Demands
And not just threats, but also demands. Like this demand.
British imams have demanded changes in the law and a strengthening of the Press Complaints Commission code to outlaw any possible publication of the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in the UK.
That’s quite a demand. Quite a bold, confident, aggressive, demanding demand. I don’t think clerics and priests and rabbis and imams should make demands like that of secular societies.
Yesterday’s event, which involved imams and grassroots figures from throughout England and Scotland, marked the foundation of the Muslim Action Committee (MAC), whose leaders plan a continuous campaign to confront the alleged disparagement of Muslim communities and to call for “global civility”…Faiz Siddiqi, the MAC’s national convenor, said: “What is being called for is a change of culture. In any civilised society, if someone says, ‘don’t insult me’, you do not, out of respect for them.”
True. If you’re polite and reasonably kind, you don’t insult people. But in any civilised society, if someone says, ‘don’t insult Jesus’ or ‘don’t insult Spock’ or ‘don’t insult Aphrodite’ or ‘don’t insult Loki’ then that’s different. Siddiqi is confusing two completely different kinds of insult. That confusion of course is pervasive, and is a tool of coercion. But one could use the same logic about anything and everything, with the outcome that I keep pointing out: total mental paralysis. To be wearyingly repetitive, free speech isn’t free speech if it is forbidden to say anything offensive, and if one offensive thing is ruled out, why not all offensive things?
Laying off criticizing others’ religions doesn’t make sense until you put it in historical context and realize how touchy people are about god. I agree with you in theory but there is also something called ‘crying “Fire” in a crowded theater.”
I don’t think we should be so quick to sneer at some level of self-censorship and deference.
Of course as to how self-censorhip applies to this context — the cartoons — while I think it was a needless blunder to publish them, now that it’s done we have no choice but to support the Danes wholeheartedly but calmly. Bullies cannot be allowed to bully.
But the trouble is (one trouble is) – once you start with that, how do you know where to stop? Should scholarly books on Islam also self-censor? If not, how does one draw the boundary?
Another trouble is that the deference just ratifies the idea that religions have special claims to deference – and I have yet to see anyone give a convincing explanation of why they do or should. Strong feeling won’t do it, because other ideas also arouse strong feelings.
Its not like the religions are ever wrong about anything is it, or have ever tried to censor or erradicate opposing views? Besides Sharia law is not to my taste so i’ll give it a miss thankyou…. i can choose to give Sharia law a miss can’t I?
Its not like the religions are ever wrong about anything is it, or have ever tried to censor or erradicate opposing views? Besides Sharia law is not to my taste so i’ll give it a miss thankyou…. i can choose to give Sharia law a miss can’t I?
“How does one draw the boundary?”
One answer would be whether the provocative remark stands simply for provocation or if it illuminates a larger issue. For example, with the cartoos the issue was that no artist was willing to come forward to illustrate a children’s book on Mohammed because of fear of reprisal. Another — and of course far less attenion-getting method — would have been to write about that issue and explore why Moslems limit themselves (and try to limit others) in depicting their prophet. The newspaper could have shown the (apparently) many images of Mohammed which exist.
You see I think that the culture war between West and Moslem is too important to have it start with such a no-win topic as religion. Of course what is done is done. But the current situation is hardly ideal.
Another way to approach the issue would be to ask whether the action one wishes to take is somehow essential. For me, eating prok is a pretty big deal and I’d say FY to anyone who tried to stop me baased on _their_religion. But in that case the limitation starts with them, not my own action. For example, I guess I have the _right_ to invite my Moslem friends to a barbecuse and have only pork sausages on the grill. But that seems rather rude and gratuitous.
Would I think it’s OK to criticize specifically religious tenets of Islam which are unfair to women? You bet.
All in all I guess I’m not sure if I have a clear answer to your question. I just think _needless_ & _pointless_ provocation should be avoided if one can. I mean, so far it is not clear if there is a positive outcome to the cartoon mess.
New information on the background of the protests (at least, it’s new to me)
At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized
The thing to keep in mind is, no matter how many such demands they make, it’s highly unlikely they’ll be ever even considered. If there was ever a parliament that could pass such laws, they’d be met by an uprising from all quarters.
There are already provisions in the UK and across Europe against actual hate speech. They clearly do not apply in such cases. As the Danish prosecutor rightly ruled in January.
Problem is, the cultural and political effects these impossible demands have.
Transitional demands? (with many apologies to Trotsky, who would be rolling in his grave).
