While a Saudi lawyer is suing in England over the Danish cartoon controversy (here), Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris has declared May 20th “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” Norris took the action after the shameful decision of Comedy Central to censor an episode of South Park after Muslims threatened to kill the creators of South Park for showing Mohammed in a bear suit.
Norris has asked other artists to submit drawings as part of Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor (CACAH) on May 20th.
She will have difficulty finding a publisher. While newspapers have supported the cartoonists in the Danish case, you will notice that no images of Mohammed appear in the leading papers, including pictures of the cartoon in articles discussing the controversy. While racist or sexist cartoons are often reproduced in news articles on such controversies, there is a virtual ban on the printing of the cartoons and Yale University Press shocked many in the United States by ripping out pictures of the cartoons from a book on the controversy (here).
For the full story, click here.
“just doing or saying something without thought of the potential consequence …I don’t think thats freedom.”
But it is precisely freedom.
The freedom to choose an assumption of risk and the freedom to be attacked, wrong and/or stupid if your choice has a negative consequence. But foremost it is the freedom to stand up for your rights against repression. In this case, repression from Islamic Fundie zealots. One cannot manage all risk. It’s mathematically impossible. But to abrogate a right – a liberty – like free speech in the name of what? Safety? Corporate policy? Simple fear? Well that just the kind of thing that made Franklin say, “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.”
Freedom isn’t free. It comes with risks both personal and societal. But hiding from the risks has the same net effect as giving up said liberty in part or in toto.
BIL,
Maybe you are right, you have just posted one of my favorite sayings. I speak out plenty against the irrational misuse of power and intimidation. But this time? I go to the supermarket…I have to listen to the private conversations of loud and rude people exposing me to their very unwanted crap…I take a drive and there are billboards with nearly nekkid peeps selling me…crap, I turn on the news and am assaulted by overly opinionated newscasters telling me what they think of…crap. The argument that if you don’t want to hear or see something you can just turn it off doesn’t work anymore. It may be that we as a people need to open our eyes to the rest of the world and actually pay attention to when we may be, in fact, offensive. Because offense often begets retaliation. I don’t agree with the paper laying off the cartoonist…and like I said, I haven’t seen this episode of SP, but just doing or saying something without thought of the potential consequence …I don’t think thats freedom.
Goal(s) other than expressing their Constitutional Rights is merely supposition as to motive.
As long as the motive wasn’t criminal and actions taken in furtherance of that motive were not criminal, no crime has been committed. Matt and Trey need not justify “why” for exercising their rights. It could have been serious forethought. It could have been whim. But what it is is irrelevant.
And reasonable? If Jefferson and Adams and Washington and Franklin had operated under the maxim that all risk of harm is not worth the confrontation, we’d still be getting lots of state visits from the Queen and our currency would be screwed up instead of base-10 rational. As it is we still got stuck with those idiotic non-scientific Imperial measurements.
No. Reasonable is the same word that came from the mouths of many a Good German and from the man who wrote this, Pastor Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew.
[It wouldn’t be reasonable to help and it’d put others in danger from barely discoverable or noticeable to severe. Besides, it’s only Jews. – ed.]
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist.
[They’re only communists! Who wants to risk anything for commies? – ed.]
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist.
[Fascist Nazis union busting! Who’d have thunk it! – ed.]
Then they came for me –
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.
[Because Pastor Niemöller had given away his right to protest out of fear, harming the whole and eventually himself in not speaking out/taking action against evil and unethical acts by bad men. – ed.]
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
The road to servility to fascists, theocrats and despotic tyrants of all sort is paved with silence, inaction, fear and repression.
It all starts with the silence though.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
The cartoons depicting Mohammed with a bomb-turban and other rather un-holy effects made sense to me, they were a response to an action by Muslims that were incongruent, that struck me as a true political cartoon and I think the papers current actions against that cartoonist sucks.
But the Matt and Trey thing….I see that as a really immature act of instigation or baiting….what did they think it would do? What was their goal? What was this episode in response to? [that said, I did NOT see that episode…]
Molly has rescinded her battle whoop….I, am about to do the same (as I had supported her on my webpage, and am not unhappy about NOT drawing Mohammed on may 20th.
Most reasonable people neither want to be harmed or to be the cause of harm to others.
Molly Norris.
You lose the gold star.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/creators-of-everybody-draw-muhammad-day-abandon-effort-after-it-becomes-controversial.html
Waffles are good for breakfast. Principled stands concerning freedom of speech? Not so much.
Hi,
I made a cartoon of a fictional poster and it went viral.
There is no place to send any drawings of any image.
Someone else set up a facebook page about my cartoon.
My cartoon was always about the first amendment.
I am going back to drawing about current cultural events now.
Thank you,
Molly
@rcampbell — Why is it so hard for people to respect the Islamic belief of not using iconography?
Clearly it is because they’re are threatening death to cartoonists.
