Touche

Iran to publish Holocaust cartoons.

"Iran's largest selling newspaper announced today it was holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. "It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper....
"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons."

Now, I highly doubt that any tribal members will be calling to blow things up, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that I'm eagerly awaiting the response -- and yes, the obvious "differences" are very clear to me, but still, freedom of expression is freedom of expression, right? Sort of reminds me of a story I heard about one of the Ivy League schools. Apparently some Southern students decided to fly a confederate flag out their window and not a thing was done despite months of complaints from certain black students on campus. So then one of the bruthas decided he'd fly a swatstika out his window to see if it would receive the same "our hands are tied" response. What happened? Yup, the swatstika came down the next day.

Comments

[encyclopedia]

Jackie, allow me to retort:

1. It's a lot different for a newspaper that prints only what a totalitarian government will allow it to print to sponsor a Holocaust cartoon contest than it is for a newspaper in a society with press freedom to publish cartoons involving Muhammad.

2. The point of the Danish cartoons was, at least in part, to satirize and criticize the connection between Islam and violence (which we vividly saw on 9/11). What, exactly, is the point of cartoons mocking the Holocaust? But in, any event, under my liberal standards, it's fine if an Iranian paper wants to respond by printing such cartoons, and I can't imagine anyone resorting to violence in response to such drawings, no matter how crude. This Holocaust contest is not going to unmask a Western double standard. It will only reinforce that a significant segment of Islamic society remains mired in virulent, medieval anti-Semiticism.

3. I remember the confederate flag/swastika issue at Harvard. First, I think whoever hung the latter flag had a point that the university had the power to cause the confederate flag to be taken down, but I don't think that making that point is worth associating yourself with Nazis. Second, I think that although it's hard to judge these issues, the swastika is qualitatively more offensive than the rebel flag. Did the Stars and Bars on the General Lee bother anyone who watched the Dukes of Hazzard?

4. Finally, I have no patience for people who get so "offended" by purported blasphemy that occurs thousands of miles away that they begin to riot. If devout Muslims don't like cartoons of Muhammad, fine. But we shouldn't have to live according to their taboos (to paraphrase Andrew Sullivan). What's next? Will they seek to ban bacon in the West as well?

In any event, I think if you believe that you have to avenge your god or your prophet with acts of violence in response to words or drawings, you're living in the stone age. At this point, the West needs to tell these protestors to fuck off, and not give an inch on free speech.

[Jackie]

Solid points as always, Encyclopedia. Responses:

(1)"It's a lot different for a newspaper that prints only what a totalitarian government will allow it to print to sponsor a Holocaust cartoon contest than it is for a newspaper in a society with press freedom to publish cartoons involving Muhammad."

Fair point, but I don't see how that changes the challenge they've laid down --"so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons." (I should say though that I don't think simply refusing to print cartoons that a paper does not find to be funny somehow illustrates hypocrisy when it comes to freedom of expression.)

(2)"The point of the Danish cartoons was, at least in part, to satirize and criticize the connection between Islam and violence (which we vividly saw on 9/11). What, exactly, is the point of cartoons mocking the Holocaust?"

I guess the answer to that would be precisely the reason that's been stated. To expose what they believe to be a double standard. Like I said, I understand the glaring differences between the situations, and I find it difficult to imagine a cartoon about the holocaust that could be funny, but I don't think you can flatly say that these guys have no point whatsoever, and I also don't think you can say some of them don't feel the same way about caricaturizing Muhammed.

(3) "First, I think whoever hung the latter flag had a point that the university had the power to cause the confederate flag to be taken down, but I don't think that making that point is worth associating yourself with Nazis."

I think the notion that the student was "associating himself with the Nazis" goes too far. Perhaps it's a matter of opinion, but when I first heard the story that never crossed my mind, and quite frankly, it never has. Rather, I've always thought the student made a shrewd move and put the University's ass directly on front street.

(3) "Second, I think that although it's hard to judge these issues, the swastika is qualitatively more offensive than the rebel flag. Did the Stars and Bars on the General Lee bother anyone who watched the Dukes of Hazzard?"

