Karol over at Alarming News argues that republishing the offensive Muhammad cartoons in a show of solidarity with the Danes is “dumb.” She makes some of the same points that Ben did in my comments section when I decided to post one of the cartoons. Karol writes:
It is well-known that many Arab newspapers have featured Ariel Sharon as a bloodthirsty monster, a demon who eats children and hopes for death and destruction. Had Jews rioted at this depiction, had they set afire embassies around the world or raged in the streets, I would denounce them harshly, advise them to get a grip and to deal with real problems that face us all. But if a newspaper reprinted the cartoons in some twisted show of solidarity, I would see the paper as merely fanning the flames of conflict.
The problem with this argument is that it doesn’t reflect reality. Muslim leaders aren’t denouncing their coreligionists harshly, they are encouraging them to riot. And Jews don’t riot, set embassies on fire or rage in the streets. They behave in a civilized manner and use their free speech rights to express their anger with anti-Semitism in the Arab world by writing about it or otherwise raising awareness.
And it must be noted that this is not an isolated example. Muslim fanatics have a long history of using intimidation to silence free speech, just look at the tragedy of the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Other news outlets should republish the cartoons to show Muslims that the free world will not allow itself to be at the mercy of the most violent mob.
Even if news organizations don’t want to republish the cartoons in the name of solidarity, they should do so as part of covering the story. The U.S. media had no problem plastering the Abu Ghraib photos in magazines, newspapers and on television even though they were shocking, offensive, injurious to America’s reputation and likely put American soldiers in Iraq in greater danger. But they printed the photos as part of covering the story. If there were a controversy over anti-Semitic cartoons, I’d want to see them for myself to understand what all the fuss was about. By avoiding publication of the Muhammad cartoons, American news outlets are neglecting a major element of the story.
I agree with Phil (“I’d want to see them for myself to understand what all the fuss was about”) – it was very frustrating for the 2 or 3 days until we were able to see for ourselves what all the rioting and threats of “Another 9/11″ were all about – now that Iran is holding a “Holocaust cartoon contest” (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-02-07T141832Z_01_L07723729_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-CARTOONS-IRAN-HOLOCAUST.xml&rpc=22) we’ll get to see how rational people respond to cartoons offensive to them.
My point isn’t that the cartoons shouldn’t have been printed or that we should never offend Muslims. By all means, offend away. I just think reprinting the not-that-funny cartoons and self-congratulating for being so brave is dumb. What does reprinting the cartoons accomplish, exactly?
The civilized world needs to fight the battle against militant Islam on several fronts and the media/culture is one of those fronts. Supporters of the Iraq War would argue that by staying the course in Iraq we are sending a message to terrorists everywhere that we won’t back down from the fight against terrorism. Likewise, reprinting the cartoons shows these fanatics that they cannot silence speech in a free society through fear and intimidation. Sure, maybe at the moment, we’re talking about silly cartoons. But when a climate of intimidation exists, it tends to make people withhold valid, serious, criticism.
Failure to reprint the cartoons shows these radicals that violence works. It sends them the message that burning embassies and threatening attacks is an effective way to silence criticism, or at least much more effective than writing letters to the editor or organizing peaceful demonstrations.
One major reason why European governments tend to be so pro-Palestinian is that they are afraid of their own Muslim populations. France doesn’t have to worry about it’s 600,000 Jews rioting if its government is anti-Israel. So, as a result you get a situation where one culture is rewarded for violence and another culture is punished for behaving reasonably.
Reprinting silly cartoons may not be the ideal way to make a stand, but it is at least an oppourtunity to demonstrate to Muslims that they won’t get their way if they act like barbarians.
What does reprinting the cartoons accomplish? There are four issues. First, reprinting the cartoons on blogs allowed people to actually see them (and hence understand the issue in the proper context) when mainstream newspapers weren’t reprinting them. This is the “covering the story” issue.
Second, reprinting the cartoons is an act of defiance against anyone who would try to constrain your right do so. This is the free speech issue. Third, reprinting the cartoons is a way to show your support for the bold decision to break a pattern of silence in Europe on the topic of extremist Muslims. This is the “political correctness stifling debate” issue. Reprinting the cartoons for these last two purposes is largely symbolic, the same way having a sticker on your car for John Kerry doesn’t actually accomplish anything, but is a way to build community and morale, and is probably more effective than a statement on your car about how your support Kerry’s x,y,z proposals.
Fourth, and most important, reprinting the cartoons is a way of showing your support for the message conveyed by the cartoons. In that sense, reprinting the cartoon accomplishes the same thing having a quote from some politician or musician or philosopher on your webpage or signature line of your email does–it conveys a message. You reprint the cartoon because you think it’s time we cut the p.c. and face the reality that extreme Muslims espouse an ideology of hate and destruction, that the religion is deeply flawed, that the political movements corresponding to it are ticking time bombs, and that we live in a culture that forces us to be silent on these issues for fear of offending people. I applaud Phil for having the courage to show solidarity with that message.
These cartoons made many people angry, as I’m sure it made people angry to see Sharon eating a baby. But there are many ways to communicate an idea or a message, and I don’t understand what is “silly” about the cartoons just because they offend some people. Sometimes people should be offended, because what they practice or believe is wrong and harmful to others.
People, we’re going to be in this war on terror for a long, long time. We can’t go around choosing all our actions based on not emboldening fanatics, especially since they’re a group so inclined to delusional emboldening.
Like it or not, this is largely a war of ideas, and thus we need the cooperation of all the muslims we can get. It makes our job much harder when we (who publish the images in solidarity) send a message to all muslims that we’re a bunch of racists.
Is it not a sufficient stand that our governments refused to silence the right to free speech, even in the face of torched embassies?
Granted, however, the news aspect changed this issue a lot. At a certain point, newspapers choosing not to print the images were just ignoring something newsworthy. But I, and I presume Karol, were just addressing the issue of publishing the pictures for solidarity’s sake.