(Badger herald)Readers respond to printing of Muhammad cartoon

On Monday, the Badger Herald Editorial Board crossed a line they were already dangerously close to. It was bad seeing a Herald redrawing of what it called the “most offensive” of the Danish cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammed with a bomb for a turban, but to now see an actual blown-up reprint has gone too far. Among the arguments the editors made justifying their reprint were “free speech,” “news-worthiness,” and a desire not to be “gatekeepers” guided by “prude censorship.” They simply don’t get it.

Cartoonists may have a legal right to free expression. The problem exists in a newspaper not taking the responsibility to discriminate between what has a utility in its publication, and what serves no purpose but to provoke. Muslims are legitimate in expressing their desire for papers to refrain from reprinting the article and demanding an apology. Despite the fact that the media claims the cartoons are “the impetus of riots that have caused numerous deaths” and have “reduced symbols of global peace to charred ruins,” only 13 people died as a result and 12 were unarmed protestors killed by law enforcement. The seven damaged embassies weren’t occupied, and the demonstrations, boycotts, and petitioning were examples of a community’s peaceful freedom to express their opinion when blatant examples of racism and bigotry are thrown in their faces.

The Badger Herald ignored a plea from the Madison Muslim community explicitly expressing their frustration with the Herald’s previous articles/drawings before they reprinted this cartoon. If they wanted to print a newsworthy story, they would write about why people are upset, what motivated the cartoon, and what the actual impacts of it are instead of blindly forging ahead under a banner of upholding free speech. We are not asking for a ban on a Nazi march in Skokie or a KKK rally in downtown Madison. We are pleading with our campus newspapers to not put on the hood, to not wear the swastika. We are pleading with them to not twist symbols from what they are into icons and ideals of the free press.

I am both shocked and appalled at Ms. Mogahed’s (Letter to the Editor, Feb. 14) blatant disregard for one of the core values and rights upon which this society is founded; a society in which Ms. Mogahed can vote, can travel beyond the confines of her home unescorted by a male, can own property and can demand an apology for an offensive cartoon. Yes the cartoon of Muhammad published by the Badger Herald two days ago is offensive, and yes the original Danish publisher of the cartoon is arguably making a statement tinged with racism. However, it seems that Ms. Mogahed in her response either did not read the article published along with the cartoon in the Badger Herald, or ironically only believes in the exchange of ideas through free speech when it suites her intentions.

Any institutional publication will try to court its readers. As such, they publish articles and cartoons that they believe will capture the minds of their readers through fascination, disbelief, relevance to current issues, and even outrage. The fact that a Danish newspaper, confused as to its own policies, has sold out to political pressure does not make the action right, nor does it give any valid reason for political censorship.

In a PC age when the federal government is courting the religious right, the foundation of our democratic society is being continually bombarded by those who wish to take away right after right and sensor [sic] the way we are taught and even the way we think. It is important to uphold those fundamental rights and practices we deem necessary for a free and democratic nation. The right to free speech and freedom of the press is paramount to a democratic society and I would defend anyone’s right to dissenting views or to ignorantly spew forth “hate speech,” even if by making use of this right, someone advocates destruction of it. The beautiful part of free speech is that if it is offensive, you can ignore it, or turn the page.

I was deeply dismayed that you printed one of the cartoons from Jyllands-Posten. Moreover, I was incredulous to find that the editorial staff portrayed themselves as crusaders for free speech. Freedom of speech is not the issue here. The issue is that the Danish newspaper decided to print these cartoons knowing they would be hurtful to the already harassed and beleaguered Muslim population in Denmark (and that by reprinting the cartoons the Badger Herald joins them in this).

The context is important here. Like many European countries these days, Denmark has been passing increasingly xenophobic and anti-Muslim legislation, not to mention informal harassment by the public. The cartoons were just another way to attack this population. By claiming that their freedom of speech is being threatened, the Danish newspaper makes itself appear the victim. In fact, by printing the cartoons, Jyllands-Posten committed a wrong. By reprinting the cartoons, the Badger Herald perpetuates that wrong.

