NationStates Jolt Archive

I really can't remember...

You see, a few weeks ago I was being told that the Western world was so staunch in its support of free speech that it would defend its right to produce material that might be considered offensive to a religion.

In this case, I'm referring to the Danish Cartoon Incident (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4688602.stm).

Yet today's headline on the BBC is about how the Western world was so reviled by a man who produced material that might be considered offensive to a religion that it would lock him up despite his right to free speech.

In this case, I'm referring to the Holocaut Denial Incident (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm)

Let me be clear. I recognize that these are different countries and have the right to make their own laws and I respect that. Here's the thing though. What kind of message does it send to those who were so outraged by the cartoons in the first place? "Well, funny story...we only defend free speech despite offensive material when it's a religion we don't particularly care for anyway." Does anyone else find it just a tad regrettable that the Western World is having trouble sending a clear message on freedom of speech at a time when people need it most?

To be fair though, Austria has a strong link to the Holocaust and dislikes any references made to it of such a nature. Its laws against Holocaust deniers are very stringent. Not that I agree with its position, yet that is nevertheless what it is.

I really can't remember...

You see, a few weeks ago I was being told that the Western world was so staunch in its support of free speech that it would defend its right to produce material that might be considered offensive to a religion.

In this case, I'm referring to the Danish Cartoon Incident (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4688602.stm).

Yet today's headline on the BBC is about how the Western world was so reviled by a man who produced material that might be considered offensive to a religion that it would lock him up despite his right to free speech.

In this case, I'm referring to the Holocaut Denial Incident (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm)

Let me be clear. I recognize that these are different countries and have the right to make their own laws and I respect that. Here's the thing though. What kind of message does it send to those who were so outraged by the cartoons in the first place? "Well, funny story...we only defend free speech despite offensive material when it's a religion we don't particularly care for anyway." Does anyone else find it just a tad regrettable that the Western World is having trouble sending a clear message on freedom of speech at a time when people need it most?
Many Muslims seem to have the illusion that the West is a solid bloc, and that it is under the control of America. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Many Muslims seem to have the illusion that the West is a solid bloc, and that it is under the control of America. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Which is precisely why while the differences are quite clear to us, I'm less sure that they will be clear to them.

Many Muslims seem to have the illusion that the West is a solid bloc, and that it is under the control of America. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Precisely. It's very much a regional affair.

Many Muslims seem to have the illusion that the West is a solid bloc, and that it is under the control of America. Nothing could be further from the truth.
How so? Isn't America the shining superpower and gleaming example of a peaceful and just democracy? We don't "control" the West, but we sure do seem to be leading it...for now.

That's GERMANY. Not "we".

Many Muslims seem to have the illusion that the West is a solid bloc, and that it is under the control of America. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Replace "America" with "Israel" and you'll be on the right track.

That's GERMANY. Not "we".
Austria. :x

That's GERMANY. Not "we".
Austria, actually, and this "we" is the whole Western world.

I'm not saying that we should all be lumped together because we're all the same. I'm saying that there is a tendency for other people to lump us all together, much like we do with them, and that this trend might create problems.

I think that you're forgetting the difference between parodying a religious figure in a cartoon and fraudulently denying the existence of an event that is known to be true, especially when that event is genocide. Perhaps it should not be illegal nonetheless, but there is still a distinction to be made.

Replace "America" with "Israel" and you'll be on the right track.
Perhaps.

I think that you're forgetting the difference between parodying a religious figure in a cartoon and fraudulently denying the existence of an event that is known to be true, especially when that event is genocide. Perhaps it should not be illegal nonetheless, but there is still a distinction to be made.
Yes, to some Muslim scholars, it's the parodying that's worse.

Which is precisely why while the differences are quite clear to us, I'm less sure that they will be clear to them.
I suspect the lack of understanding intersects with the lack of a desire to understand.

I think that you're forgetting the difference between parodying a religious figure in a cartoon and fraudulently denying the existence of an event that is known to be true, especially when that event is genocide. Perhaps it should not be illegal nonetheless, but there is still a distinction to be made.
Indeed. It's a different matter entirely. Not that one could expect those who find the West to be hypocritical to make this distinction, perhaps due to unwillingness. It shouldn't be illegal, but that's for the sovereign nations to decide in the end.

