Rotten humor in the state of Denmark

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Disclaimer: All my own opinions only. Don't suicide-bomb me.

I've been putting off writing about the Muhammed cartoons because I don't really know which side I'm on. On the one hand, freedom of speech blah blah blah. On the other, press responsibility and freedom of religion yada yada. By now I assume everyone knows what the issues are so I won't bother going into them again.

The Economist, predictably, has unequivocally taken up arms in the name of free speech and all its concomitant cliches ("hard-won human right", "free society" etc). And Janadas Devan's commentary on free speech in the ST today, while intellectual and well-written, was (again predictably) very balanced, kind of circular, and not really enlightening at all.

So for those of us who need other people to dictate what our opinions should be, here are some of the more interesting questions:

1. Why did Jyllands-Posten call for the cartoon competition in the first place?

According to the Copenhagen Post, "Jyllands-Posten called for and printed the cartoons by various Danish illustrators, after reports that artists were refusing to illustrate works about Islam, out of fear of fundamendalist retribution. The newspaper said it printed the cartoons as a test of whether Muslim fundamentalists had begun affecting the freedom of expression in Denmark."

Out of the 40 illustrators who were asked for contributions, only 12 responded. That, I suppose, answers Jyllands-Posten's question. But why did a paper that had only a few years before refused to publish cartoons of Jesus on the grounds of respect for religious readers suddenly make such a drastic turnabout? (Granted, different editor at the time.) It's all well and good if, as Salon.com argues, the paper had a long-standing tradition of fighting for free speech. But it seems like a wiseass attempt at sensationalism, a attention-seeking move not so much asking for trouble as challenging it to a fight. We shall harbor no illusions, then, about the noble idealism of Jyllands-Posten's agenda.

2. Whatever Jyllands-Posten's original intention, doesn't this episode show that there should be more religious sensitivity/freedom of speech?

Complete freedom of speech doesn't exist, and I'm not sure I even believe it should. As I realised with a shock over beer and nachos yesterday, as much as I champion the cause of human rights instrumentally, I'm not convinced of their intrinsic value; I cannot identify a single right that I think is categorically inalienable. (This is a big thing for me because I've always been a die-hard human rights fanatic.) So I can't declare that "everyone should be able to say whatever they want and if people are unhappy then too bad for them". Some people have argued that it's okay to say anything as long as you're willing to take responsibility for your words but that makes no sense, firstly because of the inherent difficulties in measuring commensurate responsibility and secondly because making up for something you've done doesn't justify your doing it in the first place. The desire to reduce institutional censorship is one thing; the deliberate and uncalled-for provocation of certain social groups in the name of free speech seems to me like exploitation.

Having said that, everyone knows my views on religion (if you don't, figure it out from the second half of this entry) and by extension my views on religious sensitivity, so no sympathy from me in that quarter either. No matter how strongly you believe in something, you shouldn't impose your views on other people. But that goes for the pro-free-speechers too.

3. So what should I say when people ask me what I think about the cartoons?

I would say two things: one, people should have more consideration for others and be less overreactive; and two, fundamentalists are scary, so don't poke them in the ribs to see if they're ticklish. As my brother says, I don't step on your toes, you don't step on me. Free speech is important, but this wasn't a fight for that; it was a tasteless manoeuvre to provoke a religious group that's not only raw from recent hurts (hence the reluctance of Bush and Blair to stand up now for the supposed cause of free speech) but has also proved to be armed and suicidally dangerous.

Unfortunately for Denmark, its historical connection with Shakespeare lends the situation to all kinds of awful puns, so I would also seize the opportunity to make a witty comment about rottenness and perhaps Danish pastries as well. :)

* * * * * *


I always, always forget that I should never start an argucussion with my mother on life, religion, politics, philosophy, or anything that can possibly be argucussed (haha maybe that's where the word came from).

Me, announcing at dinner:
I don't believe in human rights.

My mother:
How can you say that? Everyone has a right to the resources that God has put upon this earth. Everyone has a right to God's love. People should share their wealth with others. They might be rich, but the poor people are rich in spirituality. If the rich people give money to the poor people, they will be rewarded. I tell you ah, human beings are so selfish these days. They don't even help their fellow men. Do you know that Africans are really poor? How would you feel if you were born in Africa?

Me:
Look! Moses is standing outside! (flees upstairs)

Sigh I always make fun of my mother, I sure go to hell one.

 posted by zyn :: 5:25 PM :: 8 Comments :: permalink


--------------------------------------------------------::--------------------------------------------------------