Re: <nettime> publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not... [4x]

[nettime's cartoonist <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>]

Table of Contents:

   Re: <nettime> publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepr
     "porculus" <porculus@wanadoo.fr>                                                

   Re: <nettime> publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepr
     sascha brossmann <news@brsma.in-berlin.de>                                      

   Re: <nettime> publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepr
     Louise Moana Kolff <mail@louisekolff.net>                                       

   Re: <nettime> publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepr
     Andrew Bucksbarg <andrew@adhocarts.org>                                         



------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:34:03 +0100
From: "porculus" <porculus@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: <nettime> publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepress"

> "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
> thought
> which they seldom use."
>
> - 19th-century Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard

it's main bout freedom of drawing here...or is it possible duchampian 'non
ocular art' would be just the historical worn out iconoclasty revival & the
prevalence of verb.. for instance hombre if i describe one
of my prefered cabu's poster done when jp2 came in france. jp2 is handcuffed
beetwen 2 cops & beneath you could read 'a big opium-for-the-people-dealer
has been caught at roissy airport' you could believe all is done. no, you
miss the sketch itself, the main i couldnt reportwith words..& btw i bet
the legendary sad kierkegaard would laugh in seeing it, but it's just my
opinion, & yes there is some impudence to puppetise -& specialy for a laugh-
the dead ones






------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:45:10 +0100
From: sascha brossmann <news@brsma.in-berlin.de>
Subject: Re: <nettime> publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepress"

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:27:51PM -0800, Ayhan Aytes wrote:
> No I mean the violence in its literal sense, in this case through
> cultural means of political oppression of minorities. We should
> remember that Muslims in Denmark are minorities. 

sorry, but i fail to see how the muslims in denmark are deprived
of their rights as minorities, as i don't see any reason for any
religion or other belief systems to be protected from *any* kind of
criticism. what about the beliefs of atheists and agnostics who are also
minorities? shouldn't they be equally protected? it might for example
hurt my deepest religious feelings if people pray aloud to any god,
carry out religious ceremonies in the open and such. consequently i ask
e.g. the states of iran, saudi arabia, syria, and others to immediately
stop that incredible blasphemy. they have absolutely no right to
trample upon my religious truths in any way. and if they don't i might
quite well issue a decree that their imams are to be shot by any true
non-believer and every successful execution of those heretics will be
rewarded by 100 pounds of gold.

get it? your whole argumentation is absolutely selective with blind
spots everywhere else. in other words: plain rhethorics. 

NB, how about the minorities in countries in the middle east who would
be also worth protecting by the same principles? i have not yet heard
anybody who claimed a special right for e.g. muslims to not have their
belief mocked by e.g. caricature to claim the same for e.g. jews,
americans, and other minorities in whatever publications from the middle
east. now how about double standards?

> The Atheist response to Christian majority culture can be supported
> when they use the Jesus cartoons to stand against this oppression. But
> when the majority uses the same method against Muslim minority it
> becomes a totalitarian tool to oppress Muslim minority. 

bullshit. this is about the freedom of anybody to say what he likes
versus anybody who - naturally - does not like it. with everybody being
free to return anything *with the same means*. not with lawyers, not
with policeman's truncheons, not with sniper bullets, not with any other
means of that kind.

> Yes. Denmark has a law providing for fines and up to four months in
> jail for anyone who "publicly offends or insults a religion that is
> recognized in the country." 

a shameful atavism of danish jurisdiction. it should be abolished ASAP.

> If you want to capture the true meanings of things always mind the
> subject. 

sorry, but i don't know anything about a "true meaning of things". i
would rather prefer to leave such truths to the far too large hordes
of religious nuts on this planet, may their gods be called whatever
you like or even missing. those people have caused more casualities
throughout the course of history than every lethal desease. may they rot
in any hell they can come up with - if there is one.

best,


sascha
- -- 
:: 01@brsma.de ::. :: .. :... . .... .  .     .   .     .     .
:: www.brsma.de :: ..: .:. . :.. ..:  .   .  .   .  .       .
:: im brsma@jabber.org .. :: .  ::. .. .   ..   .     .   .     . 
:: public key id 0x2EA549A0 ::.. :: . .  .  . ..    .    .   .
:: fingerprint 0A0C AE42 62F5 DB65 C5A1  E335 53FB 3888 2EA5 49A0



------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:45:34 +0100
From: Louise Moana Kolff <mail@louisekolff.net>
Subject: Re: <nettime> publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepress"

Logically I can follow both points of view, and agree "freedom of the press" is an
important and interesting discussion.

