OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[Paul Mather]

On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 20:28 +0000, M Holmes wrote:
> Paul Mather writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 14:33 +0000, M Holmes wrote:
>
> > The thing that amuses me about this fracas is
> > that it is so easy to froth against "arab governments" and "arabs in
> > general" and all other manner of (increasingly racist in this thread)
> > stereotypes
>
> Is using a stereotype protesting arab for shorthand necessarily racist?

I think there is a misunderstanding, here.  When I wrote "in this
thread" I didn't mean that posting specifically; I meant in the whole
thread to date.  In particular, I was perturbed by the increasingly
simplistic stereotypes of religious people, and how, mathematically
speaking, it didn't seem to hold up to reality.  I even made quite a
mention of it in a previous posting, and hoped that might speak to the
issue, but I guess, like me, not everyone has been reading all the
postings of this thread.

> Are we to insert instead at every reference "those arabs who are burning
> flags, but only those arabs who are burning flags and not the vast
> majority of arabs who couldn't care less what cartoons are published in
> Denmark"? Or can we just take it as read?

I'd prefer the former, because it has a better context to keep the
argument grounded in reality than the shorthand. :-)

> > because the target is easy to caricaturise and point the
> > finger at
>
> Well y'know, that's really just because they tried so hard to get on
> the rest of the world's TV screens doing stupid shit. If they put in
> that much effort then I'm not gonna deny them a little finger-pointing.

Lots of people do stupid things all the time, but do they end up on the
TV?  Have you ever heard of giving something the oxygen of publicity?
(I mean, wasn't that the argument against showing the Daniel Pearl and
other beheading videos on the national TV news---that and it might be
grossly offensive, as well as possibly insensitive to the surviving
relatives.  Was it "cowardice," to reference one of your other postings,
for reporters to refer to these videos in reports without actually
showing them as you seem to suggest is the case with the British press
and the cartoons?)

Going by what you've said, three blokes shopped this "controversy"
around for ages trying to get it to catch light.  Eventually, someone
bit.  Right now, some opportunistic governments (such as Syria and Iran)
have decided it plays to their current machinations to permit some
embassies to get burned down and do some sabre rattling by banning all
Danish imports, amongst other things.  On the other side, this is a
great opportunity to stoke up more Islamophobia, which seems to be the
current paranoia du jour, at least in the West.  All the piling on is
convenient posturing.  Given the grave inconsistencies on both sides
shouting at each other, you'd be hard pressed, hand on heart, that this
was about freedom of speech.

> > (BTW, numerically speaking, isn't your average muslim
> > face going to look South-East Asian, not Arabic in this thread?)
>
> Possibly, but they're not the guys burning down Embassies and demanding
> the chopping off of heads.

Exactomundo!  That's precisely what I think is getting lost in all the
froth: the fact that it is a tiny minority that are exploiting this
incident for its own political ends.  Unfortunately, stereotyping and
generalisation means that we have a lot of splash damage in which the
vast majority of muslims are being tagged with intents to do us harm
that simply is not there.  The net effect is to increase distrust of all
muslims, not just the idiots and troublemakers that are stirring the
pot.  That hardly helps matters.

> > When everyone is calling on newspapers and media to "stand up for free
> > speech" and publish a bunch of cartoons "because they can," why aren't
> > they also asking them to publish about the messier side of the Iraq
> > conflict "because they can?"
>
> I suspect it's quit selling newspapers. It's sad I know, but even being
> lied into a war gets old where much of the population is concerned.

That's the other thing that disturbs me about this whole affair: it
smacks of "fad controversy of the moment."  I suppose like looking for
Natalie in Aruba, folks or (more pertinently) the media will get bored
of it when it "gets old," as you say, and move on to something else.

> > It's all very well to demand we and our newspapers stand up against
> > "arab governments."  How about being just as vigorous in standing up to
> > our own, though?
>
> It'd be great, but you have to admit that holding our breath in the
> meanwhile probably wouldn't be a good plan.

Yet we are supposed to stand up to the nebulous cartoon-banning menace
for the sake of the little children and future generations?  Although
you could make that argument on the grounds of pragmatics (i.e., it's
far easier to stand up to something that will likely have little or no
direct impact on your life), it seems oddly out of place in a thread
which has been fixated on sticking to the sheer principle of it.

> > Surely that's more important (albeit more difficult)? IMO, this
> > cartoons outrage is just hypocrisy.  There are worse problems closer
> > to home.
>
> Possibly, but the only chance you'll have of persuading people of it is
> to retain some vestige of freedom of speech.

If we only have the illusion of free speech at home, what is the point
in worrying whether or not the nebulous cartoon-banners overseas want to
deny us it, too?  Isn't it more important to get our own house in order
first?  Otherwise, that's a bit like having your house burning down
around you, but feeling chuffed because you stopped your neighbours who
were threatening to take a bic lighter to your dog kennel in the back
garden.

Cheers,

Paul.
--
e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
 deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
        --- Frank Vincent Zappa