Freedom, kikei, and the Danish cartoons

[fpb]

A year or more back, a meme asked me in which period I would rather have been born in. I answereded 490BC (Battle of Marathon), 480BC (Battle of Salamis), 1402 (the valiant Republic of Florence survives 25 years of disguised but continuous assault by the tyrant Gian Galeazzo Visconti of Milan, whose empire collapses at his death), 1776 (Declaration of Independence of the US), or 1940: all the dates when brave men took extreme risks to preserve their freedom, and won against all odds. It was as an angry comment on this, a couple of weeks ago, when I wrote about the Danish cartoons - and everything that lay at the back of that - that we do, after all, have the privilege, like the Athenian patriots, like the Florentines on the walls of their city, like Washington's troops at Valley Forge and Trenton, like our grandfathers in Churchill's time, to stand up and be among those who were lucky enough to strike a blow for freedom for the world.

It was perhaps inevitable that kikei, who is a Shia Muslim - as well as one of the finest people I have the honour to know - should not have felt easy about this. She answered:

We have a chance to defend freedom, but to what extent is freedom of expression a defence?

I'm writing an article on the latter part of that statement in relation to a) The Danish Cartoons and b) South Park. This is rather interesting... however, it's also something that riles me up more than just a little bit. To me, these men are not great - they are definitely standing up for a cause they believe in, but at the same time they are the people who, rather than critically analyse their original beliefs, prefer to abandon the values and attack those very beliefs. I don't really see greatness in that. As much as I value the efforts being put forward to validate freedom of expression, the truth is, this kind of reaction - where people who are knowledgeable and have the ability to see both sides could try and achieve balance, within reason, and do not do so - well... it just makes me a little angry, a little sad. a little bit sick.

There's a difference between defence and attack. The people who are posting on the websites targeting these individuals are not right, either, IMHO... however, this is one of those issues where both sides seem to have their points, both positive and negative. Why I guess the writers' responses irk me is because they could, if they so wished, try to reason it out. The fundamentals will be fundamentals, no matter what anyone says. But these people have been granted knowledge and reasoning and have Islamic backgrounds, and probably could present a more balanced argument than just denouncing 'Islamism' as if it was one of those other 'isms' that they so abhor. Every side will have its supporters and detractors, but in this case, I guess I'd appreciate more of a negotiated view than this.

Just my $0.02

Now frankly, the first impression this response leaves is of confusion. And it is only partially redressed when one realizes that kikei is placing the Danish cartoons on the same level as the ugly cartoon SOUTH PARK, which, a few weeks ago, went on yet another publicity-hunting display of anti-Catholic bad taste.

More of you will be familiar with SOUTH PARK, which is distributed by the leading media corporations, than with the Danish cartoons, which those same corporations have one and all proved too sensitive to publish. And all of us, even if we do not waste precious minutes on it (as I do not), are all too familiar with the kind of mercenary, tasteless, cowardly assault on Christian identity and views of which SOUTH PARK is one of many instances. It is a very fair description of the authors of these abominations that they are "people who, rather than critically analyse their original beliefs, prefer to abandon the values and attack those very beliefs"; indeed, it is rather less than I would say. SOUTH PARK is not only an ideological outrage, it is an aesthetic outrage too. There are two kinds of cartoons: the kind that lives on pure caricature, doll-like characters, little or no background - e.g. BRISTOW, or to a lesser extent B.C. and THE WIZARD OF ID - and the kind that involves a considerable amount of lyricism and beauty and even a certain underlying sense of heroism - e.g. Giles' cartoons, ASTERIX, Carl Barks' DONALD DUCK. Something like PEANUTS lies in the middle, mostly doll-like and caricatural, but leaving itself the option of occasional bursts of lyricism. Now the artwork of SOUTH PARK is as far along the scale towards doll-like and caricatural as it gets, but it nevertheless makes use of a great deal of background and landscape, elements typical of the more lyrical cartoonist. The result is the methodical uglification of the universe. The lyrical elements of background and design are raped, used to convey the exact opposite of what they should. Look at a page of ASTERIX, with all the lovingly detailed trees and grass, the pretty Gaulish huts, the handsome Roman stone houses, the big azure sky, the swift motion across broad landscapes. Then look, if you can bear it, at even a few minutes of SOUTH PARK. Ugly dummies go through grotesque adventures set against hollow backgrounds. Evil things happen, and nobody cares. ("Oh my god they've killed Kenny!" - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!) That the authors of this piece of filth should loathe the Church is natural; it is only an epiphenomenon of their declared, programmatic loathing of everything in the world that is sane, open, living and beautiful.

