Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Danish Cartoons
Brief thoughts.
- Freedom of expression is a precious right. I would like to hear interesting arguments against it.
- Freedom of religion is a precious right, bound up with freedom of expression, and equally fundamental to any but a fascistic conception of Islam, Christianity, Buddhism. Hinduism, Judaism, Sikhism, etc.
- All of us contravene rules of each other's religions all the time, for example by adhering to other faiths (one can't, for example, adhere to Hinduism whilst adhering to Christianity).
- The rules of Islam state that one should not depict the Prophet Mohammed, pbuh.
- The principles of freedom of worship and expression imply no obligation on those who aren't adherents of a religion to follow its rules, so there is no obligation on Jews to follow Muslim rules, for example. We all have a right to eat pork, to preach that Jesus was the son of God, to preach that He wasn't, etc.
- There is and was a right to depict Mohammed, pbuh. If Muslims follow their religion then they won't do so, but non-Muslims don't follow that religion, by definition.
- The political situation in many Arab states is one of a lack of freedom, a lot of volatility, and a lot of people wanting to foment unrest.
- Both Arab governments and other organisations have often encouraged anti-Western sentiment, either sincerely, or to further their own ends (e.g. to promote nationalism favourable to their own weak position).
- This sentiment and unrest tends to lead to violence, deaths, kidnappings, a lessening of prospects for femocracy and freedom, a souring in relations between the West and the Arab world, and advancement of the cause of fascist nationalism at the expense of prospects for liberty.
- Depicting Mohammed, pbuh, in these cartoons was obviously going to upset people, and to give ammunition to those wishing to stir up violence and hatred, without really achieving anything.
- There was a right to depict Mohammed, pbuh, in these cartoons in the first place, and to reprint them. This right should be left alone.
- Depicting Mohammed, pbuh, in these cartoons was bloody stupid, deleterious to the cause of free speech, and peace, because it gave an opportunity to people to be annoyed etc. and to say that free speech was anti-Islamic, when in fact it is a freedom which allows for Islam to be spread to anyone who will believe in it when it is shared with them.
- A sensible perspective is this: there is a right to publish, but publishing is stupid and pretty pointless.
- The violence now is hateful and unjustified, although predictable.
- Boycotting companies who had nothing to do with this is misdirected, and is less justified than refusing to do business with any Jew because of Palestine, or any Muslim because of 9/11; both of which would be stupid perspectives.
- The only boycotts that would be remotely sensible are of the cartoonist, and perhaps the newspapers involved. The original newspaper has, of course, apologised, which is all they can do, so any boycott on them should have ended anyway when that happened.
- Protest is justified to make feelings heard, using exactly the same freedom of speech as the cartoonist used. Violence and national boycotts are not.
- None of the European governments involved has control of what their press says, and this is a very good thing.
- None of the other companies in the countries involved has any control at all of what their press says.
- The cartoonist was silly. The response has been sillier and illogical, but very predictable given the politics involved.
In Afghanistan alone, ten people have now died in the protests.
