Careful
The credulity-straining oxymoronism continues. You have freedom of speech but only if you don’t use it; you used it; you’re fired; also, we all hate you.
A student editor at the University of Cardiff found out his mistake when he published one of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. Somebody really ought to test his urine – what other explanation could there be?
A student union spokeswoman said Tom Wellingham, the editor of the paper, which won newspaper of the year at last year’s Guardian’s Student Media Awards, had been suspended alongside three other journalists. “The editorial team enjoy the normal freedoms and independence associated with the press in the UK, and are expected to exercise those freedoms with responsibility, due care and judgment,” she said.
There you are – you can’t say fairer than that. The editorial team enjoy the normal freedoms and independence associated with the press in the UK, so if they publish anything blasphemous and offensive, out they go. Obviously ‘normal freedoms and independence’ has nothing whatever to do with publishing anything that would offend anyone – good heavens, what an idea! Great hopping Christ almighty, newspapers mustn’t offend people! Fuck, no! Not ever; not under any; not no matter how much; not possibly. No, no, no. Everything that appears in a newspaper must be as anodyne and bland and blancmange-like and pallid and limp and devoid of interest or excitement and emollient and soothing as a warm bath to the tune of a lullaby. Obviously. Because looky here, newspapers go into people’s houses, I mean their homes, their lovely tasteful homes, where they eat and sleep and have family values. Newspapers can go into family rooms! Do you realize that? They can go right straight into family rooms, and be seen by family people, who would be upset and distraught and all twisted up inside if they saw something offensive. Had you thought of that? No, I didn’t think so. Well I bet it makes things look a little different, doesn’t it! It makes it pretty dang obvious why nothing offensive can go in newspapers. That still leaves plenty that can. Recipes, and how to make the home look pretty (Martha Stewarty kind of thing), and sports (if there aren’t drugs or swearing or rape or – well maybe not so much sports), and nice cartoons, like that nice Family Circus, and what’s on tv, if it’s not too offensive. That’s plenty.
The students’ union very much regrets any upset caused or disrespect shown by the publication of the controversial cartoon and has taken immediate action by promptly withdrawing all copies of this week’s edition of Gair Rhydd at the earliest moment possible.
Because that’s what you do when something in a newspaper offends anyone – you yank it back quick as winking, and then you tear it up into little tiny minuscule pieces, and you give them to the gerbils. Always. Every time. One peep from Someone Offended, and into the chipper that edition goes.
The students’ union has launched an investigation into how the images came to be published in the paper, which has a potential readership of more than 21,000 students.
Good. Good, good. I feel so reassured. I feel so much happier and more peaceful. Otherwise I would wonder – how, how, how could such a thing happen? Not because the editor wanted to publish something that was in the news – of course not! So how then? But it’s all right, because the union has launched (with a bottle of champagne, I hope) an investigation. I hope they have the handcuffs in reach at all times.
Local councillor Joe Carter, whose Cathays constituency houses the students’ union, described the publication of the cartoon as a “controversial and risky manoeuvre. They were wise to pull it but I’m surprised they ran it in the first place. There’s a very strong argument about freedom of the press versus tolerance of religion. We have to have tolerance of people’s views and culture,” he told icwales.co.uk.
There’s a very strong argument, which can be decided in only one way – so it’s actually not so much an argument, as a piece of dogma. We have to have tolerance of people’s views and culture – because if we don’t, there’s that beheading thing.
Ashgar Ali, the chairman of Cardiff’s Medina mosque, criticised the publication. “You can’t play with someone’s religion,” he told the website. “The Muslim students at the university are going to be upset. Pulling it as soon as possible was the right thing to do.”
You can’t play with someone’s religion. You can’t upset people. So no coverage of war, politics, the arts, economics, science – nothing that will upset people. That would lead to mere anarchy of the press. Understand?
And what a balanced report of the incident, too. Not a single word in it suggesting there might be another side of the story. The newspaper was “forced” to recall the copies, though it doesn’t say what methods were employed to change the minds of those who originally decided it should go out as is. The editor and three journalists have been “suspended,” though there’s no word on any of their reasons for deciding as they did, nor any quotes about objections they may have had to being overridden by “force.” Remind me, what suburb of Teheran is Cardiff in? Actually, that could go for the Guardian piece as well. Nowhere is there a single suggestion there might have been a reason to publish. So much for the debate on this issue. We’re now in “don’t teach the controversy-land.” Of course there’s no other side to this argument. Anyone thinking that must be a deviant. End of story.
This doesn’t surprise me at all. When I was a student the Students’ Union was forever trying to censor the student newspaper. As political organisations they are hotbeds of authoritarian identity politics. Undermining a successful and brave editor to pacify one particular minority is a classic SU tactic.
