Apparently, there is some great idea (sparked by cartoonist Molly Norris) that on 20th May, everybody should show defiance to Muslim extremists by drawing images of the prophet Muhammed - something that is outlawed in Islamic culture. This follows the news that US broadcaster Comedy Central edited an episode of South Park after death threats were implied against the show's makers for daring to include a scene with the Prophet, thereby creating an image of the Prophet; that said image portrayed Muhammed wearing a bear suit may or may not have had an impact on the reaction.
First up, I am a passionate defender of free speech. Death threats for things like this are seriously Not Okay, and actual murder (as happened in Denmark) even more Not Okay. The extremist folks behind this are dead wrong and I think defiance, anger, outrage, and "FYTP" are all perfectly good and reasonable reactions when shit like that goes down.
So, no matter what, the South Park team don't deserve to be threatened this way.
On the other hand, what they were doing was an extremely arseholish thing to do, and it is my feeling that this whole "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day" is arseholish in the same way.
You see, this isn't only going to offend the extremists. It's also going to offend millions upon millions of Muslims who have no particular wish to hurt or kill non-believers for any reason, but who are still passionate about their faith and their beliefs. People who would like their feelings and emotions and lives to be treated with respect. So when loads of Westerners of no particular faith, who perhaps don't understand what these rules mean to Muslim believers, set out with "Oh, teeheehee, let's go and break all their laws!" that's going to come across as - well - offensive.
While the message may be intended as "...counter Comedy Central's message they sent about feeling afraid" what millions of Muslims are going to hear is:
"We in the West don't give a shit about you, your culture, your beliefs, your feeling, your emotions. You are not our equals, you are lesser beings and deserve to be trampled on."
Now, I've just deleted a whole chunk of rant based purely on the quotations from Norris at the various sites that reported the story. After checking out Norris' own website, I realised that I was leaping to conclusions about her attitude to the whole matter. In fact, she probably is the only one who's acted with any class in this!
It seems that Norris herself recognised the problems inherent in the idea and asked for the whole thing to be called off:
My one-off cartoon of a fictional poster does not work well as a long-term plan.
The vitriol this 'day' has brought out, of people who only want to draw obscene images,
is offensive to the Muslims who did nothing to endanger our right to expression in the first place. Only Viacom and Revolution Muslim are to blame, so write to them instead!
I apologize to people of Muslim faith and ask that this 'day' be called off.
Thank you to those who are turning this crazy thing into an opportunity for dialogue, education and solutions.
On that link to Norris' own site, there's a new version in which Norris graffito-ed her own poster to express her feelings about what happened.
***
There are lessons in this for those of us who work in creative media: what we do may have massive effects if something strikes a chord with people's mood, and that may not always be a positive thing.
As I said, I think South Park aiming to show the prophet Muhammed in a bear suit was really dumb, puerile and pointlessly offensive. They didn't have to do that, and I think they deserve to be censured (but not censored) for such behaviour. Death threats? No, certainly not! But decent human beings who gave a shit about other people's feelings might have thought twice about how they dealt with it. Comedy Central pulling the show - if they'd made the editorial decision that it was A.O.K. to broadcast, then submitting to terrorist-style demands was not acceptable; but again, that they decided it was okay to broadcast means that they're not very nice people. In fact, the South Park producers and Comedy Central act like bullies, in my opinion. As long as they feel there's no comeback for their arseholery they'll do what they like and to heck with the consequences for anyone else. Just because they do it to everybody (which they do), doesn't make it okay.
I still don't think any of that makes the death threats okay, but in the spirit of the First Amendment (we don't have that over hear, but I appreciate the spirit), I think it's fair to say that (to paraphrase Voltaire badly) "I may loathe what you say, and defend your right to say it - but I also assert my right to call you a jerk for saying it!"
Norris' original cartoon poster was, I guess, intended as satire and to a certain extent I think it's valid art in that sense. My initial reaction to this was negative (as you can read in the first part of this post, I thought Norris and everyone else were just saying effectively, "Oh, teeheehee, let's go and break all their laws!") I now see that there was a specific point that Norris intended and that the point wasn't to piss anybody off. I think it probably was a misjudged piece of art, but valid nonetheless, and so if it does cause offence, that in itself is no reason to criticise Norris. There may be a certain amount of privilege showing itself in the way that Norris chose to make her point, but I think it was ultimately a fair comment.
That's what distinguishes Norris from South Park, and also from the people who gleefully jumped on board this idea. Norris shows she actually gives a shit about other people when it turns out that something she's done has caused a problem.
