Binghamton, NY -- The value of a free press
So I was watching News Hour today and one segment involved the political cartoon of Muhammad as a terrorist that's been printed in several European newspapers.The report showed Arabs across the Middle East burning effigies of European leaders as well as brief coverage of Fatah terrorists storming the EU building in Gaza. What struck me as I watched was how we take the institution of a free press for granted. There is not a single newspaper in the Arab World that can really be considered a free press. Those few papers that are not printed directly by the government are subject to scrutiny and censorship by the ministry of information in each respect nation. So is it any wonder when Arabs in the street are demanding for apologies from European leaders? As far as they are concerned, it's the governments' voices that are printed in the papers.
Finally, the last portion of that segment was a debate between a British journalist and a Muslim from a CAIR-esque group. The usual back-and-forth rabble took place about respect vs. free speech and separation of Church and State. And then came the biggest shock of the day. The guy defending the European papers said that no European government would ever promote something like this. The other guy responded by saying he didn't believe him because, after all, this is the same Europe that committed genocide against Muslims ten years ago. Lehrer and the Brit just let that pass. I couldn't believe it...
posted by Ari @ 8:02 PM Trackback Link
6 Comments:
They shouldn't have published pictures like that.
In Islam we're not even allowed to draw pictures of the Prophet peace be upon him.
We dont draw pictures of Jesus or Moses, we respect all the prophets.
We love our prophet peace be upon him.
I'd agree that they shouldn't have done that, but they were certainly free to do so, and the protesters certainly were NOT free to riot.
As an admirer of your efforts to create a more rational approach to debate in the US, as an American living in Europe I must take exception to your characterization of the Danish cartoon affair as an issue of free speech.
You certainly realize that free speech is an issue between the government and the people. Governments in Europe do not censor free speech and neither do pressure groups or individual citizens, such as the Muslims in Denmark and other countries that took offence to the cartoons.
Therefore, strictly speaking, this is not an issue of free speech. When newspapers publish articles or other opinions to which some people object, people are free to raise objections, take legal action or organize protests and/or boycotts. That is all that happened in Europe.
When the cartoons appeared last September, a group of some 21 Muslim organizations in Denmark filed charges against [i]Jyllands Posten[/] under Danish defamation and incitement to hatred laws. The lower court ruled against these groups.
The fact that some radical groups in the Middle East or Indonesia began burning Danish embassies and flags, as we can now assume, was sparked by fanatical splinter groups -- and perhaps even governments -- perhaps in an effort to detract attention from problems at home.
The deliberate attempts of some to blow this issue into a [i]clash of civilizations[/i] seems suspect at best. The Danish cultural editor, Flemming Rose, has ties with Daniel Pipes and other anti-Islamic groups. Given the fact that this same paper turned down satiric drawings of Jesus two years ago on the grounds that they "might offend some of their readers", seems to support the thesis that the issue here was anti-Muslim sentiment, not freedom of the press.
I find it hard to believe that rational people would go out of their way to defend groups, such as the vast majority of Islamic organizations in Europe, that adhere to the rule of law, accept the tenets of free speech and are making strides in adapting to Western culture, without sacrificing their own.
One may be critical of Muslim culture (as I certainly am), but that is no reason to deliberately insult one category of people in the name of free speech.
The proper way to satirize mysticism is to attack religion [b]as such[/b]. But we don't see that happening very often, do we?
Since I'm new here, I published my above comments without previewing them. My use of the word "defend" in the paragraph starting "I find it hard to believe" should have read "attack."
Sorry about that.
DEMOCRACY DEMANDS RESPECT FOR OTHERS' FEELING AND BELIEF. MY FREEDOM ENDS WHERE YOUR NOSE STARTS - MEANING THEREBY THAT EVERYONE IN SOCIETY IS TO RESPECT AND CARE FOR IDEAS AND BELIEFS OF ALL PEOPLE IN THE SOCIETY. SHOULDN'T THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH BE WORKING WITHIN THIS PRINCIPLE AND BE SELF-DIRECTED BY TAKING CARE OF OTHERS' FEELINGS AND BELIEFS.
