The media and the western leaders have successfully projected the cartoon issue as a conflict between the great quality of western democracies, free speech, and the dogmatism of islamic society, intolerance. The violence that followed should be condemned in strongest terms possible. At the same time, why has the dialogue to evaluate the responsibilities of free speech not been initiated by media as well as by the rhetorical speech of western leaders. The insight into the reasons for lack of such dialogues within western society might possibly unveil the true nature of free speech as practised by western countries.
5 comments:
I see this cartoon issue as a political agenda started by a few muslim leaders. Here is my question,
1) why bring up 4 month old controversy now? why not this uproar in November?
2) Here are pictures which depicts Prophet Mohammed in various other pictures and cartoons, some are offensive why they kept silent on those?
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/modern_satires/
Good comments and questions. Why certain other section is silent and does not stand up and speak their mind when the issue is concerned with their religion? It cant be called tolerance but a collective failure to register the protest for the fear of being branded non-secular. Please read
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20060210&fname=hinduphobia&sid=1
Unfortunately who speaks about it is branded as fundamentalist but protesting against a similar thing concerning 'other' religions forms a 'Secular', 'Humanist' agenda.
Welcome back Phoenix.
>>I see this cartoon issue as a political agenda started by a few muslim leaders. <<
Not only by few muslim leaders. It is also due to the attitude of "let's provoke. what can they do" practised by free-press without
any restraint of civic responsibility.
>> 1) why bring up 4 month old controversy now? why not this uproar in November? <<
The cartoons were published on September 30, 2005. Ten Islamic countries had complained to the Danish prime minister about the cartoons by October 20, 2005. Both prime minister and the newspaper did not consider that very seriously. I just wonder what would have happened if they had then acted with responsibility. It took all the force and threats to extract one apology from the newspaper. It took nearly four months for the newspaper to tender an apology which they did on January 31, 2006. So, it takes time to react and organize.
By then, European press have decided to raise their voices for freedom of expression which they could not exercise for symbols of holocaust and other atrocities. It is interesting to note that the French weekly Charlie Hebdo boosted its print run from 100,000 to nearly 320,000 and France Soir increased its sales by 40 when it published the cartoons. We now know freedom of expression does help.
If freedom of expression is the issue, then it is important for us to see how it is practised. If provoking is the norm, then we do
not have anything to say.
The delay in reacting does not justify the action which provokes the reaction. Yes, there is a political and commercial angle but this angle is common to both the sides.
The issues my post raised are not either in support of violence or against the freedom of expression. It is an attempt to explore if projecting something as white or black is true or not.
Two issues are involved: caricature itself and its content. Caricaturing, in this case, is related to the beliefs and customs of Islam as practised and enforced today. The contents would show the nature and the spirit of cartoons. We have to be clear on which issue we speak of free-press.
>>..some are offensive why they kept silent on those? <<
In the modern world of information age, it is not possible to track everything that is put up on websites before acting or reacting. Each individual has become a broadcast center. Hence,
responsibility is more.
Please read
1. "France Soir increased its sales by 40 when it published the cartoons" as "France Soir increased its sales by 40 percent when it published the cartoons".
"The delay in reacting does not justify the action which provokes the reaction." as "The delay, in reacting to something, does not justify the action which provokes the reaction."
Somehow your arguments doesnt seem to convince me...
If they waited for 4 months for an apology why would they start the violence after getting the apologies....
Civic responsibility is a touchy issue and depends a lot on culture...Say for instance, i have seen a lot of pictures of jesus depicted in a funny way in T shirts here...No one has ever protested it here. Likewise it may not be unusal to make fun like this Danish culture (i am just providing an arguement here and you cannot rule out the possibility).
There were instances where Ganesha was depicted in Shoes in some foreign countries. He may be a sacred person in India that doesnt mean all has to regard him that way.
"We now know freedom of expression does help."
It doesnt matter if the cartoon is published or Kushboo's controversial photos is in the news, the circulation will increase for the people tend to be curious.
"In the modern world of information age, it is not possible to track everything that is put up on websites before acting or reacting."
I would like to point out that some of the cartoons were like most popular magazines (Tintin) and some popular TV epsiodes (South park) and not all are being hidden in some website somewhere. The justification i can give for that is most of them were by mighty European countries that has established curcial business iwht middle east that they cannot protest against them and get away without burning the fingers. They just saw Danish paper as a vent for political reasons as they could risk relationship with them.
"It is an attempt to explore if projecting something as white or black is true or not."
My intent was not to say something is right and something is wrong. But to throw my 2 cents on this topic.
"The delay, in reacting to something, does not justify the action which provokes the reaction."
I agree to that...but my reasoning was not to justify based on the claim but to highlight the political plans to raise freedom of expression (by the affected parties against the paper) when they felt will have a use for their own needs.
Post a Comment