Battleangel

Wikipedia - Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

The corporate media has been all too expedient when it comes to jumping on this bandwagon in order to show how radical and perplexing Islam is and what an apparent danger it poses to “the west” and our supposedly “liberal” values of “democracy.” Not that some people haven’t been busy lambasting the application of free speech in Europe. Apparently, now we have free speech again and it’s worth defending. Who would have thought.

European and American right-wing pundits have spared no expenses in further demonizing the Islamic world over the squabble. Many Islamic organizations, in particular after the Hamas landslide, have also jumped on the bandwagon, trying to get a piece of the action and appear more righteous than they really are. Hence the recent rioting. Of course the debacle started almost immediately after the cartoons were published … on the 30th of September last year. There was a period of calm and serious protests, but it should be noted that it produced nothing in terms of results.

Lets just skip ahead here and get to the Pudel’s kern. Had it only been a stray cartoon, in a non-aligned nation, portraying Mohammed or indeed Muslims in general, in a balanced fashion, I would have been the first to defend the freedom of speech unequivocally and dismiss rioting as incomprehensible.
But this is far from incomprehensible. Notwithstanding a long history of the west invading, oppressing and killing Muslims or the current skewed power relationship and skewed media image. Notwithstanding the rules that Islam has regarding iconoclasm or idolatry. As an atheist it matters little per se, but it is likewise unacceptable to become a henchman for Judeo-Christians, as one would if one were to unequivocally thrash Islam in this case.

The first problem is that the cartoons in questions were legio, a massive concerted effort if you will, and obviously aimed to provoke, not to elevate or raise the civil discourse. As such one has to at the very least assume responsibility for the reaction, or else get off the soap box. Second of all the portrayal was hardly fair and frankly overstepping into racism. Had the cartoon depicted Jews in much the same stylized fashion I doubt the reaction would have been much different, except there would have been less rioting and Washington, with ADL et al in tow, would have stepped in to denounce Jyllands-Posten as anti-Semitic or whatever. Go ahead and try it if you don’t believe it. I foresee that the latter would also make a notable bullet point on the religious freedom evaluation list that the US government is spitting out every year in a concerted effort to blacklist its enemies. I reckon these cartoons wont make it to that list.
Thirdly, this is Denmark after all, a NATO member state, and a vocal and material supporter of the US empire. It may not occur to the racist “clash of civilizations”-rabble denouncing Muslims and jumping that bandwagon or the other rabble rioting in the Islam world. But it does matter in the grand scheme of things.
Even some radically pro-American, pro-empire writers would surely agree, goodwill is sometimes more important than exercising your free expression ad absurdum. And then there are also different and more or less sophisticated ways to express yourself, if you indeed have a point that can be succinctly and articulately penned. The debate equivalent of filling your neighbour’s mailbox with dog do isn’t exactly going to score any points.

Even a former US president could recognize this … Clinton almost sounds like a nice guy sometimes. Unless you know his history and his flimsy pro-Israeli middle-east policy. But anyway …

AFP - So now what are we going to do? … Replace the anti-Semitic prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?

As far as the “violent” reaction in the Islamic world that the media has spend much time covering … As for sanctions, public protests and flag burning, the last time I looked they were still legal and an expression of liberty. Even though the new economic order would surely like to elevate the former to new legal distinctions, as business interests and the bottom line are of course more important than lowly people. Especially when the rather limited sanctions initiative is not originating with the almighty US. God forbid anyone actually question that religious dogma.

Clash of cultures? Hardly. A collective clash of idiots, racists, extremists and opportunists more likely.