Question On The Critique Of Islam
A series of cartoons, published in the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten, and the response by Muslims has been receiving media attention (an article from spiked).
The commentary has been examining free-speech, the oft claimed right to free-speech, and how that right sits in relation to religious tolerance.
The point I have been pondering, for the past couple of hours, is whether or not in a post modern era (especially if post modernism is conceived as a process of critiquing), the capacity to engage in critique should be defended? As such, should the cartoons be defended because they are critiques that need to be answered rather than bluntly opposed?
At present, I think any ‘right’ to free-speech – be it explicit or implicit in the law of a community – must include the capacity to critique the views and positions expressed by others … Am interested in other's thoughts on this position.
The commentary has been examining free-speech, the oft claimed right to free-speech, and how that right sits in relation to religious tolerance.
The point I have been pondering, for the past couple of hours, is whether or not in a post modern era (especially if post modernism is conceived as a process of critiquing), the capacity to engage in critique should be defended? As such, should the cartoons be defended because they are critiques that need to be answered rather than bluntly opposed?
At present, I think any ‘right’ to free-speech – be it explicit or implicit in the law of a community – must include the capacity to critique the views and positions expressed by others … Am interested in other's thoughts on this position.
posted by MH at 11:28 am
1 Comments:
The debate seems to be over where to draw the line that divides critique from deliberate insult. I'm not sure that there is a clear boundary at all.
It has raised many difficult questions over where we stand as a 'culture'. If we publish the cartoons, we are being deliberately inflamitory. If we don't, we are letting our public discourse be dictated to us by outside interests.
I think that the Sydney Morning Herald's position that the cartoons do not have to be published in order for them to be discussed is valid. But I suspect other motives are at play. The SMH has not been shy about offending other groups in the past. That they shy away from doing so at this stage may be more about fear and self-preservation than any ethics on the part of the editorial staff. Or I could be wrong.
Many claim that they uphold the right to critique, but not to blaspheme and/or offend. In cases such as pornography (the example the SMH editorial used yesterday) this seems clear cut. Printing that explicit material may not be the best way to engage in critique of censorship.
But this example may consitute a underhanded equivocation. Our community has clear laws regulating the publication of sexually explicit material. But I'm not sure that material of an offensive nature in a religious sense should be treated the same way. Our right to free speech is generally placed above our obligationto religious tolerance, and for the most part, we are used to that.
I'm trying to think of an equivalent example for a secular westerner, but I can't come up with much. Is there a cartoon, that if published in newsparper in the middle east, would cause thousands of europeans to rush out and storm the nearest offending embassy? I don't think there is. That something like these cartoons can provoke what is technically an act of war only serves to draw uncomfortable attenttion to the difference in worldviews that are held in certain differnt places.
Either way, I thik that there is only so far that religious tolerance can go, as religion is an inherently contested area.
Post a Comment
<< Home