The Guardian on Those Cartoons.

The Guardian leader:

The right to freedom of speech which allows newspapers to publish such
provocative cartoons has been hard won, is inextricably essential to
liberty, must be robustly defended and has sometimes to be
controversially asserted. If free speech is to be meaningful, moreover,
the right to it cannot shirk from embracing views that a majority – or
a minority – finds distasteful, even on occasions bitterly so. All
those considerations point towards a case for wider publication of
cartoons which, even though offensive and provocative, say something
about uncomfortable issues that are central to the modern world and
have triggered an anguished debate in Europe and elsewhere.

Quite, spot on. Ah, but:

Context matters very much in the case of the cartoons of Muhammad too.
It is one thing to assert the right to publish an image of the prophet.
As long as that is not illegal – and not even the government’s amended
religious hatred bill makes it so – then that right undoubtedly exists.
But it is another thing to put that right to the test, especially when
to do so inevitably causes offence to many Muslims and, even more so,
when there is currently such a powerful need to craft a more inclusive
public culture which can embrace them and their faith. That is why the
defiant republication of the cartoons in some parts of Europe (some of
them with far less good histories of intercommunal relations than this
country) is more questionable than it may appear at first sight. That
is also why the restraint of most of the British press may be the wiser
course – at least for now. There has to be a very good reason for
giving gratuitous offence of this kind. Yesterday’s acquittal of two
British National party officials on race hatred charges for attacking
Islam – and the triumphalist scenes as the two freed men emerged from
court – are part of the context that must be weighed in asserting any
right to publish cartoons that offend Muslims. So too is the political
situation in Denmark itself, where the cartoons were first published,
and where a large and strongly anti-immigrant party provides part of
the parliamentary coalition supporting Denmark’s centre-right
government.

As Polly said, it’s self-censorship, the wave that comes before the intricacies of the law, that is the real problem.

8 responses

  1. Strange innit – the Guardian’s willing to offend the “right” groups (Americans, Christian’s, Unionists, Zionists) but one whiff of Muslim disapproval and they crap themselves. Mealy-mouthed bunch…

  2. “Context matters very much in the case of the cartoons of Muhammad too. ”
    Creeps. All of them.
    The context behind the original publication was that an author could not get anyone to illustrate his book for fear of death threats.
    This sparked a two week long debate which culminated in JP asking for submissions and publishing 12 of the results.
    This only arose because the Danes felt that too much ground had already been conceded to the extremists.
    The Guardian leader is outrageous given the context to which it so duplicitiously appeals.
    My full analysis/rant here:
    http://infinitivesunsplit.blogspot.com/2006/02/where-is-our-spine-damnit.html
    and, now that Blogger appears to be back up, you can add a FUCK YEAH! for the Danes here:
    http://infinitivesunsplit.blogspot.com/2006/02/danes-and-free-speech-fck-yeah.html

  3. the triumphalist scenes as the two freed men emerged from court
    I love that word triumphalist. The BNP are a pretty despicable bunch but what exactly does the Guardian expect its supporters to do? I love the way the Guardian interprets a failure to convict as evidence of a racist backlash.

  4. Bah humbug Avatar
    Bah humbug

    This is all very well – the Guardian is hypocritical here of course. But why just focus on the Guardian?
    The Times and the Telegraph and the Independent also wrote declarations of their love for free speech and then wriggled out of implementing them. The Spectator put the pictures on their website and then took them down. Are they any better?

  5. Bah humbug: absolutely fair point.
    No backbone, any of them.

  6. Bh: Nope; they are all just as cowardly.

  7. What I want to know is when are we going to get an apology from Jack Straw for his gratuitous insult to the principles of free speech and democracy with such comments as “I believe that the republication of these cartoons has been insulting, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong.”
    That a democratically-elected politician in a free country could insult and betray its principles in such a manner is outrageous.
    If Jack Straw had a flag, I’d burn it.

  8. I don’t know about this. I’m all in favour of free speech but this was gratuitous slander; having a go a Zionism for instance in the context of protest seems fine as would a caricature of an Islamic fundamentalist in a similar context but this is just gratuitous and childish. It seems too similar to Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda to me so we’re getting into hypocritical waters with this issue and the propaganda machine is going into overdrive trying to portray all Muslims as seething uncivilized reactionary hoards. This who debacle smells bad to me.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading