I don’t like that shade of blue
Well quite – if a museum puts on an exhibition you don’t like the sound of, the thing to do is stroll in and threaten the staff with violence if they don’t take it down again. That’s how I take care of these little annoyances. After all it is up to me to decide, isn’t it? Therefore it’s also up to them – except of course when I get there first.
Whereas the mere spectre of possible attacks was enough to get the Deutsche Oper to put the kibosh on a Mozart opera in 2006, Berlin’s Galerie Nord closed its doors this week after a group of Muslims walked into the gallery and threatened staff with violence.
Thus cultural life is enriched bit by bit.
The gallery is now in negotiations with the Berlin authorities in a bid to get 24-hour police protection, so that the exhibition can be re-opened, hopefully by Tuesday of next week. Egesborg said it was vital the exhibition continue. “If the radical Muslims are successful, then it means a mob can curate an exhibition in a museum,” he said. “It would be dangerous for art in Europe, as it would give a good example of what threats can achieve.” He saw a parallel in the furore over the publication of the Muhammad caricatures in Danish newspapers. “Radical Muslims think they can influence what is printed in the newspapers or shown in galleries,” he said. “That is very dangerous. It is a road that leads to hell.”
The hell of radical Muslims curating all museum exhibitions, editing all media, librarianing all libraries – vetoing all cultural products they don’t like. Let’s not have that; it sounds nasty.
I think this was all part of a zionist plot to get islam a bad name in Europe!
Isn’t it a relatively simple matter to identify the men who walked in to threaten staff and charge them for threatening gbh or death? There were no security cameras or none of the staff had camera phones? If the police and the wider public don’t get tough with the religious thugs, this particular tactic is going to become very successful. The MF Hussain exhibition in London a few years ago got shut down after hindu threats of violence too. In that case, those issuing the threats did so anonymously. It is incredible that this particular mob was bold enough to make their threat in person!
If you read the article in the link, you will find that “6 men believed to be Muslims” threatened the museum. Now, as Mirax says above, those men can probably be identified by security cameras and should be arrested. However, there seems to be a distance between 6 men threatening a museum and radical Muslims censoring all cultural products that they dislike. You can find 6 unbalanced people in any large city, and it is not always wise to take them seriously or as representatives of anything but their own mental disorders. As I said above, those 6 men should be jailed or sent to a mental institution. A friend of mine had an unfortunate incident (no one hurt) with some drunk Peruvian prostitutes on New Year’s Eve: for several days after that she insulted Peruvian immigrants continuously. Don’t generalize, I kept telling her. 19 psychopathic members of Al Qaeda took over 4 planes on 9-11 and caused the tragedy that we all remember. As a result, Bush declared war on some undefined entity called Terror (supposedly, motivated because “they hate us because we are free.). The war against Terror, also called the Long War, still goes on, without visible results, except perhaps to produce a endless cycle of violence and revenge as well as more bitterness and hatred.
Yes but there is no global movement of drunk Peruvian prostitutes; there is no ummah of drunk Peruvian prostitutes; drunk Peruvian prostitutes don’t do whatever drunken prostitutish thing they did to your friend as a matter of principle or by way of jihad. Of course six men don’t necessarily equate to radical Muslims censoring all cultural products that they dislike, but on the other hand it’s no good pretending there is no pattern of radical Muslims censoring all cultural products that they dislike, and not just censoring but threatening death and sometimes killing. Ever heard of Taslima Nasreen? Theo Van Gogh? Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Kurt Westerberg? Salman Rushdie? Naguib Mafouz?
There is a lot of territory between the war on terror and the notion (if that’s what you’re suggesting) that Islamist censorship by death threat is nothing to fret about.
I wonder if you would try to brush it aside in this way in parallel but different circumstances. Suppose six BNP members went into a museum of Islamic art and threatened the staff with violence. Suppose six neo-Nazis went into a museum of Jewish anitquities and did the same. Suppose six members of the BJP went into a mosque and did the same. Suppose six anti-abortion protesters went into a clinic and did the same. Suppose six Ulster Unionists went into a Catholic pub and did the same. Would you tell me not to take them seriously? I hope not. And you shouldn’t brush this off, either.
