One of the classic ways abusers internally deflect responsibility is via a twisted transferance of blame to the victim. In other words, it was something little Tommy had done (or heck, simply who he was) that made Dad (and, alas, it’s usually Dad) beat him black and blue.
What makes the dialectic particulalry insidious is that should Tommy accept the blame, the abuse leaps from being merely physical into psychological & emotional. In that strange realm, Tommy’s self-sufficiency & worth plummets as Good/Bad is no longer something he can independently judge for himself but rather, becomes wholly determined by the tormentor’s chosen response.
Sadly, the recent bombings of the Danish embassy in Pakistan has brought forth language that’s more fitting a domestic abuse case than international diplomacy –
Fauzia Mufti Abbas, Pakistan’s ambassador to Denmark, agreed that the Mohammed cartoons, first published in Jyllands-Posten newspaper in October 2005, had incited Muslim anger and were possibly the motivation for the attack, which killed eight and wounded as many as 30.
‘It isn’t just the people of Pakistan that feel they have been harassed by what your newspaper has begun,’ she said. ‘I’d like to know if your newspaper is satisfied with what it has done and what it has unleashed?’
<
p>
<
p>Thankfully, the Dane’s recognize their values have worth & aren’t willing to accept blame –
J脙赂rn Mikkelsen, Jyllands-Posten’s editor-in-chief, defended his newspaper’s decision to print the cartoons.
‘The decision to do so was in full accordance with Danish law, Danish press ethics and Danish press traditions. That the facts have been twisted in the rest of the world and misused for purposes that are no concern of Jyllands-Posten is something we can and will not take responsibility for.’
Bravo. The real criminals are the ones hurling bombs, not operating printing presses.
hm. “The real criminals” presupposes a particular worldview, which i share. but, i have noticed that hindus and sikhs in india and immigrants to england of these groups (judging by accent) have used some of the same language as muslims in regards to hurt feelings, i.e., that free speech does not exist to allow for hurting religious feelings (i recall that language specifically during the case of the theater which the sikhs were objecting to a few years back). so i think this is to some extent a worldview difference, as evidenced from what i recall by a muslim commenter on this weblog who argued that free speech was simply an ends toward amicable intercommunal relations, as opposed to a fundamental and atomic individual right which was an ends in and of itself (and europeans might share the muslim view to some extent, ask briget bardot ;-).
also, as an empirical matter i think we have to remember that in many societies religious truths are held sacred and inviolable in a way that they are not in the west. in fact, i can enter into the public record that some muslims (immigrants) in college found my open expressal of atheism when they asked if i was a muslim rather disturbing (i think most “bad muslims” will admit they’re not that religious, but i would simply state i don’t believe in god and thought religion was silly). i have heard repeatedly the analogy between denial of the holocaust laws which suppress free speech in europe and protection of religious sensibilities. my gut reaction is twofold: 1) i do reject the moral foundation of these laws, but, 2) the holocaust was the murder of around 10 million people* by industrialized means. qualitatively that to me is very different from insulting a non-existent supernatural entity or his/her prophet/ but obviously for many religious believers the incineration of 10 million human beings is morally comparable to their hurt religious feelings since they do make that comparison** (if you integrate over 1 billion individuals perhaps, i don’t know how you’d measure this).
p.s. i was in rural bangladesh in 1989 when l’affaire rushdie broke out and was asked to interpret some of the bizarre pamphlets about orgies and sex parties which involved the prophet & his wives in the satanic verses. some of the anger is partly due to the fact that what happens in denmark probably got wildly misrepresented.
** some animal rights groups use the analogy with chickens and pro-life activists abortion, so it’s a powerful argument if you accept their premises.
john haidt on foundations of morality. i think part of the difference is that non-westerners have different a moral calculus than college-educated westerners (note that most americans believe we should ban flag-burning, but cultural elites generally veto these sorts of laws [e.g., antonin scalia ruled that that law was unconstitutional!]).
Aside from the points mentioned, it is also worth noting that we don’t have a holocaust denial ban in Denmark.
Your metaphor doesn’t work for me, Vinod. The Danish Embassy is not a child to the Pakistani car bombers. The fundamental problem here is that what Danish law permits may not be what other people and cultures permit, and it is certainly revolutionary to expect some corresponding respect from Europeans regarding other cultures. Although bombs aren’t necessarily the best agent of change, they do tend to be used in the context of most revolutions, when other measures fail.
