Starship Coyote]

What...the point about Christians never lashing out and enforcing their beliefs on others? I caught that one.

 

[WordInterrupted]

I don't think newspapers are obligated to publish these cartoons, as he suggests, or that doing so is some heroic defense of free speech. Free speech does not require us to intentionally and gratuitously offend people. By his logic, newspapers are also obligated to publish a picture of Jesus saying "I am not the son of God!" That's ridiculous. Newpapers have an obligation to promote open, intelligent public discourse, not needlessly incite anger and polarization.

That said, the violent response to these cartoons is incredibly stupid. It's almost too idiotic for me to comprehend. Of course, whenever I'm completely baffled by what appears to be mass stupidity, it's usually because I don't understand the context of the behavior. I suspect that a reaction this intense wasn't caused just by a sacreligious image; it's probably also a way of expressing a more general frustration with the relationship between the West and the Muslim world.

 

[The Question]

What...the point about Christians never lashing out and enforcing their beliefs on others? I caught that one.

Pretty much all three major religions that had their origins in that part of the world are intolerant of dissent or criticism, and none of them are innocent of using intimidation or violence to try to get their way. Islam is simply the most open of the three about it. Militant Christians tend to form tiny little cults that usually end up killing themselves, militant Jews are better at hiding it (and usually have a whole shitload of help doing that), but militant Muslims actually want to be known for it.

And as far as suppressing dissent goes, muslims and most Jewish organizations are neck and neck -- with both societies having angry or violent reprisals on critics practically built right into the common mindset. Watch the response to this post from our own "secular Kahanist" gprime if you don't believe that.

 

[WordInterrupted]

HINDUS CONSIDER it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage.

I think that's a bad analogy. Hindus might not care whether Danes eat cows, but they probably would take offense at a cartoon of Gandhi carving up a holstein with a chainsaw.

 

[The Question]

I don't think newspapers are obligated to publish these cartoons, as he suggests, or that doing so is some heroic defense of free speech. Free speech does not require us to intentionally and gratuitously offend people. By his logic, newspapers are also obligated to publish a picture of Jesus saying "I am not the son of God!" That's ridiculous. Newpapers have an obligation to promote open, intelligent public discourse, not needlessly incite anger and polarization.

That said, the violent response to these cartoons is incredibly stupid. It's almost too idiotic for me to comprehend. Of course, whenever I'm completely baffled by what appears to be mass stupidity, it's usually because I don't understand the context of the behavior. I suspect that a reaction this intense wasn't caused just by a sacreligious image; it's probably also a way of expressing a more general frustration with the relationship between the West and the Muslim world.

I think the author's whole point was that papers should print the cartoons as a demonstration that they will not be cowed into keeping their mouths shut just to avoid offending people.

Basically, he has the impression that the muslim world is telling newspapers to shut up, and he advises that the papers get right up in the muslim world's face and shout, "FUCK YOU!" A sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[WordInterrupted]

I think the author's whole point was that papers should print the cartoons as a demonstration that they will not be cowed into keeping their mouths shut just to avoid offending people.

By this logic, newspapers should offend everyone as much as possible. That's a really bad argument. Newpapers exist to inform the public about current events, not gratuitously offend people.

 

[Number_6]

By this logic, newspapers should offend everyone as much as possible. That's a really bad argument. Newpapers exist to inform the public about current events, not gratuitously offend people.

True, but the fact remains that when newspapers are really doing their jobs well, a certain segment of the population is bound to be offended. The truth can be extremely offensive, particularly when it's pointed out to you by someone of an opposite ideological stripe.

At the very least, this has revealed deep-seated problems in the Muslim world that many were afraid to admit were there.

The question now is, what are we going to do about all of this? I don't think this genie's going back in her bottle.

 

[Peter Octavian]

By this logic, newspapers should offend everyone as much as possible. That's a really bad argument. Newpapers exist to inform the public about current events, not gratuitously offend people.

Ironic that you would make this particular point on a message board chartered to irritate and annoy other "less open minded boards" (back in the day, those who owned direct dial-in BBS's might have said, "Boards exist to inform the community about current events, and to provide a place for the exchange of information and ideas, not gratuitously irritate and annoy people).

 

[The Question]

By this logic, newspapers should offend everyone as much as possible. That's a really bad argument. Newpapers exist to inform the public about current events, not gratuitously offend people.

Yet more proof that you and logic don't have a speaking relationship. The point is not to offend -- the point is to show that they won't be coerced by a fanatical minority. Offense in this case is the means, not the end.

 

[Blindgroping]

I'm Offended!!

Where's my Axe!?!

Actually, while Christians, and Mormons aren't outright violent, I know more than my share that are passive-aggressive to people not-of-their-faith.
They are more likely to pass you over for someone else, or give you a worse business contract, or "loose your parerwork".
Generally making your dealings with them harder.

 

[WordInterrupted]

At the very least, this has revealed deep-seated problems in the Muslim world that many were afraid to admit were there.

It has revealed that many Muslims have enormous reserves of anger at the West, and will take any excuse to express that anger. That's a problem for us if we want to stop terrorism, encourage democracy, or have any positive influence in the region at all.

Ironic that you would make this particular point on a message board chartered to irritate and annoy other "less open minded boards" (back in the day, those who owned direct dial-in BBS's might have said, "Boards exist to inform the community about current events, and to provide a place for the exchange of information and ideas, not gratuitously irritate and annoy people).

