Former US President Bill Clinton visited Pakistan a week ago. A few days after Danish police arrested three young Muslim men who were plotting to kill 73-year old cartoonist Kurt Westergaard Clinton said to Pakistani tv:
“I strongly disagree with both the creation and publication of cartoons that were considered blasphemous to devout Muslims around the world because they depicted the Prophet. And I thought it was a mistake. I had no objection to Muslims throughout the world demonstrating their convictions in a peaceful way. But I thought it was also a great opportunity, which I fear has been squandered, to build bridges, because I can tell you that most people in the United States deeply respect Islam – it is the fastest growing religion in America – as do most people in Europe, and most people in Denmark. We live in societies where people are free to say the wrong things as well as the right things, but I would not be surprised if the person who drew those cartoons and the newspaper publisher who decided to print them did not even know that it was considered by Muslims to be blasphemous to have any kind of personal depiction of the Prophet.”
Not a word of condemnation of the murder plot against the Danish cartoonist, not a word about Pakistan’s and other members og the Organization of Islamic Countries’ (OIC) campaign in the UN to kill free speech, not a word in defense of minorities in Pakistan that are being oppressed in the name of Islam.
And as if Pakistan had been inspired by Clinton’s disgraceful behaviour the Musharraf-government has ordered all internet-providers to block access to YouTube because it carries ”blasphemeous content, videos and documents” insulting Islam. Other government officials say that YouTube has been blocked because it contains the Muhammed cartoons.
The Arab League has also learned a lesson from the former leader of the free world. The member states have agreed that governments in the Arab world should have the right to close down tv-stations if religious and political figures are being ciriticised. The proposal was put forward by the Egyptian government. Only Qatar and Libanon voted against the propasal.
“We see insults around the clock,” said Egyptian minister of Information, Anas el-Fiqi.
Agnes Callamard, secretary general of Article 19, an organization that is defending free speech around the world, told Jyllands-Posten that it is a troubling development.
“It contributes to a climate of fear and self censorchip. It’s because Arab leaders perceive critical tv-shows as a threat to their ability to control people.”
This isn’t the first time Bill Clinton made outrageous comments on the cartoon crisis. On a trip to Qatar in February 2006 he compared the Danish Muhammed cartoons to anti-semitic cartoons.
“In Europe, most of the struggles we’ve had in the past 50 years have been to fight prejudices against Jews, to fight against anti-Semitism,” he said.
“None of us are totally free of stereotypes about people of different races, different ethnic backgrounds, and different religions… there was an appalling example in northern Europe, in Denmark… these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam.”
Well, I am pretty sure that Clinton never saw the Danish cartoons. The one he saw on BBC, was a photo manipulation from a pig contest in France that Danish imams presented as a cartoon depicting the prophet as a pig. It was a fake.
And the fact of the matter is that there is a fundamental difference between cartoons ridiculing religion and cartoons attacking an ethnic group. Religions like political ideogies constitute a set of ideas that need to be challenged. In fact, I am convinced that people should never respect ideas, they should respect individuals that deserves it. Ideas do not enjoy human rights, people do.
Mr. Clinton doesn’t seem to get the difference.
OK… he never saw the cartoons because most US papers didn’t publish them? Because the necessity of publishing them was to let people see them, right? Maybe? Well, I would assume that he has managed to learn to use the internet by now. He was never known for being grossly uninformed or slow. “…As if Pakistan had been inspired by Clinton’s disgraceful behaviour”? Give me a break.
Nice words from Bubba. Both times.
But, good. Apparently, some have not swallowed the ridiculous ‘battle for free speech’ crap being shoved down our throats along with the ‘war on terror’. It’s always nice to hear someone who matters saying the right thing. So rare. Gazans’ or Pakistanis’ only real voice in the West is placards or sometimes a violent act of frustration. No wonder it occurred to Mr. Westergaard to draw Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.
What about the “fundamental difference between cartoons ridiculing religion and cartoons attacking an ethnic group”? You repeatedly make this distinction, but the cartoons and actions of the West do not. Neither does the tone or focus of your work.
It’s kinda hard to understand how so many can take the cartoons out of context. Being disproportionately presented with one side may have something to do with it. But I guess it is simply that many are so concerned with their own ‘rights’ that they never considered the point of view of those who are on the receiving end of those ‘freedoms’. It requires something called “critical thinking.” But most are perhaps satisfied to leave that to the professionals, the columnists, and glean what they can use to vent their prejudices.