Here is the problem: We have recently emerged from 500 years of Europeans acting on legal authority conferred on them by their monarchs and home governments in lands where those monarchs and governments had no sovereign rights or authority. To redress the balance, where there is governmental as well as societal resistance to respecting the priorities of other cultures, as the Danes have shown there is, there needs must be some sort of confrontation with that government.
Judge Scalia’s decision is correct in the context of constitutional rights the United States– his decision may not be correctly applied in China, with respect to burning the Chinese flag, viz., see Ramchandra Guha on Mumbaikers pelting an image of Mao with eggs as a prelude to the 1962 war.
I agree with Fauzia Mufti Abbas.
A while ago, I published a three part article on blogcritics, The Last Mughal and The First Empress at http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/05/20/164413.php http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/05/20/164556.php and http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/05/20/164836.php which elicited some erudite commentary as well.
We have recently emerged from 500 years of Europeans acting on legal authority conferred on them by their monarchs and home governments in lands where those monarchs and governments had no sovereign rights or authority.
the nation-state system is a lot younger than 500 years. and to a large extent ‘legal authority’ even today is a fig-leaf for the law of the jungle…. (i know whereof i speak as an american 馃槈
Judge Scalia’s decision is correct in the context of constitutional rights the United States– his decision may not be correctly applied in China, with respect to burning the Chinese flag, viz., see Ramchandra Guha on Mumbaikers pelting an image of Mao with eggs as a prelude to the 1962 war.
yes, but the problem is that many muslims abroad want act as if blasphemy on danish soil is something they should be able to affect via international law. no one wants to impose civilization on the savages here, we just want to preserve the individual rights secured by the centuries long battle against superstitious barbarism which reigns supreme in most of the world. luckily there’s always the USA where such rights are secured not by the fickle will of the majority but constitutional fiat…assuming our judges interpret the law “correctly” 馃檪
i think state sanctioned multiculturalism pretty much is the death knell for unbridled free speech. on the margins a liberal society can accommodate diversity, but when you have too much superstitious cacophany there’s just too much possibility for anomie….
To redress the balance, where there is governmental as well as societal resistance to respecting the priorities of other cultures, as the Danes have shown there is, there needs must be some sort of confrontation with that government.
ah, the wages of the danish empire! creating civilizational blocks when done by the likes of huntington is ignorant, but we can talk about europeans in a general sense and their collective sin with no guilt 馃檪
hunh… Is Abbas saying that the bombers were right to kill and maim and they should not be punished? Dude’s lost it. Somebody give him a large wedgie with his chagga.
6 脗路 razib said
I know huh? Not that I necessarily agree with the Danish government, it is very right-wing and I’ve heard a few unpleasant experiences of coloured travelleres there. Nevertheless it’s never OK to generalize. It’s like saying all Indians are the same.
i wonder what really offends the western civilization ?
This is not totally relevant to Vinod’s post, but in the larger issue of Muslim/Sikh/Hindu/etc responses to affronts to their religious/cultural/etc sensibilities, why haven’t economic actions become more popular?
E.g. instead of bombing an embassy, a “don’t buy Danish/etc” campaign would be more successful, wouldn’t it? I’m sure Danish firms like Maersk (shipping), Lego (toys) and the internationally well-known Danish butter cookies would rather their govts do something to settle such issues than suffer massive sales drops?
The same thing could be said of the Sikh campaign in the 80s. Given the Punjab’s “granary of India” status then, it might have been more successful to impose an economic blockade or something similar than try to attack the military.
Of course, using economic action implies huge organizational and PR skills, without which it’s moot and a embassy bombing is an easier, faster way to hit your target. And I realize that there was talk of a boycott of Danish goods the 1st time the cartoons were printed, but I don’t think it was that successful.
Appropriating the tactics used against South Africa etc. would also be one way of acting in a “Western”-sanctioned manner.
i wonder what really offends the western civilization ?
this. people should burn effigies in the same of such abomination, but that’s just my values speaking (smeared feces on a koran don’t really rise to the level of notice outside of my hypochondria).
Nevertheless it’s never OK to generalize
actually, i think it is OK. it just comes across very clumsily in words. but if you’re talking about probabilities, distributions, etc. in terms of your confidences it becomes more clear. i was more wanting to emphasize the double-standards at work with this sort of thing.
9 脗路 Priya said
I mean excepting racial abuses or anything that violates human rights.