Yes, that irony did occur to me. There are trolls at TK who try to offend people, but that's not my style. I'm accused of trolling not because I'm outrageously offensive, but because I argue in favor of free speech. I argue that people should not be censored, even if they are offensive. I would make the same argumentin regard to these cartoons. I think their publication was unwise and needlessly offensive, but I also think newspapers should have the right to publish them.

Yet more proof that you and logic don't have a speaking relationship. The point is not to offend -- the point is to show that they won't be coerced by a fanatical minority. Offense in this case is the means, not the end.

As usual, your argument is nothing more than a semantic quibble. There are countless groups that would coerce a newspaper not to offend them. If a newspaper printed an editorial entitled "World Trade Center Victims Deserved to Die," many Americans would try to coerce the publisher to stop printing those sentiments. If the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, in the heart of the bible belt, published an editorial entitled "Jesus Was Joseph's Bastard Son," people would try to coerce the publisher. There are countless offensive statements that people might potentially coerce you not to make. If you take that kind of coerscion as a reason to offend people in the first place, you would try to offend almost everyone, not just Muslims.

 

[The Question]

As usual, your argument is nothing more than a semantic quibble. There are countless groups that would coerce a newspaper not to offend them. If a newspaper printed an editorial entitled "World Trade Center Victims Deserved to Die," many Americans would try to coerce the publisher to stop printing those sentiments. If the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, in the heart of the bible belt, published an editorial entitled "Jesus Was Joseph's Bastard Son," people would try to coerce the publisher. There are countless offensive statements that people might potentially coerce you not to make. If you take that kind of coerscion as a reason to offend people in the first place, you would try to offend almost everyone, not just Muslims.

IF newspapers published the articles you talk about, and IF the offended groups reactions were the same bullying as the militant muslims' reactions to the cartoons in the Danish paper, THEN yes, I would support the press fighting back by deliberately offending those groups, as well. So let's add "reading comprehension" right there under Logic on the list of concepts you haven't been formally introduced to yet.

 

[SilentBtViolent]

I think there's a logical flaw here though, TQ. You say because of freedom, the newspapers should be able to print what they want.

Why, then, shouldn't the free market and free speech allow Muslims to boycott Danish goods, march in front of their embassies, etc.? Which you seem to be criticizing.

Of course the papers should do whatever the fuck they want. But they need to realize that the free speech they so cherish can bite them in the ass.

(Of course I don't condone any violence or threats of violence, by the way. I just think that protests and boycotts are a perfectly acceptable response.)

 

[SilentBtViolent]

And by the way, we are not "All Danes Now." Any comparison between this crap and 9/11 is specious-to-offensive.

 

[The Question]

I think there's a logical flaw here though, TQ. You say because of freedom, the newspapers should be able to print what they want.

Why, then, shouldn't the free market and free speech allow Muslims to boycott Danish goods, march in front of their embassies, etc.? Which you seem to be criticizing.

Of course the papers should do whatever the fuck they want. But they need to realize that the free speech they so cherish can bite them in the ass.

(Of course I don't condone any violence or threats of violence, by the way. I just think that protests and boycotts are a perfectly acceptable response.)

I agree -- but at least one Muslim country, Iran, is planning to give exactly the right response. In response to cartoons that sparked outrage in the Muslim world but which are defended by Jyllands-Posten as an expression of free speech, Muslims are exercising exactly the same principle in exactly the same context by printing Holocaust cartoons. This will force the western press to either practice what it preaches about freedom of expression, or expose its own hypocrisy on the issue. And so far it's looking like the latter.

 

[WordInterrupted]

IF newspapers published the articles you talk about, and IF the offended groups reactions were the same bullying as the militant muslims' reactions to the cartoons in the Danish paper, THEN yes,

If newspapers followed that policy, they would constantly be offending people. There wouldn't be any room for anything else. That's not what newspapers are for.

In response to cartoons that sparked outrage in the Muslim world but which are defended by Jyllands-Posten as an expression of free speech, Muslims are exercising exactly the same principle in exactly the same context by printing Holocaust cartoons.

Of course, TQ agrees with the nutso Iranian mullahs that the Holocaust never happened. Crazies of a feather flock together.

 

[The Question]

If newspapers followed that policy, they would constantly be offending people. There wouldn't be any room for anything else. That's not what newspapers are for.

And you continue to ignore the fact that that isn't the policy in play. Typical clueless twit behavior. :roll:

Of course, TQ agrees with the nutso Iranian mullahs that the Holocaust never happened. Crazies of a feather flock together.

Mm-hm. So adding 'nutso' and 'crazies' to the mix automatically means the position is wrong. Yeah. Well, let's all just laugh it off without thinking about it.

 

[PreatorX]

You were the one suggesting the policy of newspapers offending everyone all the time.

 

[WordInterrupted]

And you continue to ignore the fact that that isn't the policy in play. Typical clueless twit behavior.

You think newspapers should offend anyone who coerces them not to be offensive. As I note above, thousands and thousands of different interests are willing to coerce newspapers. According to your position, newspapers should offend all of them. That would be a full time job.

Mm-hm. So adding 'nutso' and 'crazies' to the mix automatically means the position is wrong. Yeah. Well, let's all just laugh it off without thinking about it.

Hey, if you want to agree with the crazy Islamic fascists that run Iran, be my guest, but prepare to take the consequences.