Hypocrisy and Freedom of Speech
Uncategorized March 12th, 2008The Guardian today published an article about an ad being banned because it is considered offensive to Christians. So, when the cartoons are offending the Muslims its freedom of speech and when its offending the Christians it is banned?
I think this is the exact definition of hypocrisy.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
I think it’s problematic when this gets framed as an act on the part of whole countries, or the West gets kind of lumped together as a single entity that wholly chose to or chose not to do something. AFAIK anyways no British papers published the cartoons, and the ones that did in the name of “free speech” are on the right wing end of the political spectrum as far as I know, as was that one magazine in Canada that published them.
The vast majority of the Western press chose not to, the ones that did seemed to do so because they saw it as an oppourtunity to appeal to the angry audience base that they were already serving. I think that point is a little obvious, but I think it’s important to look at what these particular papers did as a drop in the bucket, very reflective of the tone and stance they normally take, which is why they revel in getting a reaction and framing this as an act of free speech. I also think it’s really important to put these papers and what they do into perspective, and evaluate the papers for what they are in and of themselves, and not as a reflection of the society’s values as a whole, though what they do reflect is troubling. Obviously “we” need to not think of the Middle East in this way as well.
ALSO you might find this interesting.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/11/five-advertisers-drop-savage/
March 14th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Nadia,
I think it’s problematic when this gets framed as an act on the part of whole countries, or the West gets kind of lumped together as a single entity that wholly chose to or chose not to do something.
I was waiting for someone to say that. This is the exact same way any terrorist act made by some Muslims is generalized to all Muslims to be terrorists. This is how the western media pictures Muslims, and this is how I wanted to picture the western media.
And by the way, in Britain, what is worse than republishing the cartoons in the newspapers was done. BBC and Channel 4 broadcast some of these cartoons. How many people watch the BBC and channel 4 do you think?
March 14th, 2008 at 3:51 am
This is the exact same way any terrorist act made by some Muslims is generalized to all Muslims to be terrorists. This is how the western media pictures Muslims, and this is how I wanted to picture the western media.
Oh ok I’m glad you brought this up, this is what I think is the real issue as well. Because the problem was framed as either “apologize for the cartoons or don’t apologize for them,” but my problem with cherry picking the cartoons as an issue to me totally trivializes that general perception that is the much larger problem, and just taking them down and apologizing for them wouldn’t solve anything, I think they are just the tip of the iceberg.
But I guess what I’m not totally clear on is if your portrayal of the Western media as a whole as such is rhetorical or sincere?
The Danish paper’s intention with hosting the cartoon contest is unequivocally bigoted, there’s no other interpretation of their intention than malice. I would say the same thing for any one that posted the cartoons as a statement of supporting them. I think in most cases that “freedom of speech” as an excuse was a bullshit one, but I don’t think that was the position the BBC was taking if I remember correctly. A few years ago here a Jewish cemetery as desecrated, the papers printed photos of the graffiti and repeated the content of it which actually broke hate laws here, but it wasn’t a statement of support, it was to expose the problem. So I don’t know that I would necessarily put the BBC was doing in the same category as either.
By the way I just actually read the post below, someone is looking out for you.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Nadia,
Why, in your opinion, the Muslims did not do cartoons on Jesus as a response to the Danish cartoons?
It is because Muslims believe that Jesus is a prophet also. And Muslims bound by religion to believe in God, and ALL the prophets he sent to people and all the divine books they bring along (Quran, Bible,..etc.) And because of the belief, Muslims can not react to this insult by a similar one. Because insulting Jesus, is an insult to all religions, just as insulting Prophet Mohammed.
This is why many muslims, who are not terrorists condemned the murder of the Father Paulos Faraj Rahho.
The western media, has succeeded in attaching the word “terrorist” to the word “Muslim”. Crimes should not be generalized. A long time ago, when I was about 5 years old. A thief tried to steal something from our house. And he was caught. And later on we found out that the guy is Christian. So, should I say that all Christians are thieves? Of course not. Religion is irrelevant to terrorism. Should Muslims attach the word terrorists to all Christians because the ones that participated in raping and burning the family of “Abeer” three years ago were Christians?