Even this is a come-down from my student days. At least then there seemed to be something vaguely rebellious and novel about identity politics. Now it seems that Student Unions are full of moral cowards and social conformists. Very sad.
“nothing offensive can go in newspapers. That still leaves plenty that can. Recipes,”
Recipes??!? Are you kidding! Recipes involving Pork- offensive to Muslims, Beef- offensive to Hindus; shellfish – offensive to Jews. Any animal or fish- offensive to vegetarians; Peas- offensive to me (as it happens); Vegetables- offensive to Breathatarians (Sp?)
Recipes are dangerous territory- don’t go there OB
(Can’t type much – fell down stairs & hurt hand)
Maybe you were right after all, cartoons not a good response to world. However, not because as you said we need more seriousness, but that it seems world itself turning more and more into absurd surreal cartoon of itself.
I’ve been wondering about the supposed reasons for this outburst. There is one thing I don’t understand. The idea is that Mohammed should not be portrayed to stop idolatry. Fine. Why then are people getting annoyed when people do portray him?
I know that these are cartoons and so insulting but this goes beyond “insult”. THe ban on portraiture is a self- denying ordinance to stop one being tempted into sin i.e. idolatry. However to be angry when someone else does it suggests a type of idolatry in itself. Mohammed its seems is too sacred to be portrayed. The ban therefore has failed because muslims are holding sacred an idol i.e. Mohammed. This applies in spades for unbelievers who (I assume) would be considered idolators anyway and so not responsible for their actions.
Not surprising really. Those I have met running SU bodies are gratingly preening self-serving careerist tarts with ambitions in fast-track politics, media or pr careers. Their tack is playing bone-headed dogmatists, while padding out the c.v.
Strange that G Galloway became so unpopular on Big Brother really, considering its viewership – stoned, idle-minded students.
MKJ — nice argument, but unfortunately Islam seems to be operated on a legalistic, not a philosophical basis: i.e. if it says it shouldn’t be done, it shouldn’t be done, now shut up… As with a number of other religions, upholding the tenets is more important than contemplating their logic.
There is a nice joke about a rabbi so intransigent in his adherence to a particular view of scripture that not even the voice of God roaring about the huilding will dissuade him, because it is not written… Alas I can’t remember the details…
Harry’s Place now reports the editorial board of the New York Press has resigned after their publishers prevented them from running the cartoons. Sigh. They were actually a pretty good newspaper in as far as they published Mark Ames and Matt Taibbi.
I am not at all that surprised with the censorship of a student newspaper: universities are strange places, with everybody having all political sensitivity antennae raised to the maximum.
The (in)famous Amsterdam student paper, Propria Cures, is a different story though. Theo van Gogh made some kind of career there. Wonder if they will have the guts to publish those cartoons.
Dave – true. Did anyone hear the academics from School of African and Oriental Studies on BBC Radio 4 Today programme stating there is no explicit Q’ranic command regarding making such images ? Is anyone listening to her ?(Likewise the hijab – no specific text on that either – see N&C passim). It’s all fitting into Dawkins assertion that religion is as much about arcane heirarchies and unnaccountable authocrats as it is anything else. Blind faith begat authoritarianism and the authoritans were the truth…
Following up my thought yesterday, of a declaration on this matter in general, I offer the following for comment:
We the undersigned, in the spirit of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
without prejudice to the right of any person to their own private thoughts, and to freely-chosen beliefs of any nature whatsoever, and in shared abhorrence of oppressions of all kinds, make the following declaration:
1. that those who oppose the freedom of women, as rational individuals, to have the same life-choices and opportunities as men, are beneath contempt;
2. that those who elevate unverifiable and dogmatic creeds above the spirit of free enquiry and debate in public life are beneath contempt;
3. that those who seek to impose upon others the consequences of such creeds are not merely beneath contempt, but a positive danger to the continued existence of a rational civil society;
4. that it is the positive duty of every adherent of rational debate and free enquiry to oppose the implementation of dogma and the silencing of opposition in the name of avoiding ‘offence’;
5. that in consequence, we solemnly affirm that the tenets of all religions, insofar as they claim privileged access to ‘truth’ and dominion over the freely-chosen views of others, are false and pernicious, and we wholly and utterly reject them and any place for them in public life.
And Halal meat is offensive to hard-line animal right campaigners. So there!
And what is a breathatarian?
Pete
It would seem to me that someone who is viscerally offended and upset by a cartoon of a religious figure does not have the critical distance towards his own beliefs to function in a University. But this would go for a lot of the identity politics in academia, not just Muslims.
