Offensive cartoonist provokes nice guy into attacking him
The BBC is disgusting at times. It had to report on this al-Shabab guy trying to kill Kurt Westergaard so therefore it had to make sure you didn’t get the wrong idea and think it, the BBC, didn’t think Kurt Westergaard deserved it, at least a little bit. That would never do. So it includes a sidebar of ‘analysis’ which ends with this even-handed bit of slime:
Moderate Muslims in Denmark have condemned the attack on Kurt Westergaard, but they still believe his drawing was sacrilegious.
Muslim nations are attempting to outlaw what they call the defamation of their religion.
Mr Westergaard came out of hiding last Spring, saying he wanted to defend freedom of expression.
Some independent religious scholars argue the cartoonists were wrong to offend Muslims and say the drawings made dialogue impossible.
Notice the failure to point out that some ‘independent religious scholars’ (whatever that is supposed to mean) and some other kinds of people argue that on the contrary the cartoonists were not wrong to draw cartoons about Mohammed; notice the ‘wrong to offend Muslims’ as if what the cartoonists did had been to ‘offend Muslims’ as opposed to drawing cartoons; notice that any satirical or political or otherwise substantive cartoon can always ‘offend’ someone; notice giving the stupid evasive anonymous smeary ‘the cartoonists were wrong to offend Muslims’ claim the last word; notice doing that in an article about the attempted ax-murder of a 75-year-old cartoonist in his own house. Notice, and be disgusted.
This smacks of the same self-righteous hard-line stance that says that suicide bombings are justified in the defense of Islam, or as a legitimate form of political expression.
Welcome, world, to what Israeli Jews has been dealing with for a hundred years or so: an proudly patriarchal, indignantly pugnacious, and comparatively radicalized religious culture.
I noticed, Ophelia. But was not in the least surprised by the BBC’s sidebar. I remember an article they did a few years back, practically salivating over the Al-shabab as it came into prominence then (studiously ignoring, of course, the means by which it came by such power and what its ascendancy meant for the lives of Somalian women). Sorry to say but this is entirely typical of the BBC and the Guardian.
Happy New Year! Will write you later, as 2009 was an interesting year for religion here in S’pore. Xtian fundies openly played their hand against women and gay people …nothing new about that so far… but the backlash against that was encouraging and invigorating.
People are so wound up about religious terrorism that they often ignore the non-violent battle waged by theocrats – against freedom of speech,freedom of conscience, fundamental human rights- as the really terrifying one, one to be fought unrelentingly. Witness how blase the BBC is about the effort by various muslim nations to effectively universalise their blasphemy laws.Just one line, curiously placed in a litany of muslim grievance.
Even more disgusting is this on the same page:
Al-Shabab, meaning “the lads” in Somali, is on US foreign terror list
…/…
Blamed for 2008 stoning of 13-year-old Somali ‘gang rape victim’
I suppose it could have been worse, they could have put only the word victim in quotes…
It’s hard to tell how much of the scare-quotes on ‘attacker’ and ‘gang rape victim’ are because of caution about how to state facts in criminal cases prior to conviction, but it could be that a lot of it is because of that, along with insane UK libel laws. On the other hand surely the BBC could figure out how to do the headlines in such a way that they don’t seem to express incredulity if they wanted to.
This business about the cartoons provoking outrage is universal – I’ve seen it on every article I’ve looked at today – and it’s infuriating. Journalists have to take lots of shortcuts, but they shouldn’t be taking this one.
The Motoons and the Rushdie affair together are pivotal. Index on Censorship is one branch of that – a little hint as to what it all means.
Okay, the Times doesn’t use any scare-quotes, it just says ‘Islamist assassin’ in the headline, so the Beeb is being – disgusting.
Ugh, ugh, ugh.
This seems to me to exhibit a phenomenon I’ve noticed more generally: namely, a confusion about whether ‘offensiveness’ is a dispositional or a normative concept. The BBC is apparently assuming that something is offensive if it in fact offends someone – which is a ridiculously broad definition, since, as you say, people can be offended at pretty much anything. Moreover, it allows certain groups to evade any unwelcome criticism simply by professing to be offended by it.
I think it’s much more sensible to think of ‘offensive’ as a normative concept: something is offensive if it is appropriate to be offended by it. Obviously there can be dialogue (heh) about whether a given thing is, in fact, an appropriate object of offense. But simply the fact that someone is offended at x is not sufficient to establish x’s offensiveness. What’s more, deliberately doing something that offends some people can be a very good way of pointing out that the people in question are being inappropriately offended, and/or that they are using their offense as a way of stifling criticism.
And, by the way, speaking of what is actually offensive vs. what happens to offend someone:
– Cartoons of Mohammed: liable to offend people, but not necessarily offensive
– News reports which imply that it’s maybe a tiny bit justifiable for a Muslim extremist to go into a murderous rage at someone who implies that Muslim extremists are liable to go into murderous rages: pretty damn offensive, even though not nearly enough people will actually be offended by it.
Radio 4 has been no better. They’ve been consistently describing Westergaard as ‘controversial’ and the cartoon he drew as having ‘sparked’ protests, outrage, wailing & gnashing of teeth, throwing of shoes, superglueing of beards, etc, etc.
Ho hum.
The BBC’s breakfast programme featured this story several times this morning. On each occasion, it was careful to insinuate that Westergaard *caused* the violence that ensued from the sorry business and seemed to imply that he kind of deserved to be attacked.
It was as if we’d all conveniently forgotten the real story behind the cartoons…
Right, this year’s going to be about “doing things”, not merely having a whinge over here at B&W – I’ve just not-literally-got-up-off-my-backside and emailed in a complaint to the Beeb – not that they’ll take any notice of it, but it’s better than doing nothing.
“Time for bed” said Zebedee (showing my age)
:-)
Merry 2010!
Very good point, Jennie Louise. The word ‘grievance’ works the same way – people often deploy it as if merely having a grievance were enough to show that the grievance is legitimate. I remember pointing out once that to plenty of people it’s a ‘grievance’ when women have too much independence. A grievance is only as legitimate as it is; it’s not legitimate merely because it is a grievance.
Ooh, Andy and latsot said the same thing at the same moment. Spooky.
mirax Happy New Year back! Yes do write to me.
Well done Andy!
Be sure to have the whinge here too, though.
And don’t forget this lovely bald statement from the BBCs report:
“The cartoon, printed in 2005, prompted violent protests the following year.”
First, ugh.
Second, I think the BBC is being offensive to Muslims by insinuating that they have no free will.
Third, did the time gap here not raise suspicions as to what exactly was doing the prompting?
Andy – you’re an example to us all. New Year’s resolution – for every 10 complaints I make about the beeb, Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Spectator, Parliament etc to like-minded folk, I’ll make 1 complaint to the beeb, Guardian, DT, Spectator, Parliament etc.
On mature reflection “example to us all” is presumptuous. How do I know what the ratio of complaining with the like minded is to complaining to the antagonists for other people on this thread? An example to me, then.
Axes don’t kill people, cartoons kill people.
I’m suitably disgusted. And so is The Australian, which provides a thoughtful editorial. Unfortunately, for those who are dismayed by things like the minaret vote in Switzerland, it is the widespread refusal to see and say that Islam poses a fundamental danger to our freedoms that is leading to things like the the Swiss vote, or the strengthening of ‘right-wing’ parties in Europe. Trying to hide from the danger will simply feed xenophobia, which in turn will feed radical Islam.
I might add here that I am not at all convinced that there is a moderate Islam. There are moderate Muslims, but that a different thing.
There, that’s better!
:- )
Gosh, thanks.