I would take it seriously if six apolitical, atheists walked into a museum and threatened the museum staff because they don’t like paintings with the color brown. I’m not trying to brush anything aside. I said that those six men should be arrested or sent to mental institution. I think, as you say, that there is a pattern of some Muslim fundamentalists threatening cultural products that they dislike. When you use the phrase “radical Muslims”, you load the dice, so to speak. I would prefer to talk about Muslim fundamentalists, and I’m not at all sure that most Muslim fundamentalists go around threatening museums. Once again, there are at least two problems that we (if I can include you in the first person plural along with myself) face about Islam. 1. The very real oppression of women, gays and apostates under Islam. That is a humans rights and/or an ethical issue, and I think that that should be denounced. 2. The threat that fundamentalist Islam poses to liberal democracy in Europe and the Americas. On that issue you and I have different views. I don’t see much of a threat. Problems, yes, but nothing that the police can’t or shouldn’t be able to handle. By the way, as you well know, if the Bush administration had read certain FBI reports, not even 9-11 would have occurred. No, I am not a conspiracy theorist.
Amos If you dont see much of a threat you should try opening your eyes! I prefer to call 9/11 an attrocity rather than a tragedy because tragedy implies it was some kind of acident!
But if we had to lock up all the religious loonies, think of the expense… unless somehow we could wire them up to wind turbines, chuck in a contentious remark, and shut the door….
GT, someone should do a study of how many schizophrenics have been committed suffering from atheist delusions, as opposed to, you know, the other kind…
When you use the phrase “radical Muslims”, you load the dice, so to speak. I would prefer to talk about Muslim fundamentalists, and I’m not at all sure that most Muslim fundamentalists go around threatening museums.”
No. I used the phrase ‘radical Muslims’ to refer back to the comment I had just quoted; I was echoing it. But of course radical is what is meant, not fundamentalist, because just as you point out, [of course] not all fundamentalists threaten museums! More to the point, not all fundamentalists endorse such behavior – but it’s probably fair to claim that it’s part of the definition of ‘radical Muslims’ that they do endorse such behavior; that that’s what the radicalism consists in.
“The threat that fundamentalist Islam poses to liberal democracy in Europe and the Americas. On that issue you and I have different views.”
I don’t know if that’s true or not, because I don’t know what you mean. Do I think liberal democracy is about to collapse into theocracy? Of course not! Do I think liberal democracy is being eroded around the edges by various fundamentalist demands, Christian as well as Muslim? Yes. Which bit of that do you disagree with? The second? But then explain to us how you think the police are supposed to “handle” all these offical rebukes to those who “offend” believers? How are the police supposed to “handle” the chilling effect that creates?
Perhaps I don’t understand your comment, but it’s not the job of the police to handle rebukes to those who offend believers. The job of the police is to enforce the law. There are many forces which erode liberal democracy around the edges, as you say: the power of big money in campaign financing; the lobbies; the tendency to market candidates instead of candidates who discuss the issues; the incredibly bad quality of most educational systems, which do not produce literate citizens; the news media which prefer to feature Paris Hilton (or whoever replaced her in the spotlight) than to explain, say, the reasons that the dollar is in free fall; the many political leaders who prefer spin to discussing the issues; the apathy of all too many citizens; the demands of many pressure groups, among them, Christian, Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists. I read the New York Times online everyday, and the columnist Paul Krugman is just about the only political commentator who discusses the political programs of the candidates instead of their images. So the Democratic primaries in the United States becomes a question of two brands, Hillary and Obama, not of two candidates who hopefully have ideas about how to govern a large and complex nation. I could name more forces or groups which erode liberal democracy, but I will not bore you. Yes, I accept your distinction between Islamic radicals and Islamic fundamentalists. It seems pertinent.
‘…but I will not bore you.’
That’s not really for you to say.
Ouch. (cackle)
Of course it’s not the job of the police, amos – for heaven’s sake – you’re the one who said “Problems, yes, but nothing that the police can’t or shouldn’t be able to handle.” I was disagreeing with that drastically oversimplified view.
Notice I didn’t say various fundamentalist demands were the only thing eroding liberal democracy around the edges. I don’t really need a basic primer on what else is doing that.
Ophelia: Since your blogs tend to focus on the danger of religious, especially Islamic, fundamentalism to liberal democracy, I thought it relevant to outline some other dangers. I assume that your blog is read by not only by you and by those who post actively (hello to all of you), but also by many non-participating readers who perhaps might have an interest in my basic primer. If not, my apologies.