OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[M Holmes]

Paul Mather writes:

> > 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. :-)

I appreciate the sentiment, but really I get enough of that at work, so
I'll stick to the shorthand. If someone mistaes me for a racist then
I'll live with it until I can put them straight.

> > > 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?

Sure, but often they're not trying this hard to get on TV. These guys in
large part had placards in English because they knew that by burning
flags and Embassies they'd get on Western TV. I agree that this makes
our TV dumber than shit too, but we've known that since before Hawkwind
started out.

> 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?)

In fact I have the suspicion that by refusing to show these we not only
set up an underground market for them amongst the terminally sick in the
head, but miss a chance to show the Muslim Brotherhood (to give Al Queda
its correct name) for the simple savages they are. I take your point
about protecting the relatives though.

> Going by what you've said, three blokes shopped this "controversy"
> around for ages trying to get it to catch light.

Yup. I gather one of 'em has admitted it.

> 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.

The Syrian government want anything but Hariri on TV. I have to wonder
if the Bush folks wouldn't like something to replace endless questions
about whether spying on his own citizens is ilegall mightn't serve him
well too. It's not just despotic arab governments that play the
distraction game.

> 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.

I've talked to quite a few people about this and I'm heartened to say
that people are pretty clear that it's the halfwits they're worried
about rather than Islam in general. Of course it's likely that the
demographic that speaks to me isn't entirely representative.

> 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.

All I can say is that it is for me. As far as the rest goes I'd *like*
arab people to have more liberty too but I do not believe that this can be
achieved by bombing them.

> > > (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.

Which is why I've said we need to make common cause with such muslims
where they will rein in the halfwits. Unfortunately we've had to be
rather patient for that to start to happen in local parts. It's
interesting that it's these cartoons that seem to have broken the dam,
though the Hamza verdict coming at the same time might have indicated
that we're finally willing to do our part too - I believe that half of
the problem since Rushdie has been our own governments soft-soaping on
terror speech. We can't expect rational British muslims to dob in the
nutters if they don't have confidence we'll do something about it when
we're given information.

> > > 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.

Sadly true.

> > > 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?

It's not exactly nebulous.  Already MSP's are trying to push legislation
covering European newspapers to prevent this happening again.  The
nutters *know* that if they throw enough toys out of the pram, there are
nutters in our Parliaments who will give them what they're screaming
for.  For every reaction there's an equal and opposite overreaction.

> > > 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?

We can fight on both fronts.  I won't say I'm as active as I was when
younger, but I've been in the front lines here a few times.  Luckily in
Britain it's mostly bureaucratic drudgery rather than the sort of facing
death threats that the Euro news editors are looking at.

FoFP