I mean excepting racial abuses or anything that violates human rights.
two points
1) there’s a lot of interpretation on what counts as “human rights” or “racial” abuse
2) there is A LOT that offends people. A LOT (i say this as a person who offends all the time). but the masses have become habituated to the fact that their elites will tend to set a REALLY high bar in sanctioning the suppression of what offends the public moral sense. the protection of offensive speech is essential proof-of-principle, it’s not a bug, it’s the most extreme illustration of principle.
7 脗路 khoofia said
Fauzia M. Abbas is probably female.
9 脗路 Priya said
Wearing white after Labor Day.
Maybe if the Danish troops in Afghanistan got together for regular soccer games with the Pakistani Frontier Corps, this would help defuse the situation. 馃槈
Moral Issues Divide Westerners From Muslims in the West,
homosexual acts – % of respondents who say it is “morally acceptable”
berlin muslims – 26% paris muslims – 18% london muslims – 4% religious americans – 28% us public – 48% german public – 68% french public – 81% uk public – 66%
there’s a difference in the zeitgeist. perhaps we should split the difference with western muslims minorities for the sake of multicultural amity? some acts are OK, some acts are not OK 馃檪
What is the Danish government supposed to do to “settle such issues”?
while that may be accurate, it is also a fact that in western societies, the sensitivities towards non-western religions are not given as much respect as is given to their western counterparts.
i think this argument misses the very point of free speech. e.g. if we look at one theory of free speech, in the marketplace of ideas, those ideas not worth much value will be discarded naturally anyway, such that we should minimise or eliminate censorship and let the population at large judge for itself which speech is worth considering and which is worth discarding. to take away that right of the population with e.g. holocaust denial bans is to supplant the opinion and ideas of individuals with that of a government, essentially robbing people of the freedom of thought. and if we look at certain rationales behind censoring free speech – e.g. clear and present danger, this can be applied as equally to the issue of holocaut denial as to something such as the mohammed cartoons – whether you agree with the reasonableness of the reaction, pragmatially, one must consider or acknowledge that the reactions are potentially violent for both. this is not an issue of which event is more disrespectful or had a greater impact – to some degree, it is an issue of giving more respect to the feelings of one group vs. that of another. personally, i think holocaust denial bans are ridiculously stupid and violate basic freedoms, and for more reasons than not, are not more worthy of censorship or protection than the cartoons at issue.
only when convenient, priya, and only when certain societies are involved.
10
I don’t believe Pakistan is a big market for Lego or cookies. Nor is India for that matter.
while that may be accurate, it is also a fact that in western societies, the sensitivities towards non-western religions are not given as much respect as is given to their western counterparts.
well, that’s a complicated issue and varies by nation to nation and situation by situation. e.g., in most liberal secular circles it’s actually more OK to attack western religions because it’s familiar, while non-western religions are seen as authentic expressions of marginalized voices. in more conservative religious circles, yes, the double standard does apply. how the governments in societies like canada applies anti-free speech oriented laws also varies according to this calculus. e.g., anti-porn legislation inspired by feminist principles in 1980s canada were famously used as instruments by conservatives to censor homosexual content disproportionately! similarly, anti-homosexual diatribes by christian conservatives probably are more on the radar in parts of canada as “hate” because christian conservatives are seen as a clear and present danger and muslim religious conservatives are not.
“clear and present danger”
this is an interesting point. avoiding the issue of whether muslims face threats on the scale of jews in 1930s germany because of anti-muslim hate, it is important to note that the objection to something like the danish cartoons in much of the muslim world is not because they foment anti-muslim hate or arouse a climate of danger. rather, they’re offended at the blasphemy against their religion.
20 脗路 ak said
Uhhh…really?
Isn’t Christianity mocked endlessly in North America and Europe? At this point it is more taboo in the West to mock Islam than it is to mock Christianity.
At this point it is more taboo in the West to mock Islam than it is to mock Christianity.
taboo? look, i think people are scared 馃檪 i mean my friends have never emailed me to suggest that i should be more cautious about mocking christianity or hinduism beause they’re worried about me….
(but as i said, i think the taboo varies by subculture. if you want to hear anti-muslim invective just hang out with evangelical christians; they are quite militant atheists save for one god 馃檪
btw, i have to jet, but look up pew attitudes toward evangelical christians and muslims for USA. liberals are the least hostile toward muslims and most hostile toward evangelical xtians, with inversions for conservatives. the nonreligious are actually the most tolerant of muslims. american muslims of course aren’t as primitive as the european rabble, and they’re not as numerous.