I suspect the lack of understanding intersects with the lack of a desire to understand.

Indeed. It's a different matter entirely. Not that one could expect those who find the West to be hypocritical to make this distinction, perhaps due to unwillingness. It shouldn't be illegal, but that's for the sovereign nations to decide in the end.
At the same time, I'm sure many of us are guilty of grouping the different actions of different Middle Eastern countries into one single perception. I'm sure who spend our time on political forums can differentiate between Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iran and Saudi Arabia, but that doesn't mean the average Westerner does, nor does he necessarily care to. I'm sure we have counterparts in the Middle East who understand the differences between Austria and Denmark quite fully, but it's not them I'm concerned about.

I can't say I approve of holocaust denial laws either. Obviously anyone who thinks that the holocaust is a myth is clearly not quite right, but that doesn't mean that the government should lock them up.

Still, you have to remember that this is happening in Austria, where a significant minority actually believe that the best answer to pseudo-fascist thuggery is more psuedo-fascist thuggery. So I wouldn't read too much into it.

I really can't remember...

You see, a few weeks ago I was being told that the Western world was so staunch in its support of free speech that it would defend its right to produce material that might be considered offensive to a religion.

In this case, I'm referring to the Danish Cartoon Incident (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4688602.stm).

Yet today's headline on the BBC is about how the Western world was so reviled by a man who produced material that might be considered offensive to a religion that it would lock him up despite his right to free speech.

In this case, I'm referring to the Holocaut Denial Incident (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm)

Let me be clear. I recognize that these are different countries and have the right to make their own laws and I respect that. Here's the thing though. What kind of message does it send to those who were so outraged by the cartoons in the first place? "Well, funny story...we only defend free speech despite offensive material when it's a religion we don't particularly care for anyway." Does anyone else find it just a tad regrettable that the Western World is having trouble sending a clear message on freedom of speech at a time when people need it most?

To most of us the events are very different. One is a political cartoon which, if done for anyother religion, would normally be laughed at or ignored. The other ignores the attempted murder of an entire race, to me that is very racist.

I don't think the cartoons are funny, but remember they are just cartoons.

To most of us the events are very different. One is a political cartoon which, if done for anyother religion, would normally be laughed at or ignored. The other ignores the attempted murder of an entire race, to me that is very racist.

I don't think the cartoons are funny, but remember they are just cartoons.
Agreed; either way, I still don't think they should be locked up merely for denying the Holocaust.

To most of us the events are very different. One is a political cartoon which, if done for anyother religion, would normally be laughed at or ignored. The other ignores the attempted murder of an entire race, to me that is very racist.
It's not us that I'm worried about, however. We weren't up in arms about the cartoons in the first place.

Anyway, it was interesting to hear whether or not people saw the risk of a link being formed between the two. I brought it up because I know if I were an Islamic extremist I would use it to further my cause, despite the differences between the two events.

I'm also fascinated by the number of people who reject the notion that Holocaust denial should be illegal. I thought maybe it was just me.

It's not us that I'm worried about, however. We weren't up in arms about the cartoons in the first place.

Anyway, it was interesting to hear whether or not people saw the risk of a link being formed between the two. I brought it up because I know if I were an Islamic extremist I would use it to further my cause, despite the differences between the two events.

I'm also fascinated by the number of people who reject the notion that Holocaust denial should be illegal. I thought maybe it was just me.
An Islamic extremist might bring it up if they simultaneously reject the Holocaust. I think they'd be careful in how they argued it though, since the cartoons and this are entirely disparate matters, and these laws are purely regional.

Anyway, it was interesting to hear whether or not people saw the risk of a link being formed between the two. I brought it up because I know if I were an Islamic extremist I would use it to further my cause, despite the differences between the two events.


I think you'll find that outside of the islamic extremist camp, the people in the west who argue that the cartoons should not have been published are also the same group of people who support laws criminalizing denying the holocaust.

It's predicated on the same flawed theory: that you can force people to be nice. (Well nice by some hypothetical normative standard that is.)