Dave- (Sigh!) Yes true. Islam is legalistic and logic doesn’t get a look-in. This is especially true since Islamic law was fixed in the early medieval period.
Peter- Breathatarianism- I *think* that this is someone who believes that food is irrelevant for existence. (Apparently they do eat and drink but only for the sensation- supposedly it doesn’t give any nourishment). Completely bonkers.
Of course I missed out the appalling offensiveness of pasta for followers of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism
Yeah, yeah – but what was this guy publishing the cartoon for in the first place? My guess is just to stir the shit – it’s not like publishing it served any other purpose. After all – who hasn’t seen all the damned cartoons already?
See?
Why is it when one bunch of idiots start acting like total prats everyone else becomes so determined to do likewise?
“If the enemy, look you, is an ass, and a fool, and a prating coxcombe is it meet look you that we should also be an ass, and a fool, and a prating coxcombe?”
Well? On your conscience, is it now?
Oh, quite right about recipes. What was I thinking?
“After all – who hasn’t seen all the damned cartoons already?”
Anyone in the UK who doesn’t have Internet access, that’s who! That’s one reason it’s so irritating when everyone congratulates the UK papers for refusing to publish. To be sure, people in universities pretty much do have access, but making them available in widely distributed portable form is a useful thing to do. Since the cartoons are being discussed anyway, it’s preferable that people should know what they are.
The legalistic thing – I heard some Spokesguy or imam or deep thinker on the World Service just now say the cartoons are ‘haram’. No qualifying phrase, no ‘haram for Muslims,’ just haram. How interesting life is going to become, as we all learn to obey six or seven incompatible sets of religious laws. What fun.
Dave,
Me, I would make the principles affirmations of principles, as opposed to saying enemies of the principles are beneath contempt. I would grandly ignore enemies of the principles, and simply slap them principles out there, take it or leave it.
We were better off under the Romans…
OB – think about it. Can’t eat pork, can’t eat fish without scales, but must eat fish on fridays, can’t drink alcohol except when going to mass on Sunday – but then again, both Saturday and Sunday are going to be off-days, and think of all those feast-days! Except that the only thing we’ll be allowed to have on them is chicken and diet coke. Everything else being Haram or Treife or Unclean or Sinful. And I hate both chicken and diet coke.
Dave – On second thought, I think I agree with all the tenets you listed, even though I am a non-religious theist (I think God exists, but I don’t particularly trust him). They key here is that no belief should be immune to ridicule, especially beliefs that encourage slaying of non-believers (the Christian fundamentalists who read the Left Behind series are just as bad, except that they get all tingly while waiting for Jesus to come down and do the slaying bit, instead of doing it themselves).
Now I have to go off, to sacrifice milk, honey, cattle and slaves for the return of the Sun God. The local Scandinavians are extremely offended that I forgot all about the Vinterblot festival this year. They are extremely culturally sensitive about these matters, and I have received threatening phone calls about the dragon ships set to sail and raid my suburb.
… what you do when something in a newspaper offends anyone – you yank it back quick as winking, and then you tear it up into little tiny minuscule pieces, and you give them to the gerbils…
Or you could make garden compost (the secret is a 30:1 Carbon to Nitrogen ratio).
Pass the cartoons and the cardboard placards, please.
Shafika Abbasi
I am thinking about it. Pork with scales and cloven-footed fish are the least of it. All very well for all you guys, but I’m thinking about spending the rest of my life under house arrest I’m not all that keen, to tell the truth.
Ah yes. It’s all too typical that the first problem that comes to mind for me relates to food and drink. And I can see where the burkah and house arrest part might be a problem.
You COULD escape the issue by stating you cannot offend the sensitivities of the less misogynist Pagans and Wiccans and incur the wrath of furious Mother Goddess. Except that you probably can’t stand Pagans and Wiccans (I know I can’t). And to think about the outcome of a death fight between vegetarian purple-haired Neopagans and raving islamic fundamentalists – I’m sorry. Things look bad.
(This relates to a general problem Enlightenment-supporting humanists are confronted with: the enemy is a lot meaner, willing to go to considerably greather lengths, and the beliefs he spreads are a lot simpler as well).
I know, I know, I know. The reality is, things do look bad.
Pagans and Wiccans, of course (no, I can’t stand them, and I mocked them ruthlessly last winter when I read a lot of their ‘books’), will be briskly eliminated once the caliphate is established.
The burkah and house arrest part – that’s why I have my teeth so deeply sunk into all this. I take it very, very, very personally. I’ve read enough first-person accounts by women who experienced the transition from living as a person like other people to living like a hated piece of dung subject to constant supervision, interference, and violence from complete strangers – to know that I would not find it congenial. I do not take well to subordination.