Tootie
Perhaps you should revisit the Biblical story of Job. It tells us that his two daughters deliberately got him drunk and took advantage of his stupor to seduce him believing they were the last people on earth after the alleged destruction of Somdom & Gommorah. Of course it was he who was coherced. Those girls, his daughters, who plied him with the wine to satisfy their evil lust.
An accommodation to Islamic sensibilities on this issue is not possible. The prohibition against depicting Mohammed simply runs afoul of the First Amendment. Muslims will have to accept this.
rcampbell:
You said there are tens of millions of Muslims in the world. Actually there are hundreds of millions, in fact about one hundred millions of them (approx. 1 billion).
And if you want to claim that the Muslim rules about this was in response to Catholic iconography, you’d be more accurate to say it comes from the Old Testament tradition in which the Hebrews were forbidden to make images of God or any human.
Seeing the development of porn throughout history, I see God’s point.
Nevertheless, Muslims need to grow up. They are among the most emotionally unbalanced persons on earth, flying off the handle without a moments notice, and acting like lunatics if they are offended.
I’m offended that they continue to adore an old dead guy who had sex with a 9 year old when he was in his mid-fifties, but I don’t go around threatening to murder them.
A grown man having sex with a little child worse than a drawing of Mohammad. And the adoration of a grown man who had sex with a child is worse than a drawing of Mohammad.
Muslims need to put things in perspective and perhaps you do too.
Byron, you’re probably right (he said with a deep sigh of resignation).
One wonders, though, if they are truly incapable or simply programmed thus after eons of manipulation? Does requiring fear and awe and unquestioned obedience make God/Allah an abusive parent? But, those questions are for others above my pay grade.
The irony of the second part of your last sentence drew a chuckle.
rcampbell:
not that I disagree with you, but don’t you think some people are incapable of understanding that concept without having a higher power to be in fear/awe of? An ethics based on rational principles would do for some of the worlds population but others would need the fear of eternal damnation to treat their fellow man properly.
Byron
I see the semantic difference between the words “moality” and “ethics” to be religion. Religious based verbage favors the former, secular philosophies the latter.
Virtually every religion and every culture throughout history regardless of religion or lack thereof has that held that one precept in common. The idea that one should “do unto others” is, as you noted, not based or founded ON religion. It is, in fact, the base from which all religions begin. It’s also the base for all laws. It supercedes religion. One need not have a religion to understand it and to live by it. So, no, since one doesn’t need to be part of a religion (theist or not) to accept that precept, there is no necessity to subjugate one’s mind and being to any outside influence.
rcampbell:
good points but dont you think that religion offers some morality teachings? Although “do unto others . . .” does not necessarily have to have a theological basis.
I’m perplexed by these reactions. Granted I’m atheist and find the idiosynchrasies of the all various religions to be much ado about nothing.
However, if I recall correctly, Islam abhors iconography. It is a basic tenet of their faith. It was probably originally a rejection of the bombastic nearly obscene example set by the early Christian (Catholic) Church, but it remains an important part of their faith. They do not adorn mosques or holy books or even their homes with pictures of Allah (the Christian God) or Muhammed or Ali, etc. It is prohibited to draw or display images of them or other important historical religious figures. Why is that so hard for others, particulaly Christians to respect? Muslims consider Jesus as a prominent and respected prophet. They, like the Jews, don’t accept the Messiah claims, but nor do they ignore him.
There are tens of millions of Muslims in the world. Arab Mulims are in the minority to the Asian and African Muslim populations. There are probably less than 50,000 Muslims worldwide that wish the West any ill and yet this jingoistic villification continues and then it feeds upon itself and creates more trouble.
This silliness provides more proof that any and all religion are a bad and destructive thing serving no useful purpose except as a any way to manipulate usses and thems and to foster fear and loathing of “The Other”.
“She will have difficulty finding a publisher. While newspapers have supported the cartoonists in the Danish case, you will notice that no images of Mohammed appear in the leading papers, including pictures of the cartoon in articles discussing the controversy.”
********************
The price of gold may have topped $1000 an ounce, but moral courage is still far more precious.
I think I shall abstract my portrait of the prophet. Maybe a carrot-like shape surrounded by bunnies. “Allah akbar” could thus be a food review!
I shall draw mohamed raping a 9 year old girl.
I know its not humour, but no-one can accuse me of getting my facts wrong.
Her name was Ayesha.
Strangely it was her arms that mohamed died in.
I think these muslims might be deifying the wrong spouse.
‘CACAH’
hahaha…well said
I am all for ‘Drawing those who kill for Mohammed Day’.
We could have a show and call it MUGSHOTS.
It bothers me that some foreign entity is impinging on the freedom of multitudes of artists here in the USA who have a burning driving desire to preserve Mohammed in effigy.
Is this really our most important threat right now?
Molly Norris.
You get a gold star.