Israel's ambassador to Sweden destroys artwork in Stockholm museum

Haaretz ^ | 1/17/2004 | By Haaretz Service and Reuters

[BlakeAshby2008]

Sorry. I'm not jumping you, specifically. I'm just amazed that so many in this thread would condone the violent destruction of private property and the abridgement of a person's right to political free speech just because they don't like what was said. Are we Americans, or Soviets?

[LA Conservative]

This was an act of MORAL OUTRAGE. If only more people acted in such a manner. Refer to my tagline.

[Praxeologue]

the ambassador should be prosecuted

That is the reason for diplomatic immunity. The ambassador can express the position of his government any way he wants. The only remedy the host country has is to deport him.

He knew this and blended anger with reason.

He did his job well.

[freedumb2003]

Sorry. I'm not jumping you, specifically

No offense taken -- defending the 1st Amendment requires passionate advocacy. We are living the reults of its erosion -- we've seen what it is like being a conservative on a college campus these days. "Hate Speech" is defined as only those things the Left opposes. It's a mess out there and that proves the "slippery slope argument that is dismissed so readily by many.

I actually supported the "dung on the Virgin Mary" artist as far as his right to express himself (offensive as I found that expression). Asking us to PAY for that OTOH... (but that is not the point of the case on point).

But the destruction of private property is a serious offense -- the sanctity of said property is the cornerstone of capitalism and our entire way of life. It is what separates us from the rest of the world. Destruction thereof is a MAJOR offense. The diplomat was wrong (whether the art or the gallery), even if his anger was understandable.

This incident brings out a plethora of issues. That's why I like FR.

[tet68]

He did his job well.

Not only that, but he should have STAYED at the exhibition,
he was invited after all. If the artist chose not to appear
that was their decision

[Travis McGee]

Sure. Let's put up a gallery of your mother in prostitute poses with little children, at the shop around the corner from your home. "Hey, it's art," right?

[Travis McGee]

Yes, he was merely "continuing the artistic process."

Perhaps the most suitable "artistic contribution" in the perfect "cultural sensitivity mode" would be a car bomb exploding outside the museum.

The Swedes could run about snapping glorious artisitc photos of dismembered corpses and screaming victims.

High art, Pali style! Bravo! Encore!

[Travis McGee]

Gaspar framed it better than I. Answer me this one, please.

"How about nailing the head of a partially birthed child to a cross?

Or excised female genetilia to a Kuran, and calling it art?"

Have you NO sense of shame or moral outrage?

How about a nice collection of Nazi lampshades made from tattooed human skin, circa 1944?

[society-by-contract]

"How about nailing the head of a partially birthed child to a cross?

YIKES! I don't want to touch that.

Or excised female genitilia to a Kuran, and calling it art?"

If one accepts the premise that each individual own her own body, it would be possible for an individual to draw up a contract to have her "excized female genitilia [nailed] to a Kuran, and call it art." In fact it would be art. If the genitalia are acquired by initiating violence or threats of violence, then the art would be evidence used to hunt down (and kill) the assailants(s).

How about a nice collection of Nazi lampshades made from tattooed human skin, circa 1944?

The human skin was gained by initiating violence; the lampshades would be evidence used to hunt down the assailent(s).

[risk]

Have you forgotten what being an American means?

Maybe you've forgotten what it means to be human. That's what all of these "rights" are about, remember? There's a saying we have in these parts: most veterans would defend your right to burn your own flag in public with their own flesh and blood. In fact, many have. But don't be too surprised if one goes a little berserk and breaks your arm trying to put out the flames.

Anyway, I can tell know as much about freedom of expression as a leather lampshade.

[Travis McGee]

When the Swedes get some Pali-style "performance art" of the exploding belt with nails dipped in rat poison variety, they may change their tune.

[freedumb2003]

Anyway, I can tell [sic] know as much about freedom of expression as a leather lampshade.

Your rant, although amusing, sheds no light on the topic at hand.

If you read the whole thread, you'll see that I am big believer in the 1st Amendment to the extreme. But I also discuss, dispassionately, how those on the receiving end of "free speech" may be quite distressed.

I must assume the missing noun meant "I" as in "I, risk, know as much about freedom of expression as a leather lampshade."

[tet68]

We all believe in the 1st Amendment (and we extend the principle to others, in this case Sweden)

We all must remember, there is NO first amendment any where else but HERE.

The ambassador should have tipped the whole mess on the floor and pissed on it.

[BlakeAshby2008]

"How about nailing the head of a partially birthed child to a cross?"

Well, Trav, that'd all depend on the law of the land, wouldn't it? If you owned a license to possess human remains, and complied with all laws regarding the display of those remains, then yes, it would be art. Assuming it was America, anybody that tried to destroy it would be guilty of breaking State and Federal laws. They'd pull time, which would be appropriate, since they'd be CRIMINALS.

Hopefully, they'd get some rudimentary civics lessons and learn to treasure the rights so many have fought and died to preserve.

"Or excised female genetilia to a Kuran, and calling it art?"

Look, I don't know what country you're from, but in America, our rights are graven in stone, and first among them is the right to express yourself freely, especially in a political context.

Are you a Canadian?

[risk]

I shouldn't have addressed my comments to you, sorry!

[risk]

You're starting to sound like a Hollywood stiff complaining that because a film contract was denied, his first amendment rights were violated. Vandalism is different from censorship, although they have something in common. I don't see a solid connection to freedom of speech here. I see symbolic vandalism. If you "speak" your mind with "art" and it "moves" people to vandalism, haven't you gotten your point across? Now if the ambassador had physically attacked the artist, or implored the Swedish government to imprison him, that might have been different.

You seem to have a difficult time grasping the complexity of the problem, so I give up trying to help you see it from the Ambassador's perspective.

[Alouette]

So when it suits us the destruction of private property is a "technicality?"

If you want to get all pissy what exactly did this man destroy? He unplugged some spotlights and dropped them into a basin of water. They got wet. How is that "destruction"?

[Travis McGee]

Kust wanted to be clear. You are a Nazi and a ghoul, by your own descriptions. Your own words condemn you.