Check this out:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399459,00.html
In short:
1) Britain is cleverer and wiser than the rest of Europe, they’re all just racists down there on the continent
2) Rushdie was a literary genius, these are juvenile talentless cartoonists, so they are even less worthy of defending (The Law Of Free Speech According To Quality of Content)
3) at least he was from India, not a privileged white European, so he qualifies as being oppressed by censorship, they don’t
4) he got a lot of publicity and money anyway after that, so let’s not be too sorry about that whole affair
5) still, what he did was provocative without any constructive result in the tolerance and mutual understanding departments (see cleverly disingenous use of that “mutual” there)
6) Muslims felt offended. This is important. Please keep in mind. In case you didn’t get it. Mulisms were offended.
7) the lesson of that affair is that we should all be more careful. Why? Because Muslims get offended.
8) there should be no legal limits to freedom of speech, but a voluntary effort to restrain oneself. Why? because people get offended. And not just offended-offended, mind you, but genuinely offended.
That’s it.
To be fair, there is one good point at the end, on how extremists benefited from all this. Yet, it’s still all like these extremists are a peculiar animal species who just behave like that and NOTHING can be done about it, so just leave them alone or you know what to expect, and when it happens, you asked for it.
Sad…
Thanks for that, Nina. What a pile of kak.
The 1986 Education Act imposes clear duties on universities in respect of freedom of speech.
Universities must create a “code of conduct” in respect of free speech in accordance with the act.
Cardiff’s code can be found here:
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/schoolsanddivisions/divisions/regis/sfs/regs/speech.html
Not only has the university and / or student union acted against the code by pulping the paper and suspending the editors, it has probably acted illegally as well.
Get your official complaints in… it’s (seriously) the only language they understand…
Well done, Chris.
Only it seems all to apply to meetings. I wonder if there are different rules for publications…
Dave,
Back to your earlier comment, could you be thinking of the one about the four rabbis of whom the same one always had the minority opinion in arguments? Without all the embellishments, one day they were arguing outdoors and he, knowing he was the only one to get it right, entreated god to give a sign. Big black cloud passes overhead. He tells the others it’s a sign, they explain it away. He asks god for something clearer. Immediately lightning incinerates a tree right next to them. Again they explain it away as being a perfectly normal, natural occurrence. He tells god it has got to be unambiguous. Booming voice from on high roars “he’s right!” Minority opinion rabbi beams at colleagues in triumph. They sneer and say “It’s still only two against three.”
The 1986 provisions are a kneejerk Conservative govt reaction to perceived leftist domination of campuses. Note that what it actually does, as expressed in the Cardiff code, is to give absolute discretion to the University management to set the conditions of any event that might be controversial, and impose disciplinary sanctions on unauthorised events….
Has anyone seen any news articles about U.S. universities preventing student newspapers from publishing these cartoons? Or, having been published, supplies of the papers mysteriously disappearing from distribution points? It’s happened several times with conservative student papers which managed to offend somebody.
It’s a very sad day when the local Murdoch paper (The Courier-Mail, Brisbane’s only daily newspaper) becomes a icon of free speech by publishing just one of these cartoons. Surely you should have to work harder.
I studied for my MA at Cardiff University and at the time the SU was in the grips of an alliance of anti-globalisation pseudo-Marxists and the Islamic students group who came together for the ‘Stop the War’ business. Newspapers by ‘revolutionary’ groups were regularly sold outside the Union building supporting the Intifada and calling for the destruction of Israel. That’s seen as fine, but publish a cartoon of Muhammad and suddenly there’s an uproar. Typical…
Edmund, could you possibly tell me when that was?
I’m a gair rhydd contributor very pissed off about this. In particular, that the University Islamic society has been given a full page for their views in next week’s issue, spouting the usual “You can’t insult someone’s religion” bollocks. Well firstly, yes you can. Secondly, they mean you can’t insult their religion, specifically.
You can read my view at http://christopherwhiteblog.wordpress.com
Edmund, when I read your comment I thought you originally meant the 1980s – when there were a lot of Iraqi students (loyal to Saddam and opposing Saddam) and they used to infiltrate Union meetings and fight battles in the streets.
But having re-read, I’m guessing you mean when the 2nd Iraq War was launched a few years ago?
Edmund, when I read your comment I thought you originally meant the 1980s – when there were a lot of Iraqi students (loyal to Saddam and opposing Saddam) and they used to infiltrate Union meetings and fight battles in the streets.
But having re-read, I’m guessing you mean when the 2nd Iraq War was launched a few years ago?