Razib, you are very active on this thread, and I’m sure you’re speaking as an American to the best of your ability, but this isn’t about the nation-state system. Read what I wrote– carefully, if you can.
Also just because you ban “hate speech” doesn’t mean you have eliminated hate against some groups. Islamist groups that try to stifle anti-Islam speech are not sitfling anti-Islam ideas and sentiments. These ideas and sentiments fester and simply move underground. I think these attempts by CAIR, et al to prevent anyone from voicing anti-Islamic ideas is going to backfire.
The defense of those islamophobic cartoons as ‘freedom of speech’ is disingenuous.
It overlooks the perlocutionary speech act performed by the cartoonists to convince the public against the credibility of Islam. By ridiculing Muslims as fanatics, and Islam as a fairy tale these danish cartoonists have essentially silenced the perlocutionary power of a Muslim’s speech act when it comes to important matters. Furthermore these types of depictions of Islam also silences the illocutionary power of a Muslim’s act of speech when it comes to the right of self-determination on their own land (Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir etc).
By allowing for the freedom of speech of the cartoonists, you are thus censoring the speech of Muslims. Therefore this is a case of freedom of speech of one group vs that of another.
While I do not condone violence, it is one of the few outlets to express frustration when your speech is silenced and ridiculed as frivolous.
So, on that analysis, violence looks inevitable (or, at least, likely) no matter what we do. If it’s a trade-off of free speech rights between “groups,” then if we allow the cartoons, we stifle Muslim speech; if we forbid the cartoons, we stifle the cartoonists; and, apparently, in neither case can we be too surprised if the stifled resort to one of their “few outlets”–violence.
I seriously hope Amrita and George A are parodies. It it is frightening to believe that there are so many people for whom the Danish embassy bombings are not only justifiable and excusable, but also laudable.
24 脗路 JGandhi said
I think everybody mocks somebody subtly or overtly in the normal course of life as in the interactions between different communities, regions, nations etc etc. The question is what “mocking” is ok and comes under the realm of liberalism and freedom of expression ? Don’t know why printed, spoken words or theatre/movies needn’t have such “high” standards of civiilty and tolerance whereas if in the act of anger of child abuse by the church, I garland the statue of Jesus or if I burn the US national flag for the Abu Gharib atrocities, it will not be acceptable. More than freedom of expression I think it is a question of whether “retribution” and what kind of “retribution” is acceptable or not.
32 脗路 Priya said
I meant garland the statur of Jesus with footwear
If I understand correctly…
Shabaash!
Sounds like you do condone violence. I let my 2 year old get whatever she wants when she lies down on the floor and bawls while refusing to budge, that’s just good parenting. And adults throwing explosive tantrums to relieve peevishness, that’s just good international citizenship.
32 脗路 Priya said
Where are these not acceptable?
I agree. 馃檪
One good thing is that I’m improving my vocabulary. I was not aware of the words perlocutionary and illocutionary before.
I garland the statue of Jesus or if I burn the US national flag for the Abu Gharib atrocities, it will not be acceptable.
it will be legal and protected so long as you aren’t violating property rights or something in the united states.
I let my 2 year old get whatever she wants when she lies down on the floor and bawls while refusing to budge, that’s just good parenting. And adults throwing explosive tantrums to relieve peevishness, that’s just good international citizenship.
well, i was on a liberal weblog once and some people defended the actions of muslims by an analogy with a person with down syndrome. they aren’t responsible for their actions because they’re not really full agents. how can you expect people like that be “good international citizens”.
Razib, you are very active on this thread, and I’m sure you’re speaking as an American to the best of your ability, but this isn’t about the nation-state system. Read what I wrote– carefully, if you can.
i did. stuff about legal authority on an international scope only matters after westphalia (1648), and especially after the treaty of vienna in 1814. the latter date is more important because i don’t believe that the age of white supremacy for most post-colonial cultures (as opposed to those who went extinct or were obliterated as in oz & and the new world) shows up until after 1800 (the power difference in terms of technology wasn’t that great even in the 18th century, as evidenced by the fact that the ottomans managed to beat back both the austrians and russians at various periods).
I was not aware of the words perlocutionary and illocutionary before.
sir, demz fightin’ words!
So, mocking someone offends them and because they are offended they are effectively silenced? Can’t they just mock back? Wouldn’t “cheese eating surrender monkeys” work equally well in the Danish context? That way, both sides would be offended and consequently silenced, with much less headache for bomb disposal crews.