You wrote “we feel the American readership — and, more precisely, that of Madison, Wis. — is sufficiently mature to handle these images.” Just read some of the posted comments (which are truly hateful) and tell me if you still believe it. Your editorial insincerely suggests that it is providing real information, as if these images were not already available on the web for those who wanted to see them. By printing them, rather than just talking about them, you implicitly endorse them.

The defense of Free Speech and the ability of a free society to satirize any and everything, no matter how sacred, is fundamental to the liberty of all. If making light of religion is not allowed, then to what extent ought making light of politics be allowed?

Free speech has limits, no doubt, but it is primarily to the extent of incitement and obscenity, as the Supreme Court decided and laid out the standard in the paradigm Brandenburg case.

Unreasonable reactions to satirization of sacred figures is not justifiable grounds to censor or self-censor. Indeed, it is the very reason why offensive speech receives a presumption of protection — offense is, by definition, relative to the individual. What offends you necessarily does not offend everyone.

The cartoons are not obscene, nor were they published for the purpose of inciting violence. Instead, these cartoons have been used merely to advance a movement seeking the destruction of the ability of individuals to freely mock that which they deem worthy of satirization — indeed, the destruction of liberty itself. If anyone truly harbor doubts as to the veracity of the hatred of all things related to freedom, the riots in relation to these cartoons ought to shine light where there once may have been darkness.

Kudos for your courage. May your bravery in the face of political correctness and fear of reprisals be remembered for its justness in the annals of American history. Needless to say, I am extremely proud.

This is the greeting of 1.3 billion people in the world, who dont [sic] speak it with there [sic] toungue [sic] but with their heart. You have brought ignorence [sic] and placed it to print, in hopes of attention you definetly [sic] have underestimated.

Muslims all around the world have protested, and demonstrated there [sic] clear miscontent [sic] for the “ammusing” [sic] cartoons the Denmark newspaper has published. And with that in mind your newspaper had the audasity [sic] to reprint them, that is disturbing to not only me, but to many who will soon write to you about this issue.

It is so disturbing because your intention to belittle and slander and misguide and miscommunicate and misjudge muslims [sic] is clear. We have no hate to offer to the world, except the hate of injustice. You have clearly unjustly rideculed [sic] our religion, our beloved prophet, and us. Whatever feelings you have towards islam [sic] and its current politics needs to be subsided for you to educate yourselves and do your responsibility as informed citizens. Your ignorence [sic] is not ammusing [sic] its [sic] disgusting.

I’m writing in response to the Herald’s publication of the incredibly racist, anti-Islamic cartoon. I would like to take issue with a few key phrases in the article. First, the editorial board argues that not censuring controversial expressions such as this cartoon are “newsworthy and the key to helping many form intelligent opinions about the international riots and ever-increasing destabilization of a volatile region of the world.” This assertion does not take into account the effects of such a cartoon heaped upon the long list of violence and injustice propagated by the US and its European allies throughout the Muslim world. The British medical journal Lancet estimated that over 100,000 Iraqis had been killed after only 18 months of occupation. Not only does the civilian death toll continue to rise, but the country’s infrastructure lies in ruin as does that of the already war torn nation of Afghanistan. Furthermore, Washington’s claims of bringing democracy to the Middle East are even further exposed to be a sham by its threats to not recognize the democratically elected members of Hamas to the recently held Palestinian legislative elections.

The kind of expression embodied in this cartoon does not contribute anything positive to the so-called ‘marketplace of ideas,’ unless racism and hatred are considered positive. Also, this marketplace isn’t as absolute as the editors would have you believe as we are not free to slander someone, print libelous statements, or to create a hostile environment (i.e. sexual harassment) to name a few. If people have a right to learn in a non-hostile environment and this speech is allowed it’s protecting the rights of the artist over the target (I’m sure this cartoon’s sentiment, if verbalized in a discussion on campus, would not be tolerated). Ultimately, this cartoon only legitimizes further attacks on Arabs and Muslims around the world and fuels the US witch-hunt at home when such racist expressions can be written off as humor and free speech. I firmly believe that there would be students on campus who would march in the streets to a Nazi parade or a KKK rally in Madison to put a stop to the ideas and actions they espouse. We shouldn’t applaud the so-called bravery of the papers who published this cartoon; we must stand in solidarity with the targets.

