Where to Draw the Line?
The situation caused by the famous cartoons only seems to be getting worse. Embassies are being burned down, there are riots, threats are being made, and people have started dying. Thankfully, there have been some really good developments such as some Muslim leaders here in Norway are volunteering to help calming down the situation. While I think most Norwegians and Danes are feeling a bit puzzled by the whole situation there are unfortunately some idiotic Neo Nazist that have started making threats and participating in riots. I truly hope the police throws them all in jail! What is it about extremists? Why is the only way they can express themselves by making threats? Reminds me of the bullies back in school.
All of this has made me think a lot about freedom of expression. Not whether we really have it in Norway or not but rather what it is all about and where the line between what is acceptable or not is. I have always taken it for granted and never really thought much about it before.
My first thought was that as long as I don't hurt anyone with what I say I am fine. I quickly realized that it doesn't take much more for me than opening my mouth to offend somebody. No matter where you are, there is always someone that get offended by something you say or they will read something negative into what you are saying. So to avoid me having to glue my mouth and tape my fingers together I have come to the conclusion that everyone has to accept some noise that they don't agree with. Sure, I would like everyone to be at the same opinion as me, but I am more than willing to let others state their opinions in return for me being able to state mine.
The problem is where to draw the line? What is acceptable and what isn't? The only clear line I can put down is that threats are completely unacceptable. That one doesn't fall under any form of freedom of expression nor is it acceptable to threat people that have different opinions than you. I think the basis of freedom of expressions is to questioning views, opinions, and actions of people, or groups of people. There are however lines where it become wrong to do this. Let me give you one example of that.
There was recently a serious case in Iceland where a newspaper went way too far. A man accused of raping some young boys was put on the front page of the second biggest newspaper in Iceland under the headline "One handed man said to be raping young boys". Nothing had been proved so far and hanging out a man living in a small Icelandic village pretty much meant that his life was ruined. The man committed suicide the day after. People were of course in shock. In few days more than 10% of the Icelandic population signed a petition that they didn't think this was acceptable, and many boycotted the newspaper (buyers and advertisers). The result was that the editors resigned and the there was a major revision of the ethical rules for the media in Iceland.
In that case the editors made a big mistake and ended up having to pay for that with their jobs. People reacted in a civilized way and managed to force change. What is sad here is that a person lost their life because of this and nothing will ever make that right. The brutal truth of it is that the only thing that can be done since it cannot be taken back is to learn from it and not make that mistake again. At least freedom of expression made it possible for people to voice their opinion that they thought what the newspaper did was wrong and peacefully force a change.
The fact that you can make mistakes like this one scares me a lot. Not that I am afraid I will do something as serious as the newspaper but rather that I will do something more borderline. I really would like to see more rules or at least guidelines about that is acceptable and what is not. Lets take the cartoons as an example. Raise you hand if you didn't know that it was not allowed to draw pictures of prophet Mohammad. I am raising my hand now and I am sure many of you are. Maybe I am ignorant for not knowing but I have never been taught that and I have never happened to come across that fact anywhere. I don't think I would ever have actually posted a picture of him and especially one of those cartoons since I think they are in poor taste, but it makes me wonder what else is not acceptable.
I think ultimately this is why freedom of expression is so important. To protect us if we make silly mistakes like saying or posting something inappropriate. Please note, that I am not trying to excuse the initial posting of the cartoons as I am sure the newspapers were well aware what they were doing.
I am curious to hear from my readers where they think the lines are? What is acceptable and what is not? Should we be punished if we overstep lines or should we have the chance to apologize and promise never to do it again? Should there exist strict rules or guidelines as to what is allowed and what isn't?
guidelines are impossible
I read about these cartoons in my Dutch newspaper in September, right after they were published in Denmark. it is really weird how this suddenly becomes an issue after four months.
I think it is a silly idea that guidelines could help. Especially for the serious case we are now seeing. I can produce some quick guidelines in a few minutes, but there is no way I could make them in a way that ensures *noone* all over the world will ever get offended.
Note that almost all countries already have laws to deal with defamation and things like that. Tolerance for this sort of thing, and the balance between free speech and respect for others, varies in each country. Apparently, Muslim organizations in Denmark never filed suit.