“Double standards” is the definition of democracy in many countries in the west. And I just want the people to feel how is it to be a part of a disgusting generalization.
March 14th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
BI, That was exactly the point I was making.
You should not have to tell me that many Muslims condemned terrorist acts. Why should every Muslim everywhere be associated with everything that someone who happens to be a Muslim has done, whether it’s in Nigeria or Malaysia? Why are they expected to apologize for something they had nothing to do with? Why are they held to such a standard? We don’t ask every white person if they condemn every racist murder that is committed. So why should we expected to apologize for everything that everyone that happens to be a citizen of our country has done? The very idea that it’s compulsory that they should is racist.
I think all people have a responsibility to challenge what they think is wrong in their society, however, I don’t think people are guilty because of their proximity to those that are the perpetrators of such acts. I think there’s a difference between condemning them and fighting their ideas, and apologizing on behalf of them.
March 14th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I hope that makes sense.
I just wanted to point out since you said it was a double standard, that Christianity has been pulled through the mud lots of times in our pop culture, the last example I can think of is that painting of the virgin mary with her tit made out of elephant dung.
I don’t think pulling an ad is the same as someone who is deliberately trying to be provocative, like in the example of the danish papers or the art show. these are examples of media that thrive in controversy and aren’t a very good point of comparison. That’s why I posted the article about the Muslim groups successfully getting advertisers to pull out of that bigoted radio show in the US, advertizing is a different medium and it responds to pressure because it is designed solely to make money and controversy hurts it.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Blog Iraqi,
Your Christian thief analogy doesn’t work. He wasn’t stealing from your house “in the name of Jesus and God.” Muslim terrorists are blowing up Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and whoever else happens to be standing there “in the name of Mohammed and Allah.” And let me be VERY CLEAR here: I do not think Muslim terrorists are at all representative of the far larger moderate Muslim community, but the brutal facts remain that Muslim fanatics are killing a lot on people in the name of Allah — and the majority of the people they are killing are Muslims. Go figure.
About the cartoons, if you want to live in the West, get used to our freedom of speech, which includes freedom to criticize anything we want — its part of our shared culture. Back in your own country, you can do what whatever is appropriate there. Nadia is in Sweden. It’s a very successful Western country with a highly educated citizenry. Freedom of speech is part of the culture. Blog Iraqi, you’re in the Sudan, right? Well, that’s a different story, isn’t it?
*
March 15th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Freedom of speech has never been absolute. Just because you are free to do something, it doesn’t mean you should, and just because you have the right to say something, you sure aren’t immune from criticism, especially if you’re a bigot.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Nadia,
I believe we are on the same page here.
Jeffery,
Freedom of speech does not include freedom of offense. This is the way I believe democracy should be. And regarding me being in Sudan, I do not think that is relevant to what we are talking about here.
And since the west is such a free space, why was the ad banned?
This is exactly why I wrote this post. Because you pretend to have freedom of speech and yet you censor and choose. The selectivity in freedom of speech is called “hypocrisy”.
March 15th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
BlogIraq of course its hypocrisy when they choose to ban it.
For people complaining about it that is within their rights, even if they wanted to take it to court and try it there it would be within their rights. But with all the fuss from media about the importance of freedom of speech the last months there is only one thing to say when they choose to ban it and that is hypocrisy, just as you said BlogIraqi.
I think it was just 2 weeks ago or a bit more that a politicians within the EU who said the cartoon with what some think is Mohammed with a bomb on his head (I personally am sure its Bush in a Halloweendress) should be published in all newspapers as a sign to the importance of freedom of speech. I wonder were that person is now? Is he working on making all TV stations showing this ad? So there is indeed a pretending to have freedom of speech, since censoring is used all the time.