Pertaining cartoon in Badger Herald that dictating [sic] the Prophet Muhammad, I as a Muslim think that this is a mock [sic] to my religion and to University of Wisconsin-Madison. This is because it shows that students in UW-Madison is [sic] ignorant about religious and racial issues. I was in student government and was part of Plan 2008. I saw that how lack of diversity issue [sic] are handled by your admistration [sic] and it was sad to see how ignorance of UW Students [sic] on diversity issue.

I believe that you should confront this matter personally with Badger Herald and ask them to apologize to all Muslim [sic] in UW and also Muslim community. I hope you will consider this issue seriously and take action immediately.

Well said. Thank you for informing us about this debate. You could have sent the same message, and the sufficiently mature people of Madison would have perceived the full message without having to print the pictures. Most people all over the world have already seen these pictures, and I wonder what added value printing this picture had brought to your article. You might need to stop for a minute and think if you should be followers or inventors, constructive or destructive in our actions. it [sic] is very disappointing to see how shallow the Badger Herald had become to show the freedom of speech, when its board could have done it in a better way showing more respect and dignity to everyone in this campus.

Doesn't the muzzie's actions just VALIDATE the cartoons???

A big surprise that this article found its way to the "Compost" something for hizzy david gregory to cover!??!
I feel this is a MUST read!!!

By Flemming Rose
Washington Post | February 20, 2006

Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A PR stunt. Critics of 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad I decided to publish in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have not minced their words. They say that freedom of expression does not imply an endorsement of insulting people's religious feelings, and besides, they add, the media censor themselves every day. So, please do not teach us a lesson about limitless freedom of speech.

I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies; swear words rarely make it into our pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our support for freedom of expression.

But the cartoon story is different.

Those examples have to do with exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste; call it editing. By contrast, I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.

At the end of September, a Danish standup comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing with the Koran.

This was the culmination of a series of disturbing instances of self-censorship. Last September, a Danish children's writer had trouble finding an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three people turned down the job for fear of consequences. The person who finally accepted insisted on anonymity, which in my book is a form of self-censorship. European translators of a critical book about Islam also did not want their names to appear on the book cover beside the name of the author, a Somalia-born Dutch politician who has herself been in hiding.

Around the same time, the Tate gallery in London withdrew an installation by the avant-garde artist John Latham depicting the Koran, Bible and Talmud torn to pieces. The museum explained that it did not want to stir things up after the London bombings. (A few months earlier, to avoid offending Muslims, a museum in Goteborg, Sweden, had removed a painting with a sexual motif and a quotation from the Koran.)

Finally, at the end of September, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with a group of imams, one of whom called on the prime minister to interfere with the press in order to get more positive coverage of Islam.

So, over two weeks we witnessed a half-dozen cases of self-censorship, pitting freedom of speech against the fear of confronting issues about Islam. This was a legitimate news story to cover, and Jyllands-Posten decided to do it by adopting the well-known journalistic principle: Show, don't tell. I wrote to members of the association of Danish cartoonists asking them "to draw Muhammad as you see him." We certainly did not ask them to make fun of the prophet. Twelve out of 25 active members responded.

We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.

The cartoons do not in any way demonize or stereotype Muslims. In fact, they differ from one another both in the way they depict the prophet and in whom they target. One cartoon makes fun of Jyllands-Posten, portraying its cultural editors as a bunch of reactionary provocateurs. Another suggests that the children's writer who could not find an illustrator for his book went public just to get cheap publicity. A third puts the head of the anti-immigration Danish People's Party in a lineup, as if she is a suspected criminal.

One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet.