I'm just gonna leave that one as "hard to judge." Yeah, I guess your Hazzard's points displays that the rebel flag doesn't always conjure up offensive feelings, but we all know that an old black man who grew up in the South is never buying the notion that a Swatstika is more offensive. (And what about South Park -- I know, it was only a single episode.) Anyway, I really don't think there's a right or wrong in terms of the degree of offensiveness of the two. Bottom line, there are a whole lot of people who find both of them incredibly repulsive.

(4) Finally, I have no patience for people who get so "offended" by purported blasphemy that occurs thousands of miles away that they begin to riot. If devout Muslims don't like cartoons of Muhammad, fine. But we shouldn't have to live according to their taboos (to paraphrase Andrew Sullivan). What's next? Will they seek to ban bacon in the West as well?

Wholeheartedly agree. And listen, they start fucking with my bacon, we're gonna have some serious problems. I eat a Pig's Ass Ya Cook it Right!!!

"In any event, I think if you believe that you have to avenge your god or your prophet with acts of violence in response to words or drawings, you're living in the stone age. At this point, the West needs to tell these protestors to fuck off, and not give an inch on free speech."

Again, agreed. Wholeheartedly.

Good stuff.

[Bluehorseshoe]

This is actually pretty dumb on the part of the Iranians. However distasteful these cartoons will be, I doubt whether we are going to see Rabbis petrol bombing the Iranian Embassy. The differences in response by western nations and jewish groups will actually highlight the yawning gulf between enlightened, western, secular democracy and the backwardness, insularity and 15th Century thinking of much of what professes to be Islam today.

[Shoes]

Great commentary. My only thought is what did the Jews have to do with these cartoons in the first place? Its like whatever happens to these backward Muslims, they blame on the Jews.
They are doing a pretty good job of showing the true colors of their so called "peaceful religion".

[Cozmo]

Shoes,

You are forgetting the simple fact that everything is the fault of the Jews.

I mean, I haven't been able to post much here because of my daily flights to Western Europe to encourage newspapers to continue to publish these cartoons. (Well, that and my titanic workout schedule). Between that and controlling the banks and Hollywood, I'm bushed.

[Bluehorseshoe]

well Cozmo, you are gonna love this post

"What British Muslims Believe"

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/

It looks like you've been hanging with the Freemasons as well. Welcome to my world - EUarabia...

[Cozmo]

Jackie,

-Essentially, what Encyclopedia said - solid postage, my man.

But in addition, the two sitautions are in no way analagous. Two flags which represent racist, offensive defeated regimes flying in Harvard Yard merely offended the sensibilities of different people, and I agree with you, exposed a double standard.

As you have already said, not publishing an article or cartoon is not the contrapositive of the European free-speech argument. I believe that Iran is in no way trying to expose any double standard here, just using this as an opportunity to bring Arab media attention to their farcical "conference" on Holocaust revisionism.

However, I guess it is a stretch to ask a people with no concept of free thought (i.e. modern-day Iran) to be able to think clearly about it.

[Cozmo]

- BH

The Free Masons have the high-brow stuff, like The Economist & the New Yorker. We have the low-brow gratuitous nuditity and violence, and US Weekly. We only get together with the Masons for special meetings, and to decide elections.

Seriously though - Not. Surprising.

Something about total submission to the will of God short-circuits the brain, I think.

[Coop]

"However, I guess it is a stretch to ask a people with no concept of free thought (i.e. modern-day Iran) to be able to think clearly about it."

Correctamundo

[Maine]

"Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people, living in peace."

I know it's an unpopular stance, but if people could learn to just do right by each other because it's the right thing to do instead of because they're trying to impress their concept of a god, none of this crap would happen.

[Frank]

Consider this a timely plug for one of the books listed in the What We're Readin' section of the blog. You guess which one.

[Coop]

"but if people could learn to just do right by each other because it's the right thing to do instead of because they're trying to impress their concept of a god"

To religious fanatics, impressing their concept of a god is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, the differences in Western and Eastern ethics make it diffcult to have a universally agreed-upon set of moral standards. It shouldn't be that complicated, but it is.

[bizarro elaine]

How about a cartoon depicting the Pope butt-f**king an alter boy? or, better yet, JC? Freedom of speech is one thing but sometimes it just goes too far. I think the "do unto others" rule should be the litmus test. Christians around the world would be outraged and mortified at this kind of satire directed at thier God (except they wouldn't because no maintstream western newspaper would ever run that knid of cartoon).

