Photoshop
First of all there’s the guy in the pig snout. Just fancy – that’s not a cartoon of the prophet, it’s not a cartoon of anyone, it’s not a cartoon at all, and it’s also nothing whatever to do with the prophet, or a different prophet, or any prophet, or Islam, or Muslims, or religion, or satire, or secularism, or free speech, or hate mail, or anything like that. Just fancy – it’s a guy taking part in a pig-squealing contest in France in August last year. My oh my, isn’t that amusing. Apparently what happened is, when the Danish imams were putting together their ‘brochure’ to take to the Middle East to show to the nice officials of the region and get their sympathy and indignation – their hand slipped, and this photo of the guy in costume was blurred and faked up so that it could be taken for a cartoon. In a bad light, by people who didn’t look too closely or think too rigorously, and were being told by some unhappy imams that it had arrived as hate-mail to – um – someone or other in Denmark, at least so they were told, or thought they were told, sort of, maybe, they forget.
Well that’s impressive. Very good. Brilliant. We know most of this indignation and rage has been deliberately worked up by people who wanted it to be worked up, and we know that the putative pig cartoon was by far the most offensive item, and we know that a lot of the indignant enraged people thought the putative pig cartoon was one of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, and we know that a lot of people have been killed over this. How impressive to know that they died over a picture of a guy in a pig-squealing contest, a farm contest, that is and was not by any stretch of the most paranoid imagination anything to do with them or any of their business. That is and was not in fact what they thought it was, at all. How very impressive. How clever humans can be when they really put their minds to it.
And then there’s Franco Frattini’s revolting capitulation. I’ve been meaning to revile it for days (but there’s been so much reviling to do, you know – it’s a full-time job these days), and the time has come. Who is Frattini – a mole for the Vatican, or what?
Europe’s justice commissioner Franco Frattini has confirmed that voluntary rules are to be drawn up after talks with media bosses, journalists and religious leaders. He told the UK’s Telegraph newspaper that there was a “very real problem” in the EU of balancing “two fundamental freedoms, the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion”.
Horseshit. That’s a very unreal problem, there is no problem, because there is no tension between the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. None. That’s a completely bogus, sneaking, moleish idea that’s just a subterfuge for forbidding people to say things that (some) believers don’t want to hear. Hey, guess what! Our saying things about your religion does not, repeat does not, interfere with your freedom of religion. Why would it? How could it? Freedom to do or pursue or be involved in something doesn’t entail being free from any possibility of ever encountering any criticism or mockery or skepticism about the something you are involved in, you know. I’m free to eat butter pecan ice cream; it doesn’t follow that someone across town is forbidden to say butter pecan ice cream tastes like stale sardines. Freedom of religion does not entail immunity from criticism! God, it’s so basic, and there are so many fools around who seem convinced of the exact opposite. It’s maddening.
Frattini is appealing for the European media to agree to “self-regulate”. “The press will give the Muslim world the message: we are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression, we can and we are ready to self-regulate that right,” he said.
How’s that for craven and disgusting and contemptible? The press will give the Muslim world the message: we are aware that the loonies among you will pitch violent fits and kill people over certain exercises of the right of free expression, and we’re pissing ourselves with fright, so we’ll do whatever you say, please don’t hit us, we’ll lock up all the women if you like, please don’t hit us, except the women, you can hit them, but please don’t hit us.
Fortunately, the International Federation of Journalists is having none of it – not surprisingly.
“We have already made it clear to Brussels officials that this will be unacceptable to everyone in media and they have agreed to encourage a professional dialogue but not to start drawing up codes or guidelines. That is the responsibility of media professionals alone,” said IFJ general secretary Aidan White.
No faked pig-snout cartoons, no surrender, no imaginary new right to freedom from being ‘offended’. No pasaran.
Good one, GT; thanks. Adam Tjaavk sent me the link to Sandmonkey.
Just to make the timeline clear, they were also published in Jyllads-Posten back then.