Fundamentally, I don't think being a jerk means you deserve to threatened with death (although sometimes I might dearly love to whack you round the face a few times). But if you don't want to be considered a jerk or an arsehole, DON'T ACT LIKE ONE. Pretty simple, really.
[NB: I looked at a couple of other cartoons on Norris' website and, TBH, I think she is an arsehole in a number of ways, and her quoted comment that "That's a cartoonist's job, to be non-PC" on the original news report really does indicate this; I just think that on this one, she did okay]
"As I said, I think South Park aiming to show the prophet Muhammed in a bear suit was really dumb, puerile and pointlessly offensive. They didn't have to do that, and I think they deserve to be censured (but not censored) for such behaviour. "
ReplyDeleteUm, have you ever watched South Park?
And why, exactly, are the beliefs that such offense is based on worthy of respect? Just because people strongly believe them? Well, you could say that about pretty much anything that people believe. Sure, we have to respect their right to hold such beliefs, but that by no means implies obligation to personally recognize them as valid.
ReplyDeleteProblem is, by showing deference to the fact that people are offended by these drawings, we implicitly endorse the legitimacy of their offense. A person is no less accountable for their religion than anything else they do, and people need to be called out on these things.
~AR
Hello ~AR.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe I was arguing respect for beliefs. I was arguing respect for human beings.
My piece very clearly states that extremists (whatever their religion) need to be called out on their behaviour, but the same can be said of anyone else.
The point that you have spectacularly missed is that offence should not be an end in itself (which is what it appears to be with the "draw Muhammed" thing) but if it occurs should be from making a valid point. If, in making a valid point about Islam or its founder, one were to draw Muhammed, then I would say that that is fair comment and nothing wrong with it. Indeed, if in making an intelligent joke one were to do the same, I would also find no problem with that. My objection is when people find causing offence to be in itself funny or desirable. As I said, I think that makes you an arsehole if you do that, and I assert my right to say so (freedom of speech an' all!)
To the anonymous commenter: yes, I've watched South Park, but I don't any longer, for reasons that will be obvious! Its humour seems to hinge almost entirely on causing offence. That is why I feel justified in calling Stone and Parker arseholes. They have every right to be arseholes, and I have every right to dislike them and their work because of it (and for those reasons, to choose not to watch South Park in the future).
And Muslims the world over have the right to do the same thing: choose not to watch. Simples!
I would argue that drawing the Prophet and pointing out that the mere existence of said drawing actually causes people deep personal offense, even if the portrayal is not otherwise offensive, is itself a valid criticism of their beliefs, namely, that there is something questionable about a worldview which prompts such a reaction over a drawing.
ReplyDeleteDraw Mohammad Day could be seen as making this criticism, and in that capacity it is not affecting innocent bystanders as you suggest, but it actually the ultimate in precision targeting, since it only criticizes Muslims who get offended by this sort of thing, so getting offended by it, ipso facto, makes someone the intended target of criticism.
~AR
I would argue that drawing the Prophet and pointing out that the mere existence of said drawing actually causes people deep personal offense, even if the portrayal is not otherwise offensive, is itself a valid criticism of their beliefs, namely, that there is something questionable about a worldview which prompts such a reaction over a drawing.
ReplyDeleteDraw Mohammad Day could be seen as making this criticism, and in that capacity it is not affecting innocent bystanders as you suggest, but it actually the ultimate in precision targeting, since it only criticizes Muslims who get offended by this sort of thing, so getting offended by it, ipso facto, makes someone the intended target of criticism.
Honestly, I think this is a barmy argument. One might as well say, "So, you don't like the colour of my tie? Well, I'll wear this colour of tie every day now to point out how silly it is of you not to like this colour of tie!" Then, of course, you're still "precision targeting" everyone who doesn't like that colour of tie! But it doesn't actually say ANYTHING about why a person might not like a particular colour of tie, and it doesn't say anything about people's reactions to other colours of tie either (which might be equally silly).
Would you make the same argument concerning a worldview that provokes huge reaction over the treatment of a shred of fabric with a particular pattern on it (that is, the flag of one's nation)? But I am sure you would not suggest that flag-burning is a valid criticism of those who love their country, would you? Most people burn a nation's flag because they wish to express their outrage at something that that nation (or nation's government) has done - not to say that patriotism itself is daft.
If, as you suggest, the point of Draw Muhammed Day is to point out "that there is something questionable about a worldview which prompts such a reaction over a drawing." then in fact it spectacularly misses the mark. Causing offence doesn't point out to anyone that there is something wrong with being offended! All it does is make people cross with you, which means any point you try to make gets lost in their (self-perceived righteous) anger.