Subjectively, however, as a Dane I cannot help feel that the publication of the
cartoons was wrong. In this discussion it is important to not only look at whether
or not the press has the "right" to publish the cartoons, but to also understand
what lead to the publication, and what is going on in the Danish society at the
moment. The whole debate was originally fuelled by the fact that the Danish prime
minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in October refused to meet with 11 muslim
ambassadors to even discuss the issue of the cartoons. A decision to dismiss any
form of debate, that angered and disappointed the Danish muslim community. A
symptom of the political climate currently existing in Denmark.

I have not been living in Denmark for the last 7 years, and am shocked every 6
months when I visit. The political climate, and the mentality of the people and
the press has changed so extremely over the years, that I wonder what happened to
the Denmark and the Danes I thought I knew. When returning with the train during
the last elections, my first impression after crossing the border was a row of
posters along the platform with the slogan "A fresh breath of air over the
country". This was part of the campaign for the very right wing nationalistic
party "Dansk Folkeparti" (Danish People's Party), which is now part of the
government coalition. Parliament members of this party have publicly come with
statements, which would be completely unacceptable and often illegal coming from
members of a government party in most other EU countries.

A few examples: Pia Kj=E6rsgaard (the party leader) 2005: 

"They would never have been able to imagine (in 1900), that large parts of
Copenhagen and other cities in 2005 would be populated by people of a lower level
of civilization. Bringing with them primitive and terrible customs like honour
killing, forced marriage, halal butchery and blood revenge. That's exactly what's
happening."

Jesper Langballe (said in parliament) 2002: "... we have said that Islam must be
fought against, because of course it must be, just like nazism and communism was
fought against... This means fighting a religion, that with the expression of
Harvig Frisch, is a pest over Europe"

This is the tone the debate has been allowed to take. And when it has become
acceptable and legal to use such language by members of the government, then the
norm of what is morally acceptable to say in the public debate and the press also
shifts.

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say, that in the press maybe 80% of the news
and discussion is about foreigners, integration, and the government's policy
towards immigrants and refugees (It would be interesting to know whether there are
actually statistics...). Therefore the Danes are constantly bombarded by this
issue, making it into the biggest "problem" of Danish society (though the number
of immigrants and descendants of immigrants is less than 8% of the population).
Many new immigration and integration laws have been passed within the last years
making it extremely difficult for immigrants and foreigners in general. The laws
are some of the toughest in Europe.

So in the light of this political and public climate, the cartoons have less to do
with the freedom of press, and more to do with a continuation of the role the
press has been playing in general in hyping the issue of "the Muslim threat" and
"the foreign invasion" to an all time high. Satire in a balanced public debate is
very different to satire in a country where the government and press have already
identified and promoted the idea of the "scapegoat". It is then not a question of
whether or not the press should have the right to publish the cartoons, but
whether or not the publication will have a positive or negative effect on society.
In this case I would without doubt say the effects have been devastating.

Louise Moana Kolff



------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:12:51 -0500
From: Andrew Bucksbarg <andrew@adhocarts.org>
Subject: Re: <nettime> publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepress"

I want to add some comments into this debate.

There seems to be a problem with extremes in either direction here.  We tend to
forget, in our examples of democracy, that the freedom FROM something is just as
important as the freedom TO something.  As a minority, I should have the freedom
from hate speech and injurious images produced by the majority, which are part of
actual physical and idea based regimes enacted upon me.  There are no clean
divisions between symbolic and physical action, otherwise burning a cross in
someone's yard or burning the flag are pointless acts.  In the U.S., I am reminded
that our utopian model of democracy has historically produced something different
and is symbolically meaningful to persons of color, native peoples, GLTB persons
or women.

Ndrew




#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net