Re: publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not... [4x]
Table of Contents: Re: publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepr "porculus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Re: publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepr sascha brossmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Re: publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepr Louise Moana Kolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Re: publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepr Andrew Bucksbarg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:34:03 +0100 From: "porculus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: 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 - -- :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ::. :: .. :... . . . . . . . :: www.brsma.de :: ..: .:. . :.. ..: . . . . . . :: im [EMAIL PRO
Re: 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 # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepress"
Am Donnerstag, 09. Februar 2006 um 14:27:51 Uhr (-0800) schrieb Ayhan Aytes: > 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. 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. Allow me to disagree. "Totalitarian" implies that it's more than just symbols, but a physical oppression program. If the latter were the case, then there would be a justified reason to consider it political oppression of minorities. In any case, I am an atheist, and I wouldn't consider it "oppression" if Christians in Europe, Muslims in Arab countries or Jews in Israel would depict atheists in the way Muslims have been depicted in Denmark - although I might not be amused. Protest against these caricatures is fine by me, but it's never okay to deny other people the right to draw such caricatures, or even worse, hold whole nations responsible for them. > You may support the Nazi era propaganda > cartoons but I hope not in the mainstream media for the purpose of > oppressing Jewish people in Europe and creating the propaganda platform > to exterminate them. See, I consider the politics of extermination the crime, but not the propaganda. Of course, I find the propaganda despisable and would criticize it in every aspect. But it's a difference of considering something unethical - but not illegal - and considering something a crime that should legally prosecuted. This is why I am opposed to the fact that a film like "Triumph of the Will" is banned in my country. > If this is the case then I hope Muslims are not the > new Jews of old Europe. I agree. But banning caricatures doesn't help a bit - in fact, it makes matters worse because it would camouflage those sentiments. > 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." Sorry, I probably mixed it up with the Netherlands. I am strongly opposed to such laws - and even more to the fact that some religions are "recognized" by the countries and apparently some others not. > If this newspaper had earlier rejected > publishing Jesus cartoons based on the same law they should have acted > consistently in this case too. I agree. But this is a matter of editorial policy and its ethics - which might be questionable -, but not of legal prosecution. > Their double standard is the sign of > their insincerity in their excuse on behalf of freedom of speech. I agree, too. I know that they aren't a good ally for my own views. But as Rosa Luxemburg said, "freedom is always the freedom of those who think differently, too". > "To believe that a drawing oppresses the freedom of people means to > leave the grounds of rational discourse." > To believe otherwise with no discrete sense of the political use of > representations is welcoming Nazi era propaganda as freedom of speech. Not "welcoming", but tolerating. That's a very important difference. > The freedom of speech can only be protected when its meaning is > preserved against this erosion through Orwellian totalitarian rhetoric. Not rhetoric, but politics. If freedom of speech can be eroded through rhetoric alone, then the concept is meaningless. > If you want to capture the true meanings of things always mind the > subject. I find the concept of a "true meaning of things" highly problematic by itself. -F -- http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70 gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
RE: publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepress"
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. 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. You may support the Nazi era propaganda cartoons but I hope not in the mainstream media for the purpose of oppressing Jewish people in Europe and creating the propaganda platform to exterminate them. If this is the case then I hope Muslims are not the new Jews of old Europe. 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." If this newspaper had earlier rejected publishing Jesus cartoons based on the same law they should have acted consistently in this case too. Their double standard is the sign of their insincerity in their excuse on behalf of freedom of speech. "To believe that a drawing oppresses the freedom of people means to leave the grounds of rational discourse." To believe otherwise with no discrete sense of the political use of representations is welcoming Nazi era propaganda as freedom of speech. I still want to believe that this is the clash of barbarians and I would be particularly concerned about the utilization of the terms of the civilization as an excuse for this barbarism, such as freedom of speech. The freedom of speech can only be protected when its meaning is preserved against this erosion through Orwellian totalitarian rhetoric. Slavery is Freedom? Or Your Slavery is My Freedom? If you want to capture the true meanings of things always mind the subject. Ayhan Aytes # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepress"
Am Donnerstag, 09. Februar 2006 um 12:32:37 Uhr (-0800) schrieb Ayhan Aytes: > 1. Christians criticizing Christianity is one thing, Christians > criticizing, Jews, Muslims, Gypsies is another. I disagree. Freedom of speech means that everyone may criticize everyone. Besides, we don't even know whether the people who drew those caricatures were Christians. Maybe they were atheists and disliked all religions alike. > Europe had learnt that > with one of the hardest lessons of the history. You mistake "criticizing" for "annihilating". > 2. The representation code is different in different religions and > imposing the codes of Christian iconography over other cultures is a > violence that is an extension of Orientalist motives. I hope you mean "violence" in a metaphorical sense. Otherwise, anyone in the world could claim to be the victim of violence for any made-up reason and draw (really) violent conclusions from that. Maybe the caricatures are symbolic violence - just as there is symbolical violence of Moslems against Jews and mpst religions against other religions -, but if we ban symbolic violence, we no longer live in a free culture. > 3. Larger context. Denmark is one of members of the holly alliance that > is currently invading Iraq. If this caricature had published somewhere > else its effect would have been