On occasion, Jyllands-Posten has refused to print satirical cartoons of Jesus, but not because it applies a double standard. In fact, the same cartoonist who drew the image of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross having dollar notes in his eyes and another with the star of David attached to a bomb fuse. There were, however, no embassy burnings or death threats when we published those.

Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work "The Open Society and Its Enemies," insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations.

I acknowledge that some people have been offended by the publication of the cartoons, and Jyllands-Posten has apologized for that. But we cannot apologize for our right to publish material, even offensive material. You cannot edit a newspaper if you are paralyzed by worries about every possible insult.

I am offended by things in the paper every day: transcripts of speeches by Osama bin Laden, photos from Abu Ghraib, people insisting that Israel should be erased from the face of the Earth, people saying the Holocaust never happened. But that does not mean that I would refrain from printing them as long as they fell within the limits of the law and of the newspaper's ethical code. That other editors would make different choices is the essence of pluralism.

As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak. The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.

The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.

Since the Sept. 30 publication of the cartoons, we have had a constructive debate in Denmark and Europe about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and people's beliefs. Never before have so many Danish Muslims participated in a public dialogue -- in town hall meetings, letters to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV. We have had no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in Denmark have been marginalized. They no longer speak for the Muslim community in Denmark because moderate Muslims have had the courage to speak out against them.

In January, Jyllands-Posten ran three full pages of interviews and photos of moderate Muslims saying no to being represented by the imams. They insist that their faith is compatible with a modern secular democracy. A network of moderate Muslims committed to the constitution has been established, and the anti-immigration People's Party called on its members to differentiate between radical and moderate Muslims, i.e. between Muslims propagating sharia law and Muslims accepting the rule of secular law. The Muslim face of Denmark has changed, and it is becoming clear that this is not a debate between "them" and "us," but between those committed to democracy in Denmark and those who are not.

This is the sort of debate that Jyllands-Posten had hoped to generate when it chose to test the limits of self-censorship by calling on cartoonists to challenge a Muslim taboo. Did we achieve our purpose? Yes and no. Some of the spirited defenses of our freedom of expression have been inspiring. But tragic demonstrations throughout the Middle East and Asia were not what we anticipated, much less desired. Moreover, the newspaper has received 104 registered threats, 10 people have been arrested, cartoonists have been forced into hiding because of threats against their lives and Jyllands-Posten's headquarters have been evacuated several times due to bomb threats. This is hardly a climate for easing self-censorship.

Still, I think the cartoons now have a place in two separate narratives, one in Europe and one in the Middle East. In the words of the Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the integration of Muslims into European societies has been sped up by 300 years due to the cartoons; perhaps we do not need to fight the battle for the Enlightenment all over again in Europe. The narrative in the Middle East is more complex, but that has very little to do with the cartoons.

The question is not being asked enough and answered. Was mohammad a terrorist well absolutely Yes.
surprise raids on trade caravans and tribal settlements, the use of plunder thus obtained for recruiting an ever growing army of greedy desperados, assassinations of opponents, blackmail, expulsion and massacre of the Jews of Medinah, attack and enslavement of the Jews of Khayber, rape of women and children, sale of these victims after rape, trickery, treachery and bribery employed to their fullest extent to grow the numbers of his religion Islam which ironically was supposed to mean "Peace"! He organised no less than 86 expeditions, 26 of which he led himself.

Just one example because this whole Islam thing is getting very tiring

Assasination of poets who criticised Mohammed's murderous ways
Date: Late March-April, 623 A.D
Place: Medinah
Victims: Two of the most famous poets of Medinah, who had the courage to criticise the murderous actions of Mohammed and his gang

After the battle of Badr, the people of Medinah were horrified that they had given refuge to such a blatant criminal and his followers in their city. Many began protesting the presence of such violent and murderous people in their city. In a free society like Pre-Islamic Arabia, the poets acted as society's conscience and were free to criticise, satirize and examine the actions of people. The two most famous poets of this kind were Abu 'Afak; an extremely old and respected poet and Asma bint Marwan; a young mother with the gift of superb verse.