But to link the Danish cartoons with this sort of abortion, dear kikei, only shows that you have not seen them. Not a single one of them has anything to do with this kind of, for want of a better word, aesthetic. Two of them are simply the artists' idea of an Arab leader:

Two more make a fairly lifeless use of traditional imagery - something I find aesthetically parasitical, since the artist hopes that the design itself will infuse meaning in his work, rather than trying to do so him/herself:

Two actually criticize Jyllands-Posten itself, showing that freedom of speech remains a two-edged blade:

- although, given that in the second one "young Muhammad" is clearly drunk, one finds that the number of edges begin to multiply out of sight. One I find quite incomprehensible:


I suppose that, in theory, if you were born wholly without a sense of humour, this charming item might possibly give offence:

But the people who would have a better claim to be offended would be the victims of terrorist bombings, who might well say that this kind of joke treats their sufferings and deaths as insignificant. I cannot imagine anyone who would not be charmed by this particular Muhammad, for all the world like a harassed bureaucrat trying to stop a Tribble-like flood of claimants. It is only if humour itself is an offence, that this sort of thing could be found offensive. In point of fact, Muhammad here plays a part well known in Christian/Western folklore, that of St.Peter, gatekeeper of Paradise, harrassed or disturbed or at any rate subject to comical pressure by newcomers. The jokes about him are countless:
A doctor died after an exemplary life and turned up at the gates of Heaven. The Saint there questioned him about all his sins, and finally said: "is there anything else that you have not told me?"
"Well, Sir," said the doctor, "one day when I was an intern at St.Bartholomew's Hospital, we played an amateur soccer game against St.Thomas', and I was striker. I scored the winning goal, but I am sure that I was offside. But the ref gave it, and I said nothing."
"Oh, is that all? Can't argue with the ref, the ref is always right. That'll be all right." [And he opens the Golden Gates.} "In you go."
"Oh, thank you, St.Peter."
"Well... actually, St.Peter is on holiday. I am St.Bartholomew."
As every Christian knows, this is a kind of joke you can tell to a priest or to the most devout of laymen, without offending anyone. If this sort of thing offends Muslims, all I can say is that they miss one dimension of religion.

Finally, there are four cartoons that might really give offence - if they were interpreted as evidence of malignancy. One expresses the obviously desperate hope that what a tiny conservative rag in far-off Denmark does might not concern the great Prophet and his mighty religion:

The assumption this cartoon makes, that Islam acts routinely by violence, and the violent expression put on the face of the prophet himself, could indeed be seen as outrageous - if the behaviour of Muslims never gave any reason to think so. Likewise, the idea that cartoonists live in fear of performing their job

would be outrageous if it was not true - indeed, if it was not the very starting point of the whole problem. As it is, Arne Soerensen's cartoon simply expresses the facts of life. And then there is the curious case of the cartoon that was published in an Egyptian newspaper months before it was offered to Jyllands-Posten, with no results of any kind:

- although likely enough it was not identified with Muhammad himself then.
Even in the most aggressive item of the lot, the one that is unmistakeably loaded with anger and contempt -

- the insult is hardly gratuitous. The three false cartoons added to the list by the lying Danish imams were indeed gratuitously offensive, showing Muhammad as a pig; this one highlights the two things the West finds most offensive about Islam - religiously-motivated violence, and the treatment of women. It is not, in my view, a very good piece of art: the linework is graceless and scratchy, the composition only so-so, and the unifying idea - the eyes covered in the prophet's face, left uncovered in that of his women - is somewhat artificial. As cartooning, it is not a patch on Arne Soerensen's terrified cartoonist or the "we have run out of virgins" item. But if Muslims want to protest about it, it hardly advances their cause to murder people or burn down embassies. Boycott Danish products; fine. Parade in the streets; great. Threaten or murder people, destroy property, give orders to the free citizens of a distant country - well, if you wanted to prove the most fiercely unfriendly depictions true, congratulations, you have just managed it.

But above all, the issue is simply this: that this was communication from Westerners, to Westerners. To try and force us to speak of your prophet in the way you wish is simply to prove every last contention of every worst enemy of Islam true: to prove that Islam not only hankers for universal rule, but that it will not leave anyone, in any place however distant, free to speak as they wish with their own neighbours. The notion that, anywhere in the world, speech that displeases Muslims must be banned is both ridiculous and plainly wrong.

Perhaps the cartoons controversy can serve as a learning experience for the Muslim world. They have raged and roared in the streets across the globe and what have they achieved? Precisely nothing. The cartoons are disseminated across the Internet and published in a dozen newspapers, including some of Europe's leading press organs. You cannot threaten or force us to do what we do not want. Now come out of your bunker, place the guns on the wall where they will do no harm, and let's talk.

Comments

[patchworkmind.livejournal.com]

Yeah, SOUTH PARK has no allegiances to anyone. If a joke is there to be made, they will make it, regardless of taste, class, form, or feelings. And once they do it, they don't back down from it. They take whatever heat they get along with whatever laughs.

I admire that, actually.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I'm not with you. Making the due proportions, it is like admiring Nazis for their bravery. SOUTH PARK represents a curdled and putrid delayed adolescence of the mind. To hold on to it is to hold on to a pathology. I would not force them out of their folly - a principle, such as freedom of speech, is not a principle unless it is applied even if it makes you unhappy - but to admire mental regression is not something I would recommend.

[patchworkmind.livejournal.com]

It's not the "mental regression" I admire. It's their willingness to take whatever comes at them from their audience and critics, without excuse. And they don't do it with a big "Fuck you!" like most in Hollyweird. To them it's humour, not life.

I've only ever watched a few episodes, because it was on at whomever's home I was visiting or somesuch, and a fair percentage of it seemed lunatic/grotesque to me, too. I reckon I don't condemn it. Oh well.