different. But still the newspaper is not the country. The protest in Islamic countries are just a proof that people there have been deprived by their governments (for whose existence, no doubt, the West is to be blamed) from free media and therefore think that something that is printed in a newspaper is the official voice of the state. > So, let's drop this freedom of speech pedantry No. Never. > what is really happening. Our concepts of discussion should be based on > the examples of Nazi era caricatures that represents Jews, I agree. Such caricatures are outlawed in my own home country (Germany), and while I dislike them, I also strongly disagree with the laws that do ban them. Denmark doesn't have such laws, btw.. > which also could be discussed under the terms of freedom of speech, > but we don't do that. I do. > Because freedom in democratic countries is not the freedom of the > powerful to oppress the weak. Again, you mix up symbolic and physical action. Yes, it is the flip side of freedom of expression that it may be used for the powerful against the weak, and abused for purposes we consider morally wrong. > The meaning of democracy is to give the > weak a voice and secure it in every condition. No, this is not the meaning of democracy. Democracy means that any voice may be heard. > In Denmark the freedom of > minority is being oppressed with this example. To believe that a drawing oppresses the freedom of people means to leave the grounds of rational discourse. -F -- http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70 gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
RE: publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepress"
There are three issues that need to be addressed when discussing this matter which is generally neglected 1. Christians criticizing Christianity is one thing, Christians criticizing, Jews, Muslims, Gypsies is another. Europe had learnt that with one of the hardest lessons of the history. 2. The representation code is differ rent in different religions and imposing the codes of Christian iconography over other cultures is a violence that is an extension of Orientalist motives. 3. Larger context. Denmark is one of members of the holly alliance that is currently invading Iraq. If this caricature had published somewhere else its effect would have been different. So, let's drop this freedom of speech pedantry and try to look closely what is really happening. Our concepts of discussion should be based on the examples of Nazi era caricatures that represents Jews, which also could be discussed under the terms of freedom of speech, but we don't do that. Because freedom in democratic countries is not the freedom of the powerful to oppress the weak. The meaning of democracy is to give the weak a voice and secure it in every condition. In Denmark the freedom of minority is being oppressed with this example. Ayhan Aytes # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
RE: publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepress"
The responses of Ronda Hauben and Florian Cramer essentially recapitulate that of the Vatican, which released an unsigned statement that "The freedom of thought and expression, confirmed in the Declaration of Human Rights, can not include the right to offend religious feelings of the faithful. That principle obviously applies to any religion." I could not disagree more profoundly with such a position, and see it as seeks to privilege religion and religious prophets as being beyond critique, satire or parody. It is particularly disturbing to watch how easily some elements of progressive political thought capitulate to claims for the sacralization of civic discourse, as if the principles of free expression could be sacrificed because some legally-protected expression alienated millions of adherents to one religious faith or another. There are many of us who view religious faiths as atavistic, fictive, erroneous, patriarchal, violent, class-ridden, and alien to humanistic values. In their humanity, these faiths simultaneously are capable of ethical wisdom, beauty, and moving works of art, music and literature. Works of art, such as the Danish cartoons, that puncture through the negative ethos of a religious faith do not invalidate its positive social and cultural contributions. Progressive politics function under obligations of democratic courtesy and a modicum of tastefulness, but that is not an obligation that extends to imposition of censorship by those who view anti-religious expression as illegitimate. Blasphemy is, at root, the name for critiques that religious faith and theocratic authority cannot abide. Blasphemies and heresies -- including antagonistic representations of prophets, saints, or religious symbols (viz. Piss Christ) -- are the stuff of human progress. A newspaper's political history or current conservatism has no relevance to this argument, especially as the history of the European press will reveal significant social ugliness in almost any newspaper with a sufficiently lengthy history. The Times of London could be condemned on similar historical grounds as Jyllands-Posten, none of which bears on a legal right to publish freely in the twenty-first century. Much of this present argument recapitulates ground covered regarding publication of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, as if nothing has been learned in the interim.20 What does bear immense relevance lies in the social context of this cultural conflict in the specificities of anti-Moslem discrimination in Europe and the United States, and the growing global antagonisms between the Islamic and an amorphously-defined "Western" world. For discussing these specificities, the Danish cartoons are only one starting-point. Joe --- Joe Lockard Assistant Professor 209 Durham Languages and Literatures Bldg. English Department POB 870302 Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-0302 Tel: (480) 727-6096 Fax: (480) 965-3451 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.asu.edu/english/who/lockard.htm Antislavery Literature Project http://antislavery.eserver.org/ # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not "freedom of thepress"
> Freedom of art is not the freedom to stir up hatred against a > people because of their religion or nationality or sex, etc. > > -F gotcha & also cause drawing is now some 'populist' art, i mean art for the hoi polloi then its leonardo of carnival & fartmen michelangelo are out of any protection & care, they are no more arty fetichised clergymen but secularised producer aktivizt, that could be sacrified for the 'harmony of civilisations sake' or worst that have to selfcensor their 'heavy & stupid' envy.. i even read as we are under war (yaa terror) we could have some exceptional restrictions...merde ! the harmony of civilisation need respect & first of all, selfrespect, to each one to be up to his own : so i wish long live to all caricaturists & i propose they could engrave on their bucle of their belt 'gott mit uns' what could impress men & girl when in holliday in texas. i suppose europe for being united need to restore its family fortune, it's a good occasion # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
