They're Just Cartoons...

A lot has been made of the fuss that has been stirred up by the re-publication last week of a series of cartoons that depicted Mohammed in a fairly unpleasant light.

Regular readers of Dikkii's Diatribe will know that this blogger is a big fan of The Two Percent Company's Rants. They certainly didn't waste time getting their thoughts on the matter out there and into the public domain.

For those who may have been living under rocks, this is what happened:

• Cartoons which are arguably offensive are reprinted
  
• Fundamentalist Muslims get pissed off
  
• Aforementioned fundies get violent
  
• Danish (and other) embassies get firebombed
  
• Danish (and other European) companies get boycotted
  
• Etc, etc, et bloody cetera.
  

Not surprisingly, the Two Percent Co has taken the viewpoint that violence in response to what is just a bunch of cartoons is unacceptable. This is dead right.

Speech is free to go wherever it can, provided it doesn't cause harm to anyone.

The Two Percent Co is 100% correct in its assertion that people should be free to say whatever they want without fear of violent reprisals.

Although this article queries specifically religious zealots - T2PC is careful to ensure that fundamentalist Muslims are only discussed as an example - there are a number of other practitioners in other aspects of life that could heed this advice in Australia.

However, this post does bring up a lot of interesting questions, some of which appear to open up other ones, in particular:

1. Freedom of Speech advocates are usually quick to agree that with this freedom comes responsibility. What these responsibilities are, however, is never explicitly stated.
2. T2PC and their readers correctly acknowledge that violence caused by this sort of thing is unacceptable, but they then claim that there is 'no right "to not be offended"'. This is common amongst Freedom of Speech advocates. Ostensibly, this means that it is not my fault if I say something that causes an effect. No matter what that effect may be. That's right. In this world of free speech, anything goes.
3. It necessarily follows that the above two bullet points are inconsistent.
4. Finally, in return for unmitigated Freedom of Speech, we have to give up what, exactly? Robert A. Heinlein wrote, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." What is it that we have to trade off to get this freedom?

Freedom of Speech supporters are all largely a good bunch. They mean well.

But is it time that we all took a closer look at why Freedom of Speech/Expression is so sacrosanct?

I had a conversation the other day. (If you're not Australian and reading this, the background info you should know is that Freedom of Speech does not exist in Australia.) It went a little like this:

Dikkii:

"Why should we have freedom of speech?"

Person I was chatting to (we'll call him "Bob"):

"It's a fundamental human right, man!"

Dikkii:

"Why is it a fundamental human right?"

Bob:

"People should be free to say what they like without fear of retaliation from governments, other people, etc."

Dikkii:

"Isn't that just rhetoric? Haven't you just paraphrased the words 'Freedom of Speech'"

Bob:

"Well, would you prefer living in an authoritarian state?"

Dikkii:

"Hang on, now you've created a false dillemma..."

I actually had to stop the conversation here before I was "exposed" as an "un-Australian, pro-censorship wowser" or suchlike.

So lets follow the second point above to its necessary conclusion and disregard the first point that it conflicts with.

We'll also disregard the final point and accept the unlikely proposition that we give up nothing for total Freedom of Speech/Expression.

Let's have a look at what unbridled Freedom of Speech gets us.

On 5 November, 1992, it was alleged in the state parliament of Western Australia that a Penny Easton had perjured herself in the Family Court.

This is legal in Australia - members of state, territory and of the federal parliament enjoy Parliamentary Privilege where they can say pretty much whatever they like without fear of any legal reprisals. Unless, of course, the language used is considered "unparliamentary".

Anyway, Easton was at the time in a pretty long and drawn out divorce with her then husband Brian. Easton responded to this attack on her character by promptly committing suicide four days later.

I'm going to stop this story right here and point out that, unlike the member who tabled the petition naming and shaming Easton, it was pretty clear from the outset that the editors of Jyllands-Posten knew full well that if they published the offending cartoons, there would be, most likely, violent reprisals.