Muhammad was enraged at their criticism. When he heard the verses composed by Asma Bint Marwan he was infuriated and screamed aloud, "Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan!" That very night a gang of Muslims set out to do the dirty deed. They broke into the poets' house. She was lying in in her bedroom suckling her newborn child, while her other small children slept nearby. The Muslims tore the newborn infant off her breast and hacked it to pieces before her very eyes. They then made her watch the murder of all four of her children, before raping and then stabbing her repeatedly to death. After the murder when the Muslims went to inform the Prophet, he said "You have done a service to Allah and his Messenger, her life was not worth even two goats!"

A month later the distinguished and highly respected Abu Afak, who was over a hundred years old and reknowned for his sense of fairness, was killed brutally in the same manner as he slept. Once again the Prophet had commented that morning "Who will avenge me on this scoundrel!"

This shows us exactly how much the tolerant and peace loving Prophet respected life. Muslims claim that Mohammed was extremely gentle and loved children. Indeed the horrifying way he had Asma Bint Marwan's five infants slaughtered certainly attests to this "loving" side of the Prophet.

The cartoons aren`t racist and they aren`t offensive. They are truthful, they are factual. They portray Islam as it is and Muslims can`t handle the truth or the facts, much like liberals which is why liberals can relate.

First off, out of all of them, there where only but three cartoons that one could take as seemingly "offensive" to Muslims.

But if Muslims say they are offensive, then the truth is offensive to them. Is it too painful for them to look at themselves in the mirror?

The one with Mohammed with a bomb on his turban was simply telling the truth, and the protesting Muslims proved it by threatening death or "threatening to explode". Is being truthful offensive?

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

"Insult Islam you will pay, Allahs wrath is on its way" with shooting targets on heads (supposedly before they intend to cut them off). This is a direct threat to the people wearing those targets, and a message with a direct threat to people everywhere.

The second "offensive" one said "The Prophet daft and dumb keeping women under thumb".. Are Muslims protesting because they are saying women are now treated as equals, there are no human rights abuses against women and the artist is wrong? Baloney. Again, the cartoon is truthful, the artist simply stated a fact that Islam seems to be incapable of reaching even this basic level of human rights. Only animals treat females the way Muslims do, and you would be hard pressed to find which animals.

The third "offensive" one showed Mohammed with devil horns, which again to me is telling the truth. Islam it seems to me has this preoccupation with using death as the only method of problem solving, which is what I would call evil. Do Muslims think it is not? Do they truly believe killing someone who draws a simple cartoon "good"? Have they decended so low as to place drawn lines on paper over the life of a human being? To me that is wanting to kill for the sake of killing, and that is the definiton of evil, that is hell.

Fourth, the rest of the cartoons are just idiotic. They really don`t show anything other than the artist is drawing someone he names Mohammed. Not one cartoon says it is the Prophet Mohammed except the one about the human rights of Islamic women to represent Islam as a whole, yet Muslims at the drop of a hat are screaming that all the cartoons are "an affront to the Prophet"... That to "show an image of the Prophet is an insult to Islam" and to me they are using that primarily as an excuse to participate in their favorite hobby, which is death.

They are the ultimate hypocrites which is why once again liberals can relate: If "showing an image of Mohammed" is an insult to Islam, then why is not naming yourself "Mohammed" and then getting your photo taken also considered an insult? Is that not "portraying an image of Mohammed the Prophet"?? What is the difference between these cartoons portraying Mohammed and the Mohammed Atta who crashed a plane into the WTC who had a passport with his image on it? T o me by killing so many people he "insulted the prophet" 3000 times more than any cartoon could.

They are total hypocrites, the fact is "portraying Mohammed" is not an insult, but an excuse for them to participate in their favorite hobby which is murder, and as far as I`m concerned the sooner they are all sent to whatever hell with virgins they deem paradise the faster people around the world can get back to the business at hand which is living, life and love. They are demons against humanity in every sense of the word. http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.