The BBC program ‘Bloody Cartoons’ made interesting watching, not least for the double standards it exposed on both sides of the divide.
Some time ago the Danish newspaper, Jyllands Posten, carried some cartoons featuring a bearded person. To me he looked like Ali Baba’s father-in-law having a bad day. But bigots on both sides chose to assume that the character portrayed there was the Prophet Mohammed. Each side had its own agenda for such an interpretation.
The cartoons went unnoticed outside of Denmark until a Muslim cleric brought it to the notice of the Muslim world. About half a year later the manufactured ‘outrage over the insult’ resulted in widespread destruction of Danish and other western property in some Islamic countries.
None of the leaders, or any of their followers being exhorted to kill westerners, had even seen the cartoons. But that was irrelevant. The prejudices of one side were being matched by the ignorance of the other.
The presenter of the program interviewed a number of people on both sides including the Danish prime minister. Some of the Muslims interviewed were emphatic that insults to their religion, and especially blasphemy against the Prophet, would not be tolerated.
There was no mention of the blasphemy, intolerance and persecution that some Muslims practise against people of other faiths. There was no mention of the daily risks to life and limb, often institutionalised in many Islamic countries, for people belonging to other religions. There was no mention of the fact that some Muslims would willingly deny to other religions those rights that they demand for themselves. And there was no mention of the fact that in their adopted countries some of them seek to impose the very restrictions that they have fled from. They are oblivious to their distortions of Islam and the shame they bring upon their co-religionists.
On the other hand, the resolve to defend the freedom of speech sounded equally hypocritical.
The cartoonist and other people interviewed, mainly Danish and French, talked of the need to defend freedom of expression. But would such a claim stand up to scrutiny?
The western media has a long history of ignoring, glossing over or biased reporting on issues that are not part of their agenda. There have been instances galore in the western press where stories critical of Israel and her illegal occupation of Palestinian lands have been suppressed. In the United States, that so-called bastion of free speech, reporters, columnists and academics have seen their careers destroyed for daring to have a balanced view of the situation in the Middle East.
In the BBC program one of the Muslims interviewed tendentiously wondered why, if freedom of expression was so sacrosanct, did some countries have laws to prevent any questioning of the Holocaust? The line of reasoning was sick but correct.
The Danish premier who had earlier defended the right of freedom of expression suddenly lost his ardour for free speech when there was talk of boycotting Danish products in the Middle East. His principles, it turned out, weren’t in his heart or his head, but in his wallet.
Liberalism is very often a point of view we take when our vested interests are not at stake. Similarly, freedom of the press is often freedom for the owners and editors to publish what does not affect their profits.
So much cant about cartoons.
COMMENTS
Jan
For the reading pleasure of all who visit this site:
Link from the Atlantic Magazine
http://www.theatlantic.com/…
enjoy….
Jansan52
Jan
Or for that matter Christopher Hitchens’ “GOD is not GREAT”…
Jansan52
Jan
“If your GOD is WEAK he (definitely a HE) needs all the help he can get….”
Monotheism amongst all the “isms” is the most dangerous and intolerant “ism”. Simply because the fight always starts with “my god is the ONLY true GOD”…and the rest of you are infidels, goyim or unbelievers.
I recommend all your esteemed readers to beg, borrow, steal or buy (last resort) Prof. Richard Dawkin’s last book “The God Delusion”.
And may YOUR god go with you…
Jansan
© Percy Aaron