I DON'T THINK THE CARTOONIST AND MR. ROSE HAD ANY RESPECT FOR THE VAST COMMUNITY OF MUSLIMS -EVEN- LIVING IN DENMARK. I AM STILL PERPLEXED AS TO WHAT WAS ""THE SOLE PURPOSE"" OF GETTING THOSE CARTOONS CREATED AND PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER. AS MR. ROSE - THE CULTURAL EDITOR OF THE NEWSPAPER - BELONGS TO A RADICAL AND ANTI-MUSLIM GROUP OF CHRISTIANS (HIS AFFILIATIONS WITH DANIEL PIPES ARE NOT SECRET), SO HE WANTED TO DEFAME AND INSULT THE MUSLIMS BY INSULTING THEIR MOST BELOVED FIGURE. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS THIS PURPOSE WITH WHICH THOSE CARTOONS WERE DESIGNED AND PUBLISHED.
THE SITUATION WAS FURTHER AGGRAVATED WHEN PRIME MINISTER OF DENMARK DID NOT SHOW THE COUERTESY TO SEE THE AMBASSADORS OF MUSLIM COUNTRIES WHO HAD REQUESTED HIM TO MEET HIM ON THIS ISSUE SOMETIME LAST YEAR.
IT ALL SHOWS THAT ALL THIS WAS DONE DELIBERATELY TO CREATE A SITUATION WHERE MUSLIMS BE SUBJECTED TO THE WISHES OF RADICAL ANTI-ISLAM FORCES.
WE ARE CHAMPIONS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS BUT WE CANNOT ACCEPT NEGATION OF HOLOCAUST - WE CAN GO TO THE EXTENT OF PUNISHING AN HISTORIAN WHO CHALLENGES THE EXISTENCE OF HOLOCAUST ON THE BASIS OF SOME HISTORICAL EVIDENCES.
ISN'T IT THE HYPOCRACY?
LET US STRIVE TO RESPECT EACH AND EVERYONE AND MORE SO TO THEIR FEELING AND BELIEF. WE SHOULD NOT BLAME THE WHOLE COMMUNITY FOR THE ACTS OF A SMALLEST GROUPS.
ISLAM IS "SALAMATI" WHICH MEANS "PEACE". IN ISLAMIC FAITH ONE NAME OF GOD IS "AS-SALAM" THAT ALSO MEANS "ONE WHO BESTOWS PEACE AND TRANQUALITY TO THE MANKIND". THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD(PBUH)IS CALLED "RAHMAT-UL-LIL-AALAMEEN" MEANING "ONE WHO IS MERCY FOR ALL THE WORLDS".
NO HOW CAN THE PROPHET BE A TERRORIST? DEPICTING HIM AS A TERRORIST OR ONE WHO APPRECIATE TERRORISM IS DOING INJUSTICE TO SUCH A RESPECTED PERSON.
SO, LET US CREATE A WORLD WHERE WE RESPECT EACH OTHER AND MAY LIVE IN PEACE.
The cartoons are not only acceptable. they are a realistic portrait of Islam. Any non-muslim has the right to portray the Paedophile Mohammed as he/she sees him. I recently took a flight from bangkok to Phuket. in the waiting are was a group of 6 arab-muslims, complete with long robes and diapers on their heads. they were reading the koran and praying. EVERYONE waiting starting discussing 9/11 and suspiciously looking at these men. THIS is what it's all about! when i, and all of my friends, see a muslim, we think of terrorists! because thats what this religion is most asociated with. and with so many suicide bombers shouting "Allah Akbar" befor they kill, isnt a cartoon of muhammed with a bomb as a turban accurate? if muslims want respect from the west, why dont they ask for respect from their own who kill in the name of their god and sham of a "prophet". in Darfur, arab-muslims kill african muslims. funny, i dont recall seeing any muslims taking to the streets to protest that.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home