I agree with you both BlogIraqi and Nadia there are unspoken unwritten limits to freedom of speech we use in our daily lives. For example I don’t stand up in the middle of a film in a cinema and say its burning when its not and then claiming its my right to say it because freedom of speech. If I sit next to a blind person in a party I don’t stand up and tell ridiculing jokes about blind people either, if I did I would get some very upset people and most likely not be invited again. Does that mean they are against freedom of speech? No its just shows that those who say there is no limits to freedom of speech don’t know what they are talking about, because there are limits. Limits we choose ourselves to put and limits our authorities put when they censor and ban ads such as the above. The difference is that when complaints come from Muslims other people seem to forget that.
Just some extra, there are upset Danish people these days because the Swedish Ikea have named some of its rugs in the names of Danish cities ; )
March 15th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
“Freedom of speech does not include freedom of offense.”
Yes it does. That is the whole point. People must be able to be rude and offensive and annoying. Otherwise, anybody can stand up and say “This book/picture/film is offending me. I demand that it be banned.” - and then there is no freedom of speech.
The worst situation is where “insulting the President” or “insulting the State” is a crime, as it is in many countries. But a ban on insulting religions is almost as bad.
If you are not allowed to “insult” religions, how is the person who believes that all religions are a wicked fraud to make his case?
March 15th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Another Nadia (you gotta pick another name please),
There are certain limits imposed to freedom. And as you said, some are imposed by people and some by the government.
Don,
A fresh example of the freedom limits is the new “saggy pants” law that bans the droopy pants in schools. It is banned because it is a symbol for demanding sex. And since the freedom of speech allows everyone to express themselves in anyway they want, school students should be able to express their desire to have sex. So, freedom does have boundaries. Forbidding Hijaab and religious symbols in France is an example of a boundary.
Why are TV channels forbidden to show pornographic contents during the day in some states? Its a boundary too. And as the ad that offended Christians was considered off the limit, the cartoons about the Muslim’s prophet should have been considered that way too.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
BlogIraqi my real name is Nadia so I’ll just keep my name Another Nadia when I visit you : ) I am Nadia from talkingaboutiraq blog.
Here is something you might find of interest to read with regards to hate speech etc:
KÅRE BLUITGEN (1959-)
Author (Who started the Cartoon Crisis in September 2005)
»Leftwing should start an offensive by parading through Nørrebrogade in Copenhagen, wearing Burkhas, Chadors and long coats, pushing a sea of folding prams and baby carriages and in the end, throw all this in a container at Blågårds square as well as splash the Quran with mensuration’s blood.«
From his book: ‘For the benefit of the blacks’, 2002, p.70
http://www.panhumanism.com/xenophobia/index.php
March 16th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Another Nadia,
I know its your name. Its just confusing to have more than one Nadia. One Nadia is enough (Just kidding)
It is clear that there are fanatics and extremists in every ethnic, religious, or any other group. And it is the duty of the moderate people to control the impulses of those fanatics.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
“It is clear that there are fanatics and extremists in every ethnic, religious, or any other group. And it is the duty of the moderate people to control the impulses of those fanatics.”
Absolutely right BlogIraqi!
March 16th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
You guys really don’t get it. Of course there are fanatics is any large social group, whether that group is united by ethnicity, religion, or nationality. But there is ONE GROUP today that is doing the vast majority of suicide-bombing in the world: Muslims. They’ve killed thousands of innocents on EVERY CONTINENT. Do you know of any Buddhist or Christian suicide bombers? Both here in New York and in your capital, Baghdad, Muslim fanatics have killed thousands of innocent people with absolutely no regard for their age, religious affiliation, or nationality. Bali, Madrid, and London: the list goes on.
If you can’t even see this, then you have a real problem.
But you’re right that the moderates within each group need to control the fanatics. I’d start by cleaning up the imams who preach hatred every Friday. Go to a mosque on Friday and listen to the imam, and then go to a Christian church on Sunday and listen to the sermon. You will never hear a priest or a pastor telling its congregation that they need to kill others. Islam needs to reform itself.
*
March 16th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
You will never hear a priest or a pastor telling its congregation that they need to kill others.
