More on the cartoons
So, these cartoons. I went off on one the other day and don't intend to repeat myself, but here's how I see the issues falling:
Why did the newspapers re-print the cartoons? Was it in response to something specific, or was it just to piss people off? If the latter, then they deserve to be criticised. If the former, why hasn't that been revealed?
The rights and wrongs of the re-print, though, seem to have become all mixed up with freedom of speech. Somebody on television phrased his point nicely: "freedom of speech, yes, but not for religion". The Vatican weighed in with the same thought:
The freedom of thought and expression, confirmed in the Declaration of Human Rights, can not include the right to offend religious feelings of the faithful. That principle obviously applies to any religion
I see that as dangerous nonsense. You can't give religion special treatment for no reason, and the violent reactions to cartoons (even though it's by a militant minority) show why this shouldn't be the case - some people just do not act reasonably when their unjustifiable beliefs are involved.
I also find it rather strange that no UK newspapers have printed the cartoons. It would be entirely reasonable of them to do so, since people will want to know what all the fuss is about. Every blog in the world is linking to the (now locked down) Wikipedia entries, after all. The intent wouldn't be to offend, but to inform, so there shouldn't be a problem - surely that's what freedom of speech means? Just because some people would decide to be offended shouldn't matter.
Speaking of which, one blog (can't remember which, now) pointed towards the increasingly creepy redefinitions of 'respect' and 'offense'. I've avoided using the word 'respect' for the past couple of years or so because I think its definition is too fuzzy. I know people who think that 'respecting' other people's opinions means you shouldn't argue with them. I simply don't know what 'respect' means, so I use other words instead. As for 'offence', it's like Stephen Fry said:
So you're offended. So fucking what?
Pickled Politics points to the reactions of non-crazy Muslim bloggers. Pharyngula makes some very good points, and says what I'd like to say, only better. Butterflies and Wheels is similarly clear. And I think the final word should go to Skuds, who points out that the cartoons weren't even all that funny.
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
February 5th, 2006 - 18:46
“Just because some people would decide to be offended shouldn’t matter.”
No. I completely disagree. Society has to get along together. Therefore they must give some regard to other people’s feelings and views. That’s what I define as respect. Is it really necessary to deliberately offend people?
As for the “So you’re offended. So fucking what?”, and then “Can you give an honest and coherent answer, explaining why your personal hurt feelings take precedence over someone else’s freedom?”
Please. Freedom. Define freedom. Why should anyone’s feelings take any precedence over someone else’s? Society has to get along together. Therefore they must give some regard to other people’s feelings and views. That’s what I define as respect. Is it really necessary to deliberately offend people?
Is it really necessary to deliberately offend people? I don’t think so. If this were an accident, then this is very unfortunate. To those that want to riot because of the pictures, then you’re pathetic. Voice your point, and ask that this is dealt with carefully, fairly and correctly. Violence never wins any argument, and puts you in the wrong.
February 5th, 2006 - 20:44
The intent wouldn’t be to offend, but to inform, so there shouldn’t be a problem – surely that’s what freedom of speech….
Freedom of speech is only unlimited and unrestricted if you live alone on the top of a mountain. In the real world, if informing actually offends then it should be and is, curbed.
February 5th, 2006 - 23:33
Ok, 2 issues here:
Ed – it’s certainly impolite to deliberately offend people, and it of course should be avoided. But you can’t say it should be banned, or regulated against. The thing about free speech is that nobody’s feelings *do* take precendence over anybody else’s – anybody is allowed to say what they like and anybody is allowed to disagree. Getting on with others involves listening to other people’s opinions, and I actually think that taboos on what can be said cause more problems than they solve. People should be encouraged to be polite in their statements, but they still get to make them. This leads onto…
Jamal – I’m sorry to disagree, but if you’re offended you have to give me a rational reason why I shouldn’t be allowed to speak. That you’re offended simply isn’t enough – if I decide to get offended at every mention of pizza, would that be good enough to stop people talking about pizza? Religion gets special treatment in this regard, and I think that’s wrong.