BTW - I never watched the Dukes of Hazard specifically because of the rebel flag and glaring lack of negroes on the show. Millions of Jews died in the Holocaust and that was horrible and inexcusable. Care to venture a guess as to how many blacks were beaten, raped, maimed, and murdered while staring into the vortex of a rebel flag?

"swastika is qualitatively more offensive than the rebel flag" for whom? Hitler didn't rape my great grandmother and forever change the course of my family bloodline - that was Old Master Luke Duke, Sr.

[Maine]

Agreeing upon moral standards is the simplest thing on earth.

Treat others the way you want to be treated.

Nothing else matters. Anything more opens the door to bullshit and corruption.

Oh, and ditto on the rebel flag thing. I used to watch Dukes when I was a kid, and my mom would be like, "I can't believe you like that crap." When I got older and learned US history, I kinda figured out what she was getting at.

[Bluehorseshoe]

the pope buttfucking an alterboy? Well considering most of the Priests in the Boston Diocese have been convicted of similar acts I'd say its hitting pretty close.

Now if this was published you'd expect Teddy K, Kerry and a bunch of other prominent Catholics to be shocked, appalled or even sue. However they wouldn't kill people (Kill again in the case of both of these guys...)

The issue is not whether it offends, but how that offence is demonsrtated. Firebombing embassies is not the right way in a civilised society. If somebodies "God" is so weak it cant take some mortal lampooning, it aint much of a god now is it.

[Casey]

My only comment on this gauntlet laid down by the Iranian Newspaper is, what if we don't riot, then what? You print those cartoons, we show outrage but remain level-headed enough not to burn anything to the ground, do you then issue an apology stating, "we're sorry for publishing those cartoons and burning various embassy's, risking the lives of those inside, we didn't realize that you DO respect free speech"?

I think the real problem is, they don't have Fox Television in Iran. Because if they did, they would be so desensitized to blasphemy and all other causes for outrage, that this would not even phaze them. It is for this reason that the whole thing won't raise an eyebrow in this country - Jesus being tortured, been there, done that (thanks Mel), Priests having sex with little boys, we laugh it off with South Park.

I'd say the West is either completely at peace with how insane it is, or just completely insane. Either way, this won't amount to a hill of beans in the U.S.

[Kramer]

Leave it to the Muslims to conjure up a proportionate response.

[aaron]

encyclopedia, I was totally with you until the swastika/rebel flag thing. I'm sure it's just a matter of perspective, but to a black man that grew up in the deep south, and tormented by gangs of "rebels" that drove around in their pickup trucks with lifesize flags mounted in the back of them of the "bars and stars", yelling nigger at black people who walked on the street. I probably am less sensitive to the swastika, as it was college before I learned that jews were any more different of a group than catholics were (they were both going to hell according to my church), depsite having a Jewish best friend in both elementary school and high school (I know, some of my best friends are Jews!). Again, it's probably perspective, but I cannot imagine how I could ever be convinced that the swastika is "qualitatively" more offensive that the rebel flag. just not buying it.

[Bobby P]

FWIW, I see about 1000% more rebel flags than I do Nazi ones. Check that, maybe even 10,000% to 100,000% more.

Granted, I live in the south, so it's to be expected a bit. But outside of very small groups in very small corners of the US, the Swastika is rarely seen. I think, on a whole, if you polled every American, close to 80% to 90%, if not more would say the Nazi flag is more offensive.

Now, that's not to discount individuals personal experiences, I'm just stating what I think you would see.

[Kramer]

Am I out of line to say that lets cut with all the idle chit chat and just have our Crusades reenactment.

You down?

[Coop]

"Treat others the way you want to be treated."

That would assume that everyone has an equal standard of how they wish to be treated. That's the problem with the utopian concept -- it assumes absolute equality.

[Bluehorseshoe]

I'm up for the Crusades re-enact - just as long as Orlando Bloom isn't in it

[Kramer]

I want him in my version and he dies badly.

[Hard Six]

Dibs on maiming Kutch

[howard in new york]

the iranian call for cartoons mocking the holocaust is beyond the pale. this just plays into the hands of the cabal trying to force the lie that the holocaust actually occurred. such a contest detracts from the truth that there WAS NO HOLOCAUST--another lie of the jewish media.

i remember reading about the swastika incident; i loved it. sounds like something i would have done.