No you can find some, Pat Robertson, off the top of my head.
I read 4 blogs by other people named Nadia, true story, I had no idea my name was so common before the internet.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
It’s very typical, friend. Very typical. Come here and see a lot more similar stuff!
March 16th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
But even Pat Robertson doesn’t call for the deaths of writers who suggest that Christians are free to follow other religions.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
He’s called for the deaths of quite a few people.
But I mean I could pull quite a few examples-like look at John McCain’s spiritual adviser, or that the only terrorists to kill people in the country where I live have been catholic and Sikh separatists.
Then there’s the Lord’s resistance army in Uganda, the Phalange and LF in Lebanon, the killing going on in the Congo and Central Africa, the suicide bombers among Tamils who are 90% Hindu, the racist gangs killing brown people in Moscow etcetc. That is not to say that Muslims do not have problems, but they are not the only ones to have problems.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Jeffery,
Since we don’t get it. I would like you to explain to me how an ad that is considered offensive to Christianity is banned, while the cartoons that are offensive to Muslims are considered part of freedom of speech?
In my humble understanding, this is called hypocrisy.
So, please you the “wise-one” explain it to our humble Muslim minds.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Well to be fair, Valley of the Wolves is incredibly offensive to humanity and it played all around Europe.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Thanks for your very thoughtful remarks at Mojo. I always learn from you.
BlogIraqi, what private citizens say is none of their government’s business, as long as it does not intrude into the freedom of others.
Governments should not censor almost anything.
This said, I believe in an old Sanskrit dictum:
Speak the Truth, Speak Sweetly, Do not speak truth that is not sweet.
But that is my own value system. Governments do not have the right to impose it on others.
I do not think that offensive speach should be censored.
I look foward to more comments on Mojo.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Most Western countries outside of the states do have some kind of hate laws though, and freedom of speech is not absolute.
Jeffery is arguing about how correct the cartoons are now, not whether they should be “censored” which is quite a different debate.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Nadia I remember the comedy movie Life of Brian and it was actually banned in Norway in the seventies for being too against Christ in some sort of way.
And the same Danish newspaper that published the cartoon that is supposed to be the prophet refused to publish Christian cartoons a few months to that because it was seen as wrong.
And how often have we heard or read about upset people in the US because the US media sometimes dare to show the reality of war. Its their right to get upset but many of them have asked for such news not to be published as it is seen as being for the terrorists or not supporting the troops as some US politicians say.
As for Pat Robertson wasn’t it him who said on tv that the U.S should kill the president of Valenzuela?
Lets also always remember that Bush and Blair both who claim to be very religious have chosen to talk about killing and torturing other people the last years and acted upon it too. Just because they are white and elected doesn’t mean their actions are less criminal. Hitler was elected too and today is seen by the world as a war criminal.
And the Vatican did actually give him support.
Here is something from Rwanda:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2004/04/05/international/20040406_RWAN_AUDIOSS.html
March 17th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
You are absolutely right Nadia there are laws against hate speech in many countries.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Nadia,
The subject of this post is to show that freedom of speech in western countries is selectively applied. And this selectivity is just one of the reasons the fanatics use as an excuse to their attacks.
So, if it is a censored freedom of speech where religions should not be offended, the cartoons should have not been published. And if it is an absolute freedom of speech, then the Christianity-offensive ad should have not been banned. That is my whole point.
Another Nadia,
I have not heard of that movie. I will look into it. Thanks.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
OK, but still, Valley of the Wolves is offensive to a lot of people, but still wasn’t banned in Europe.
I also can’t help but notice that people have said negative things about Muslims on this blog, and you chose not to delete them, so do you think that this is always the best policy, or is it simply a matter of specific hipocrisy on the Danish paper’s part?
March 18th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Nadia,
I agree that valley of the wolves was indeed offensive.
The negative things about Muslims that Jeffery and some other rats might write here are a living example of how a big slice of the American community thinks of Muslims. And it is something I want to keep to remind the readers of that. And since its inside a discussion about Islam and freedom of speech, it has to stay. Although, this does have some limits for me. I mean I will not keep a comment where open insult to God or the prophet exist.