Whatever you say, I am still going to find the whole thing childish and arseholish.
Incidentally - you gave yourself away with your last sentence: you're not interested in criticising a worldview: you are interested in criticising people not for anything they've done, but for what they feel. Moreover, I think this makes you a hypocrite of the highest order since, though their beliefs in themselves have no effect on you, you still take offence at them and what to punish others for them. That is just as silly a thing to get offended by as "the mere existence of [a] drawing".
Actually, I do think that offense over flag burning is ridiculous, and I'm even in the military. In fact, I would say that the most appropriate use of flag-burning in protest is specifically to protest restrictions on free speech that make flag-burning illegal. Then, it is a valid criticism of patriotism per se, especially of nations that fancy themselves freedom loving, because it draws attention to how patriotism can make people care more about symbols than what those symbols allegedly represent.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, South Park did reference flag desecration the first time they tried to portray Mohammad. In that episode, Mohammad was supposed to do nothing other than hand somebody a football, but Comedy Central forced that segment to be removed. At the last minute, they assembled an in-story "retaliation" to Mohammad being portrayed in which various people were shown to be defecating on the American flag.
This scene, Comedy Central allowed to air. So to recap: Mohammad handing somebody a football is too offensive to air, but people defecating on the American flag is a-ok. This should make it obvious how Muslim sensibilities are given excessive consideration in comparison to others that you yourself say are comparable.
Causing offence doesn't point out to anyone that there is something wrong with being offended!
You don't have to because the point is largely self-evident. The best example I can find is this image. Some people find that image extremely offensive. Isn't that silly?
Moreover, I think this makes you a hypocrite of the highest order since, though their beliefs in themselves have no effect on you, you still take offence at them and what to punish others for them.
First, the idea that drawings like this constitute "punishment" is part of the problem. Second, you're dead wrong if you think that these beliefs don't affect everyone. While the people who would be willing to personally execute a cartoonist are an extreme minority, the people who are willing to make this sort of thing illegal in the name of protecting religious sensibilities are far more numerous. Don't you know that there are a lot of nations with blasphemy laws? Aren't you aware of the serious consideration that outlawing religiously offensive things has gotten in Europe?
Beliefs do matter, because they are the foundation of political change. The difference between a population that is not offended by drawings and one in which a large fraction is just mildly upset by them can be huge when the more extreme minority starts trying to get laws passed.
~AR
You don't have to because the point is largely self-evident.
ReplyDeleteNo, it really isn't.
Some people find that image extremely offensive. Isn't that silly?
No, I don't think it's silly. Or rather, I think that from my perspective and yours it's silly, but to someone to whom it matters, it's not silly. The difference between you and me is that I have empathy for the person who finds it offensive, whereas you are happy to treat them as less than human.
What's more important, however, is that whether or not it's silly, people are still offended. And causing offence without making a proper argument (holding something up and saying "hey, isn't this silly?" isn't a proper argument, btw) is not nice.
First, the idea that drawings like this constitute "punishment" is part of the problem.
You apparently want to hurt someone (emotionally, in this case) either as "reform" or "retribution". That's called punishment. You wish to do it using drawings. Therefore, the drawings are a punishment.
Beliefs, in and of themselves, do NOT affect you. Actions do. In this case, actions intended to limit freedom of expression.
You can waste your effort by pissing people off, or else you can look to convince them to respect other people's freedom of expression regardless of their own emotional response (e.g. taking offence). "Yes, it offends me - but I won't try to stop you. I can think and say you're an arsehole, but I won't hate you for being an arsehole." That's the principle I've espoused throughout this thread and it's an important one - it's actually the basis for freedom of speech. If you expect people to give up being offended by stuff, you're in cloud-cuckoo land. The smart approach is to help people to see the world in a way that doesn't need violent responses when they're offended.
Besides - if you read my blog carefully, you'll notice that I am a fan of some forms of expression that people want to send me to prison for. I've kind of got a vested interest in supporting freedom of speech, even when it causes offence. Telling people they are silly for being offended isn't ever likely to work any time soon, so if you want to make a point, drawing Muhammed is not a sensible way to do it. It's childish and arseholish.
Please don't try to debate this issue any further with me. You will not persuade me to give up my principles. For various reasons, I am disinclined to approve any more comments from you on this thread (unless there is something radically new and different about them) and if you want to whine about your freedom of expression, go express yourself on your own blog. In short: You're pissing me off. Go away.