OB: If not, how does one draw the boundary?
Most of us spend many hours of a normal week drawing boundaries. And, since we are talking about self-censorship, each of us will draw boundaries differently. We can argue with a criticize those who draw them differently to us.
All good a healthy.
My peeve in this area is the “slippery slope” or “thin end of the wedge” argument which denies that we can draw boundaries. One day I will write a cranky article on that.
Julian’s already done a ‘Bad Moves’ on the slippery slope argument. But I’m not making a slippery slope argument – if only because I hate formulaic phrases like that. But how does one draw the boundary?. I don’t see how, myself. If newspapers are expected to self-censor, then are books expected to too? So every book published from this moment forward would refrain from being critical of the Prophet? If that’s not what’s meant, then what is?
I look forward to the new revised edition of Dante’s “Inferno” with the references to Mohammed as a Sower of Schism cut out.
“British imams have demanded changes in the law and a strengthening of the Press Complaints Commission code to outlaw any possible publication of the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in the UK”
I am mortally offended by this demand, so they should stop insulting me by making it. Will that do?
On a lighter note (?), I came across a nice cartoon (not online unfortunately). It looks like one of those cut-out-and-piece-together things you find for kids: the pieces go together to make a hairy gentleman in a dress. There is also an arrow with the word “Muhammed”. The caption is “for security reasons assemble this in a safe place”.
If anyone is interested, I have blogged a declaration on religion and civil society:
http://civic-virtue.blogspot.com/
“The PCC’s code is voluntary. It is a benchmark of civility. It is a social contract. Why could it not be extended to cover Muslims?”
This slight of hand is being used all over the shop currently. The PCC already does cover everyone – equally, and by sodding definition. The constant accusation of exclusion is self-serving and dishonest, but these reactionary Imams are f@cking us up and down with it because we are terrified of the automatic follow-up accusation if we don’t give them special status – that we are racist and anti-Islamist. Did anyone hear the Syrian govt offical on Radio 4 this morning answering that the difference in the authorities’ handling of peaceful human rights protests (swiftly & harshly dipersed) and recent anti-west protests (allowed several hours of street-time) is that Muslems were ‘deeply offended’ by the cartoons. The implication being they cannot be nearly as offended by human rights violations. These ‘rights’ are merely abstract, western imperialist contructs, after all – until we discuss Israel, when they become sacrasanct again.
OB. Don’t invoke Spock, please. He’s not hurt anyone.
I am a bit confused why OB thinks it’s so hard to draw boundaries as we do so every day.
For example, even though I may think that some particular commenter on a blog is extremely stupid/offensive, I may decline to point that out simply because the larger benefit of the forum requires some level of tolerance for stupidity. That doesn’t mean that I might not point out the idiocies of some particulat comment but I will try to phrase it in a way which is constructive.
Now if you are talking in a legal manner then the answer is easy: there is no restriction and or boundary except the traditional rules about the words calling to violent action. The only issue for me might be one of custom.
>New information on the background of the protests (at least, it’s new to me)
>At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized (link above)< Following on from that, someone has just drawn my attention to this: http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Freedom For Egyptians reminded me why the cartoons looked so familiar to me: they were actually printed in the Egyptian Newspaper Al Fagr back in October 2005. I repeat, October 2005, during Ramadan, for all the egyptian muslim population to see, and not a single squeak of outrage was present. Al Fagr isn’t a small newspaper either: it has respectable circulation in Egypt, since it’s helmed by known Journalist Adel Hamoudah…
Belly-up alert: the website of the far-right Swedish Sverigedemokraterna, which published the cartoons, has been shut down by their ISP after the Swedish security service had a chat with the ISP. Government denies all involvement.
I really dislike a situation in which ultrarightists get to pose as defenders of Enlightenment values. But with the reasonable side of the political spectrum dropping the ball, that’s what you’re going to get.
I know, so do I. I do wish the left would pick up the ball again.
What has not been mentioned here is that Shaykh Faiz Siddiqi was explicit in saying that as Muslims we are not afraid of criticism or genuine debate about our religion and way of life, in fact we welcome it. It is part of our history from the time of the Prophet (peace be upon) himself and is arguably one of Islamic civilisations major contributions to the world, the freedom of faith and freedom to debate it. However the issue here is not intellectual criticism or querying. It is actually the lowest form of demonizing abuse aimed at the founder of the second largest world religion and by extension to all it’s followers.
Please see http://www.globalcivility.com for other articles on this and many other related topics.