And I remember once writing a note to a commenter not to offend the religious figures in my blog.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Give me a break. A Danish newspaper published cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims. How many people were killed around the world in resulting protests? How many buildings, cars and other pieces of property were burned or destroyed? Anyone ever heard of South Park? They show animations of Jesus pooping on people, and they had an episode where Stan killed Jesus by stabbing him in the neck. Good luck finding anyone that was killed, or anything that was burned as a result of this show, which is blatently and heart-wrenchingly offensive to me as a Christian. I didn’t go out and throw rocks at police and through windows though. I didn’t go murder someone or burn a U.S flag. Yet even South Park, which is at the epicenter of crude, culture-related toilet hurmor, decided against airing the Muslim cartoons. The vast majority of Muslims don’t kill people when they are offended, but the fact that enough do to make headlines in international news definitely says something. Muslims insult, berate, abuse, assault, kidnap, torture and kill Christians all the time in Middle Eastern countries, for no other reason than for being Christian. Maybe you should think about that before you use big words like hypocrisy…
March 19th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Andrew,
You, as a Christian, being quiet about something that offended you does not allow anyone to be offending to Muslims. Your choice to be quiet about it is probably why those people will keep offending your beliefs.
And every person chooses his own way to respond to offense. Some people invade countries because they feel offended.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Andrew maybe its your turn to think a bit more about what really has been said and done the last years. In democracies we see more and more of one rule for one group and one for another. Remember the Danish newspaper that printed the cartoon first the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons of Christ because it saw it as wrong. That is why we ask what about these double standards, what about this hypocrisy. Now BlogIraqi shows us an ad in England that has been banned where are the screamers of freedom of speech here? Asking questions and debating about it is in our full right as it is of USA people to screem ashole to a US soldiers who tells the world of US army war crimes in Iraq. And you have to agree that the traditional media is doing its upmost to avoid reporting what these guys testify about for war crimes committed by the US army in Iraq. So here we go again media chooses all the time so there is really no freedom o speech as they claim. There is censorship in democracies in a very hidden way and we all better admit it and stop pretending it does not.
By the way I suggest you get upset about illegal wars with millions of refugees and innocent dead people. I suggest you get upset over all the democracies that for decades and still today give active military, economically and political support to dictators and totalitarian regimes. Ask these democratic leaders what democratic values are we in the democratic world living up to when we support dictators and totalitarian regimes? You see over a milliard people on this planet can not find any democratic values in this partnership. So they see these dictators, these totalitarian regimes and the democratic regimes that support them as the same both suppress them, both take away their rights of freedom and respect of human rights.
So put the criticism where it belongs otherwise it is just empty words such as those who claim there is freedom of speech in the democratic media.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
One part that is very important with all the media focus the way it has been the last years is that Europe has a very terrible history that all of us must work to avoid it repeating itself again against other people. I am 100% sure that before the world war when the German and most other newspapers in Europe painted the picture of the Jews, Gipsies and homosexuals as the threats there where people who did not believe that and they where ridiculed, silenced, not given time to speak etc so that the only views out where that of we against them. This is what is happening now in Europe and this time its the Muslims that is the focus.
This is what the propaganda maker of the Nazi’s once said:
Horst Slesina
(former member of the Nazi propaganda ministry, Germany)
“It was a process which developed slowly but surely and took over whole sections of the population who had never thought about it before. A lot of them just talked about it, not necessarily believing it. But gradually their brains became fogged, and they started to say, ‘The Jews are our misfortune.’”
And we know what happened after that. So it is all our responsibility to stop this madness form happening against the Muslims this time.
The propaganda the Nazi’s used is used today, then it was wrong and this time to use improved propaganda and against Muslims by the west still makes it wrong.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005274
So what this got to do with freedom of speech? Well we have just talked about that there is double standards in the media in democracies and the defenders of free speech. This is used on a daily basis to spread muslim phobia.