I get the difference!
Flemming Rose: “Religions like political ideologies constitute a set of ideas that need to be challenged.”
So ethnic groups can not not be ‘challenged’?
If US statistics show that the black on white (violent) crime rate is a factor 4 to 1, and black on white rape is a 2 to 1 then it is not proper to address blacks on this issue, or make cartoons about it?
If muslims in Denmark excel in violent crime, (gang) rape, honor killings and protests against free speech and democracy, they can not be addressed as a group? (Note: I wrote addressed, not made responsible)
And what when religion, mythology, superstition, ethnicity, finance, expat-national and political interests combine to a none formalized broad but unifying ideology with specific political stances as a result?
Then people who represent this group should be protected from criticism and cartoonic ridicule?
I can easily see the very convenient differentiating here.
Especially convenient for groups who can shift forth and back on a dime, regarding the ways in which they wish to portray and identify themselves.
From ethnic to religious, from one nationality to another, from ‘defenders of western values’, to ‘anti-racist watchdogs’, and every other permutation this extremely creative group could think of, is the most useful at the moment.
But every day I see ‘white people’ getting blamed for all evils of the world, from perpetrating ‘holocausts’, slavery, imperialism and supremacism on TV, in newspapers, in school books.
I never heard about there being anything like a ‘redneck religion’, but I see ‘rednecks’ being mocked and defamed all the time. ‘Rednecks’ are depicted with connotations to incestuous behaviour, inbred stupidity, drunkness, racism and uglyness.
I hear nobody calling for condemnation of material like that though.
What would you expect from a man on the arab payroll?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019657.php#more
Feeding at Saudis’ trough
Former U.S. envoys lobby for kingdom
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/12/INGHIH5NF51.DTL
The legendary former Saudi ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar bin Sultan was quoted in the Washington Post a few years back as saying, “If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office, you’d be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office.”
President Clinton was so excited, from what I read, that in Portland, OR, he was singing for the joys of a time when America will no longer be a white majority nation. Yes, how grand it will become when ethnocentrism takes hold in the Southwest and the future border disputes thereof. Oh what joy when parts of New York become islamic as well as Michigan and Minnesota. Ofcourse, any unflattery of ‘the prophet’ will land little Chelsea in some hot water when liberals in future times might not be able to scream, because scream is what they’ll do. Too bad. Destroy a once fine nation whose civil religion was Christain and whose morales were not hijacked by a bunch of 1960′s idealists who did NOT live in a bad country!!!!!!!!!!!
When I see Moslems criticizing Al Jazeera for saying that Judaism is a religion for monkeys, I will believe that they believe in tolerance. Until then Danish newspapers can publish anything they want.
While often a little quick to spew all of my criticism, in all the hurry I forgot to say that of course I agree with most of the article.
I just think it serves no purpose to insert, what I see as questionable artificial criteria, when defining limits of free speech. It makes things unnecessarily complicated, and serves as a starting point for apologetic arguments without end for more restrictions.
My rant was certainly not meant as a defense for Bill Clinton’s hypocrisy.
Absolutely spot on Flemming. Clinton is a prize buffoon, but not, by a long way the only one. The ArchDruid of Canterbury comes to mind, the entire government of the UK, all pitched headlong into the fray, with calls to, errrr, not to cause offence.
Why not? If we can’t offend people’s opinions and beliefs, their is, quite literally, no use for any kind of political discourse.
Keep posting the ‘toons.
Just show the latest Democratic ex-President can be as much of a dhimmi as his Democratic predecessor.
Suicide and other terrorist acts are being carried out in the name of Islam or at least Islam and Allah are being invoked by those performing the acts. Those actively involved are doing so after being counseled by their religious leaders that they will enjoy the fruits of martyrdom. Moderate muslims other than sometimes voicing some rather tepid denunciations don;t really see any point in trying to actively put a stop to this perversion of their religion. Considering the above, how can any rational person not see that those cartoons portray Islam more correctly than its own religious leaders. I never thought I would use this slogan but…”If you aren’t part of the solution then you are part of the problem” In other words, if you aren’t actively engaged in rooting out those within your midst that are perpetuating terrorist bombings, etc. then you are actively engaged in a fraud by presenting your religion as one of peace.