When Iranians et al burn an American flag and chant “Death to America” and “Death to the Non-Believers” for the benefit of Al-Jazeera, an act which is deeply offensive to a number of Americans, can they be expected to take responsibility for American violent retaliation? Symbolically destroying the Americans essentially silences the perlocutionary power of an American’s speech act when it comes to important matters (can’t speak if you no longer exist); moreover these types of depictions of America also silences the illocutionary power of an American’s act of speech when it comes to advocating the spread of civilized ideologies (Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Nicaragua). Since the goverment of Iran doesn’t seem to be inclined to stop this kind of behaviour, there may only be one avenue left to the silenced Americans. I wonder if they’ll take it….
I may not know much about linguistics (along with history, biology and science books) but I do know that voicing an opinion does not automatically equal prohibiting someone from voicing a contrary opinion. Satire (such as my tongue in cheek comment about civilized ideologies above) does not equal censorship.
I may not know much about linguistics (along with history, biology and science books) but I do know that voicing an opinion does not automatically equal prohibiting someone from voicing a contrary opinion. Satire (such as my tongue in cheek comment about civilized ideologies above) does not equal censorship.
silence! mine ears are offended by such heteronormative eurocentric talk! 馃槈
Razib, that’s a brilliant example of a sentence with diametrically opposed illocutionary and perlocutionary meanings!
watch you what say kufar!
yes, but the argument of clear and present danger is looked at from the perspective of the government – whether the nature of the speech is so inflammatory, dangerous etc as to potentially have such an effect on the public. i wasn’t arguing that muslims or jews should be considering the clear and present danger aspect – this was re the considerations of a government when choosing to censor certain speech.
34 脗路 Allahback, girl! said
Thats the funny part. It didn’t kill one Danish citizen nor any westerner excepting (from what I have read) a Brazilian female who was working in the Danish embassy besides the Pakis.
Thats the funny part
remember when hindus and muslims rioted and killed each other because of something jerry falwell said in the USA that was anti-muslim? f**king ‘tards.
Just like that Sam Cook song… The Danes seem to be a bit more sensible than the French who fight hate by convicting Bridget Bardot.
Speech is about more than just uttering words. Muslims may voice a contrary opinion, but a constant degradation of their religion means that anything a Muslim says is perceived as being far less worthy of consideration than the same thing said by a non-Muslim.
In the media, a Muslim person expressing an opinion on a serious issue is usually qualified as being a ‘moderate’, so as to distance that person from Muslim masses who are deemed incapable of making a rational contribution even to issues that directly affect them.
Would you not agree that if instead of George, I had an Arab Islamic name like ‘Abdullah Bin Ali’ there is a good chance the reaction here would have been far less dignified ?
The West is unable to have a productive peaceful dialogue with the Islamic world because it derides everything they stand for as stupid and barbaric from the get go.
Just to be perfectly clear I would much rather we resolve these differences through discussion, failing that would advocate some type of Ghandhian civil disobedience. But I do find it a bit ironic that the Danish cartoons are lauded as somehow being heroic examples of freedom of speech. Particularly so in a blog that discusses issues facing a South Asians, when you consider the parallels between the current perlocutionary silencing of Muslims and silencing of indigenous people under colonialism, where the natives were deemed to be incapable of self-determination.
The West is unable to have a productive peaceful dialogue with the Islamic world because it derides everything they stand for as stupid and barbaric from the get go.
if the shoe fits….
Just to be perfectly clear I would much rather we resolve these differences through discussion
also george, i note you have have a web link for CAIR-canada. i suspect if this website wasn’t hosted out of north dakota but on a canadian server you might want to take it a bit further than discussion, right?
In the media, a Muslim person expressing an opinion on a serious issue is usually qualified as being a ‘moderate’, so as to distance that person from Muslim masses who are deemed incapable of making a rational contribution even to issues that directly affect them.
muslims are labeled as moderate because in the last 10 years a series of acts of major terrorism have been committed by muslims in major western cities (new york, madrid and london). if anglicans started blowing themselves on buses i’m sure we’d make sure to label anglicans ‘moderate’ as well when it is appropriate. racism, colonialism and prejudice exist. so what? blacks in the arab world experience all that as well but none of them blow themselves up. the ‘vigor’ with which muslims make their presence felt when they feel aggrieved strongly suggests that they don’t need to be coddled and protected from insulting speech.