There are a lot of things happening in the world to get angry about. You yourself wrote about this Saudi-Arabian woman recently; there is the famous Pakistani woman Mukhtar Mai, etc. Not to start about China and North Korea etc. I don't see raging mobs of liberal westerners torchign embassies of these countries, because they happen to insult our believed-to-be-superior western-style human rights values. Which is a longwinded way to say: unless they have a subscription to this Danish newspaper, or at least live in Denmark, they have no right to complain.
provocation and response
Well, I don't recall a rain of serbian bombs on new york, either. But Ivan Minic recalls several times the rain of American bombs on Serbia, because they insulted our "believed-to-be-superior western-style human rights values". The house of Saud, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban were all put in place and maintained by western support. The Iranian republic came about in response to a dictatorship of the Shah of Iran, installed by the US in a coup which overthrew the elected government. Chile got general Pinochet and Argentina got the generals the same way. Nicaragua was treated like Cuba until they voted the right way, something that looks like being the fate of Palestine if the elected government can't get support from "terrorist-friendly" governments. Meanwhile Israel, while nominally saying they might recognise a palestinian state, feels entirely free to avoid any practical recognition, expand settlements anywhere they happen to want them, and carrying out extra-judicial murders with an apology aftgerwards for innocent victims, while demanding that in addition to a practical and useful ceasfire Hamas drops its rhetorical stance.
I have a right to respond to things that happen in Norway, where I live. I have a right to react to things that happen in Iraq, which are clear breaches of international law, or of common ethics. (Not Mr Howard's "judaeo-christian ethics" which happen to be those that underpin Islam as well, but ethics as more broadly understood). I have a right to respond to a deliberate insult made in Russia in russian, when I happen to become aware of it. If I were a multinational company I would respond by launching a defamation suit in Russia. If I were a tolerant and rational person I might just ignore it. If I followed the original call for a response, I would stop buying Havarti cheese and norwegian fish. Although it would be my choice, whereas buying cuban cigars in the US is illegal whatever I personally think about the rights and wrongs of the Castro government.
I might exceed my right of response. The US is filled with cases of people doing so, in respect to their (in my opinion) moronic insistence on the right of anyone to carry a gun for "self-defence" and then shoot someone dead in a totally irresponsible and unjustifiable response to circumanstances that arise, while they happen to have the gun. Other countries have similar problems, if not of the same magnitude...
Enough advocating the devil's part. I guess I should sit down and write carefully...
We are on a high horse
There were some really good facts and opinions in there. What struck me and made me think a bit more was the statement "believed-to-be-superior western-style human rights values". What makes us think that we are better? The western world has done a lot of wrong things! As you pointed out Anonymous the US has attacked or pressured numerous countries and many European countries have participated in that. This makes it essential for every human to be able to express their feelings, to shout out when they think something is not right. While one person wont make wonders, maybe enough voices will make a difference.
But I draw the line to violence and threats. Violence and threats in any form are bad. Violence makes you a lesser person and that applies to everyone western or not.
I agree that we have the right to shout out when we someone in a completly different country is being treated inhumanly or some international laws are being broken. I however don't agree that we have the right to try to force a change of customs or any other behavior in countries where we don't live if it is not hurting anyone. If a something in another country is hurting us we can always try to discuss it and if done in a civilized way people are likely to listen.
In this instance it was cartoons that upset people. We have no real need to draw these cartoons. I am pretty sure that if this had been done in a civilized manner we would have reacted in a good way and refrained from them ever again. Instead few extremists got all crazy and ruined everything and made us stubborn.
The best thing that could happen now is if we all got off our high horse and tried to become better people. More tolerant, less violent, less extreme. The tricky part is just that somebody needs to start...
... starting it
We should (and often try to) start being better already. We'll probably get it wrong, so we will get another chance to start. And if experience is anything to go by, there will be another after that...
Right, cartoons shouldn't be that important, in my understanding of the world. They're rarely worth someone's life. They're often not worth more than a cheap laugh at the pub, and even then it can be a laugh that cheapens the jokers.
But sometimes...
The arab press is filled with anti-semitic cartoons. The kind of thing that is illegal in many parts of Europe, and would be considered totally inappropriate for publication in more. The constant repetition of a simplistic message can give rise to the discussion I had with an Israeli lawyer in an airport, in which he began from the premise "you can't talk to arabs. They are dishonest, and can't be trusted". I was appalled. The topic was the legality of the Iraq war. As well as a lawyer, he was a tank commander.
