Yesterday was a beautiful day, marred only by stupid, stupid tabloid journalists. Idiots!
In case you have no idea what I'm talking about, read on. In recent news: Danish cartoonist published a series of frames targeted at the Moslem. Not nice, but it would probably have stopped there if one of the cartoons did not represent the Prophet. The one that shall not be represented. For Moslems, this was double blasphemy: ridiculing the most revered personnage they have, and breaking one of their most sacred prohibitions.
Understandably, the whole Moslem world rose in protest, and started boycotting Danish goods. Then other newspapers started reprinting the cartoons, and the protests, in places, turned violent.
Any sane man would then recognise that a hornet's nest was touched, and leave it alone. Any sane man would offer respect to a fellow human being, and leave the cartoon in the obscure drawer of unfortunate and best-forgotten history. But nooo. It devolved into a battle between respect for others' values, and freedom of speech.
Now that's just ridiculous. Freedom of speech is all fine and well, but there are some times one should exercise some constraint. I may think a friend of mine is ugly as sin, but do I have to tell her that? Do I need to hurt her feelings, just for the sake of not honesty, but bluntness? Will I be better thought of if I hold the freedom of speech torch, or if I keep my thoughts to myself? There are situations where the choice between honesty and silence is a hard one, with grave consequences to silence. But just to satisfy one's whimsy, only a sociopath will choose speech over autocensure. And it's even worse when one could hurt not one friend, but an entire civilisation.
Apparently, we live in a society where sociopaths have positions of power. The press has an enormous influence over how people live and think. And the decision to keep the cartoons in circulation is not even honesty. The only principle this action is guided by, is profit. The unscrupulous journalism trying to raise hell in order to raise their circulation.
An example of this just happened in Croatia, too. We were thanking Goddess, God and whatever deity we respected that Croatian journalists were smart enough not to get involved in this matter. No-one printed the offensive cartoons, and we could pat our backs for living in a democratic, intelligent and respectful society. Then a tabloid under the name Nacional published the material. Not even in the first couple of days of the crisis, when one could argue (like the Danish paper argued) that they did not know the consequences, or how deeply offensive the Islam found them. No, they reprinted them a week later, when everyone and their grandmother knew exactly what kind of response could be expected, and how much the Moslem community will be hurt. None of us could believe how mindbogglingly stupid journalists could be. Or greedy.
A representative of the trash weekly in question gave a statement for the TV, and it was just amazing, for the sheer stupidity that came out of her mouth. "We think that this offends no-one." And apparently you haven't heard the protests in every Northafrican capital, and many European ones, as well? "We believe that the readers have the right to be informed." Well, the information was available in every daily for a week, and on every TV station's news. So even the people who were trying to live in political ignorance (as I usually do) could not but overhear all the details of this unfortunate situation. The only thing that the people might have missed is the cartoons themselves, and no moral person would miss them.
Besides, we're not the only Croats in the Islamic world. Croatia has big investments in cooperation with the Northafrican countries. I don't rightly know about the other countries, but I know that here in Syria there are not only personnel but substantial amount of expensive equipment, not to mention the trade agreements. I have an acquaintance who, similarly, worked in Qatar until very recently, and also I have heard about Croatian-Libyan cooperation. Even uninformed as I am. So by publishing those cartoons, even if one disregards the (to me the most important) detail of human decency and respect, they have put all those people and all that capital at risk. Knowingly and deliberately. Amazing.
The really great thing that returned to us the faith in our countryfolk is that everybody was quick to point out that this was just the voice of one journal that aims to sow dissension. The government leaders agree it was stupid, the Christian leaders agree it was stupid, and the journalists' association leaders agree it was stupid. We only hope the Moslems, both in Croatia and here, will realise that it is just the voice of a minority, and not judge us all by Nacional's covers.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Thoughts of an Unwilling Blogger, or Ramblings from Faraway Places
Posts
5 comments:
Disagreed. Their religion is not really oppressive at all. As there is extreme Christianity, so is there also extreme Islam. But Damascus is famous for co-habitation of all its religions. The word is not religious tolerance, but religious acceptance here. Everyone is so friendly, no matter which race or creed you subscribe to, as long as you give the same respect to others. And speaking of Islam being oppressive, I really don't think so. The people are happy here. They may be wealthy or they may be poor, they may be male or they may be female, but they are all a family in Islam, as far as I could see. Can our Christian environment boast the same? True, there are restrictions on what people can do, but so there are benefits. A wife promises to be loyal to her husband, and obey him, but he promises to provide for her and treat her with respect. There are two problems I see here: the first one is that we do not know enough about Islam to be able to judge their way of life (if we even had a right to), and the other is that one only hears about the bad things while the good sides get overlooked. Human being is attracted to scandal, and this week proves it well. So the average person tends to look at Islam through the distorted lens of the extremist ideas, and I suspect that they do not like to be identified with their extreme minority, just as I do not wish to be judged by the Nacional's actions.