I just wanted to make it clear, since it might appear to other people that maybe the were published in the Egyptian newspaper first.
Thanks, Kristjan. Good to have a Danish reader!
Frattini, with the participation of the IFJ, is hosting a conference in April with 15 to 20 media and religious leaders to discuss the a voluntary code of conduct for the press with regard to religion.
Frattini’s hope is for a larger scale conference later this year.
Also, the EU’s Television without Frontiers Directive is being ‘modernised’ this year. That directive already contains language calling on the EU member states to prevent “incitement to hatred” based on race, religion, nationality and some other things.
The modernisation move aims to harmonise the 25 national legal systems’ coverage of “incitement to hatred”.
These two moves together — in the atmosphere of rank, craven appeasement of religious sensibilities which has been revealed in Europe by the Danish cartoonis affair — could well lead to a lasting curtailment of freedom of expression. We are living under a significant curtailment of freedom of expression right now as a result of the atmosphere of appeasement. I’m suggesting that it is likely to deepen, broaden and endure as a result of EU lobbying for “self-regulation” by the media and national legal systems adjusting themselves downward to “harmonise” around “incitement to hatred”.
Frattini’s opinions are too awful for words. Without doubt the worst I have seen on this issue.
Frattini: “When I talk about a code of conduct, I don’t talk about an instrument to limit the freedom of expression. But I will try to offer to the press, to journalists, an instrument to self-regulate.” “The first point is, any kind of unilateral imposition coming from institutions should be avoided.”
The first sentence is the all-too-typical “I don’t want to limit freedom of expression, although what I’m trying to do is limit freedom of expression.”
The second is equally contradictory: An institution, such as the EU, shouldn’t impose rules BUT I’m going to come up, for the EU, with a code of conduct which I’m going to impose on you.”
Frattini: “I were a journalist, I probably would have thought about the real context that one particular religion, one of the three big monotheistic religions, bans the publication of images of God, it’s an element you have to consider.”
Why? One religion (according to some) bans such images…so? So, presumably, no-one else is allowed to see them, regardless of their beliefs.
It is also extremely worrying when the person making the rules doesn’t seem to know what the problem is: it’s images of the prophet, not god, that are the currently the problem. (How can anyone draw pictures of god anyway?)
This is all so infuriating!
OK- time for a rant
This revolts me. What has happened to European self- confidence? Are we so cowed down that we have to grovel every time someone in the Middle East has a temper tantrum? Why do we have to change our principles, our core beliefs to satisfy a bunch of fascists? Do we believe in Free Speech or not?
Actually I think most Europeans are self – confident. Look at the scientific and cultural advances of the last few years. However, the political class seems to have lost its nerve completely and has been reduced to appeasement.
It is very disturbing to look at how much appeasement there was in the 30s. On the one hand it shows that we have defeated it before. On the other, it shows the extent that it can take and may well take now.
Hilarious! Yet pointedly on-target. Keep up the good work. Andrew of Arabia is also good for a laugh every now and then.
G.Tingley: You know that I agree with you vis a vis skepticism about religion. Too much talk about “appeasement” worries me, though. Your implication is that the War in Iraq was justified, just, and effective and has led to greater security. Excuse me if I don’t agree. In the interests of avoiding “appeasement” are we supposed to parrot that haridan Ann Coulter (nuclear bombs on every city)-or the loonier fringes of Little Green Footballs or Free Republic? One can agree that Islamists are bad news without agreeing that invasions and State terrorism are necessary. But, i suppose all males, including 13 year old boys, trapped in Fallujah by the US cordon were probably all terrorists anyway. This whole War of the Civillizations trope plays nicely into the hands of our very own Christian Dominionists, I’m sure you realize???
[…] way way above the human being: good old God.Frattini has form when it comes to theocratic bullying. He was on the job during the Motoons fuss (when he was justice commissioner for the EU), telling the European media to […]