Violence can be a short and effective way to stop something happening, where dialogue simply allows it to take place. But violence on its own isn't a very smart solution. It can, sometimes, be legitimately used alongside civilised discussion. It can all too easily seem like an easier and more reliable answer, when it generally sets back any chance of a long-term resolution, dragging out the necessary discussion further and further.
A little well-placed violence a decade ago could have saved thousands of people in Srebrenica, or East Timor. A lot of violence was used to break up the Nazi empire in Europe, but a lot more violence was probably saved by doing so. Perhaps a little violence earlier could have been more useful. Perhaps a lot of discussion even earlier could have avoided the problem.
The Nazis ridiculed the world, which made threats it never meant to carry out. If there had been some real violence, or even a credible threat of it, behind the discussions that brought "peace in our time" in 1938, the world may have developed differently. Nobody I took seriously doubted that there was a real threat of violence behind the discussion the US had with Iraq at the start of this decade. Many people believed there was enough threat to make carrying on discussions a reasonable proposition for longer. What would have happened? Who knows?
But we go round and round. So you're right. Maybe we should just get down from the high horses. Being better people would, I think, help the world.
Your writing keeps inspiring me to make another effort. And maybe sometimes I manage to achieve it, and maybe even sometimes to inspire someone else to have a go, too.
A lot of what is inspirational is people's ordinary thoughts. The things people do and enjoy. The things that make people ephemeral and whimsical are the things that make them precious. And worth fighting for - this delicate fight that can only be won by not descending into a fight, that can only be lost by refusing to engage in it.
When is violence right?
I am really proud to hear that I am inspiring somebody to make an effort!
You bring up a really interesting topic here. Is violence ever acceptible? Even if I am against violence I must admit that there are situations when it is needed. Looking at things in black and white I tend to think the person starting the violence automatically makes them less. So if someone starts using violence and the other side uses violence to stop it or protect themselves they are less bad. I know it is not always that simple but that is the foundation I have. I don't think I will ever attack anybody but I might if I was attacked and I needed to defend myself or if somebody attacked somebody I cared about I might attack the other person to defend them.
This also brings in the issues of when is it really right for others to stick their noise into situations of other countries? Should a country really attack another country because they think it is a threat or if it is mistreating its citizens. Is that any of our business? Or is it our duty to help our fellow humans that are being mistreated? This is a question I am uncapable of fully understanding or making up my opinion about. The only straight opinion is that if another country uses something like that as an excuse but is really attacking the country because of financial interest they are wrong.
Your comment brought a lot more new stuff for me to think about and to try to understand. If these cartoons have done one thing positive it is to get us all to think a bit more. My brain has been working overtime for the few days.
http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark
http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/
We are sorry website
Great site but the some of the comments are unbelievable. There are some crazy folks out there. So full of hate. Their lives must be so pitiful and empty to have the time and stamina to keep the fire burning. Embarassing that they seem to be americans.
I fully realize that the USA has a bad track record internationally as far as nation building and interfering in other governments goes. A lot of european history involves colonialism as well. This situation has been brewing for at least 500 years and probably a lot longer. We are reaping the fruit of our past and I don't think we will get past it until the grass roots folks get tired of it all. Look at Ireland. When the mothers got together and were brave things calmed down. It will take a group of people such as the ones behind this site to start a change. Unfortunately I think we willl have a lot more 911 and Madrid and London and Oklahoma City type incidents before it is enough. Good luck to you all and be safe.
John in Louisville, Ky USA
Hello John
Yes, people are really amazing. If I have learned one thing from all of this is that maybe we need to be careful around people since many don't seem to have any compassion for other people and are extremely narrow minded and even just plain evil. But another thing we have learned is that we only hear the loud and not so nice voices which is a bit comforting after you realize that.
It is sad that USA has such a bad track record internationally since I dont think the USA is a bad force but the government is to driven by money and not always that open minded about the world. With a more liberal compassionate government I think they would be loved.
Lets hope things calm down and that we humans can all learn to live in harmony!
Thanks!
Thank you! I was actually meaning to post that one but hadn't gotten around it.
Any attempt like this is worth so much!