Hmm. I try to moderate, and to see from all perspectives, knowing my own to be too limited. If I only saw things as me, I would never know anything. Context-pulling is a dangerous game, you know. I know nothing about Danish imam campaigns, so I'm not talking about them. My example of an ugly friend scenario is a scaled-down familiar-to-all scenario. A scaled-down I-deserved-that response would be a punch in a face. Not that I would think much of the puncher, but I would see how the punchee deserved that. A non-scaled-down example would be forcing a father to watch a video of a daughter's rape for "informativeness' sake". Desecrating things dear to other people is nothing but torture, any way you call it, and does not have a place in a civilised society. And I did say I do not think burning an embassy is the right way, but not all Moslems did that, only a mob of a thousand. Judge Moslems by those, and the Danish cartoonist (and Dogmas) is right. But it is a misuse of mislogic.
And Freya, it should go both ways in our culture. I cannot judge theirs. I would never consider my S.O. to be anything but an equal in most things, but their culture may not. But as long as I see happy faces around me, I do not wish to presume that "my way is better".
I fail to see how following a fourteen-century-dead goat-herder is worse than following a twenty-century-dead carpenter, which is what most of our country (and most of the Western civilisation) profess to. I am neither Christian nor Moslem, but I respect both, as long as they return the courtesy. Hell, I'd respect a Satanist if he didn't act sociopathic. But go and sacrifice someone who doesn't want to be sacrificed, and I don't like you. I can't tolerate intolerance. I don't differentiate people based on their faith (although I may find a few choice things about religion). I value them as individuals based on how they treat me and others around them. Anything else, and I'd feel a bigot. And I don't like to be a bigot.
The original cartoonist made a bad call. In my book, he deserves a reprimand, and education, but not a death penalty. The average Danish person is even less to blame, and whoever lashes out at random at one, he's just sacrificing virgins, and I don't like him. The syndicating editors are making a cultural crime, with full awareness of the consequences. No sympathies.
I mean, it's a joke for us. The Western world has lost its sense of sanctity. We joke about Jesus, and God, and Hell, and Life, and even Foetal Murder. Many other cultures keep their sacred sacred. I will not make fun out of island tambus (taboos) if I ever visit Vanuatu, and I will not ridicule the Prophet of Islam. Because, even if no mere word can evoke such outrage in me, I can see how in others it might. I cannot say for sure: am I fortunate that I'm so civilised that nothing can touch me so deeply, or pathetic, that I lost that sense of awe?
And, just to make it clear: it's not a culture giving gold for heads, it's an individual. Embassies were not burned by a creed, but by an angry mob. Just as cartoons do not get published by countries, but by editors. Don't go confusing my levels here.
(And a clarification for Freya: "in most things" means I do not expect to give birth to a child myself, and I imagine the-hypothetical-she would not be pleased if I wore a miniskirt. It wasn't about anything sinister you might have imagined.)
Hundreds of thousands? Not here. A vast majority of people work normally, shake your hand, smile from ear to ear and say "Welcome to Croatia!", and not even just because you're a potential customer.
One thousand in a city of two million do not represent a culture. Afghans are a separate story, and I'm not talking about them. They're extremists, and do not fall under my an-you-hurt-none new-age mantra, which you managed to mangle so thoroughly. I asked Nina if she was particularly oppressed by having to wear a cloak to the Mosque, and the answer was a dumbfounded no. My uncle added that he felt a bit oppressed by the enforced shoelessness, but that is not selective, and not too harsh.
Witticisms aside, no-one in Syria died from the "joke". Except, maybe, a piece of Danish economy, which is regrettable and I mourn it deeply.
Whether a culture flourishes or not has nothing to do with its values. Or, rather, it does: the less scrupulous ones usually prevail. So the argument about judgeability of cultures is completely bogus.
There is no woman from any Moslem society. The Moslem societies differ just as Christian ones do, maybe even more. I feel much compassion toward the Afghan ones. Most of the Syrian ones seem to live in an almost Western style, except for their hair being bound under a scarf in public. They shop, they laugh, even go to work.
All generalisations are bad, except the present one. And you spout generalisations like a well-rehearsed faucet. Don't bash Moslems, bash people that deserve bashing: angry mobs and Afghan majority, warmongers and lousy husbands. I see nothing in Islam itself yet that would allow me to condemn it any more than I would condemn, say, Christianity.
And, if you're sick and tired of my attitudes, you are welcome not to read them.
They do not all react the same, because only those that react violently are news, and that is all you are hearing. Yes, there are reports of protests, even violent ones, throughout the Muslim world, but the vast majority of their citizens do not take part in them. There is a difference between feeling threatened and feeling outraged. And you were definitely talking about their religion being the cause of their "stupidity", which is a complete falsehood. Stupidity comes from insufficient attention, ignorance and power-hungry leaders. Now those of you who slept through their comparative religion and those who agree with Dogmas' dogmas, go and get some education. (Woe is me, when people make me Google on this crappy connection...) Also look up more details on Islamic liberals, when you're at it. I have not yet read Qur'an, but even if there are some points of contention between my beliefs and those laid out therein, and although it is very unlikely that I would be reciting Shahada anytime soon (or ever), I do not believe Islam to be oppressive, although its practice, or probably more correctly its mispractice, in many places of the world certainly is. I might change my opinion once I read it, but I really doubt it.
I do not think I shall revisit this entry again. Sapienti sat.
Post a Comment