The editors published to prove a point. Consequences, which would in all probability arise, were relevant insofar that they proved the point that they were making. That point was that people fear saying certain things about Islam generally or Mohammed specifically because a bunch of neanderthal thugs get offended. After this, as far as the editors were concerned, they could not give a rat's arse for endangered lives, property, etc.

Some would call this conviction. Others would call this gross negligence.

Anyway, to get back to our story about the late Penny Easton, it is generally considered that this event was the straw that broke the camel's back as far as the Western Australian electorate was concerned.

In February 1993, the Labor government headed by Premier Carmen Lawrence was defeated and the Liberals led by Richard Court swept to power.

The naming of Easton in state parliament had caused Easton's suicide and had also caused the final downfall of the incumbent government.

So how do Freedom of Speech advocates view this in line with the above? I chatted with "Bob" again, playing Devil's Advocate:

Bob:

"People are innocent until proven guilty. Whether Easton perjured herself or not is for a court to decide and not a member of parliament. Easton knew this."

Me:

"Irrelevant. Easton was seriously embarrassed by the claims that were made and killed herself accordingly. In any event, due process was not followed as the Director of Public Prosecutions had not launched a perjury case."

Bob:

"Easton did not have to kill herself. An unsubstantiated allegation was made."

Me:

"Irrelevant. She did."

Bob:

"Maybe the fact that she killed herself proves her guilt?"

Me:

"I can't believe that you can be so very, very cold. Needless to say, the question of guilt is highly and unambiguously irrelevant."

Bob:

"Anyone who reacts like this because of what someone says is clearly irrational."

Me:

"What the...? Who are you to decide whether someone is rational or not. While Easton was clearly under some strain, you cannot make judgements about someone's rationality immediately prior to the abuse of Parlimentary Privilege, after the event."

Bob:

"Look. No one held a gun to her head. Isn't it no one's fault but Easton's that she's dead?"

Me:

"This is getting silly. Bob, a majority of the Western Australian electorate voted in their droves on this. They believed that the government was culpable. Even Blind Freddy will tell you that what someone said in Parliament caused Penny Easton's death."

And so on and so forth.

Whether or not the government of the day, or just the member in question, or no one at all is culpable for Penny Easton's death, the fact remains that no one could have foreseen Easton's untimely demise.

Yet that fact is moot - someone shot their mouth off indiscriminately with fatal consequences. And the people held the government responsible for that.

It is interesting to note that since Carmen Lawrence moved to federal politics and became a member of federal parliament the question of culpability dogged her until she was forced to leave parliament. She wasn't even the member who read Easton's name out that fateful day.

Lawrence's political career was ruined by this act.

This is slightly different from the decision of the Jyllands-Posten editors.

They published with the requirement that as much controversy as possible needed to be generated. Anything less would have been completely forgotten and would have defeated editor Flemming Rose's hypothesis that:

The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule.

This, of course, raises serious questions about society. The point that Rose was attempting to make was a valid one - but did it require someone to actually put it to the test?

It's interesting to note that since the cartoons were published, an Iranian newspaper has offered a competition for similar cartoons designed to offend.

The responses have been uniformly ironic:

• No one will criticise these cartoons partially out of fear of offending Freedom of Speech advocates, and partially out of fear of being seen as inconsistent with earlier claims that Freedom of Speech is paramount;
• Any criticisms at all are being buried at the bottom of page 10 by the media who have a vested interest in matters related to Freedom of Speech/Expression;
• The cartoons are to be mainly Holocaust-denial themed - interesting, considering the initial cartoons were published in a predominantly Christian country. (Further proof that Israel is at the root of all problems Middle Eastern, perhaps?)

It is interesting to note that where the decision was made not to publish, the question of gratuitousness is being increasingly raised.

Indeed, where I am, in Melbourne, daily newspaper The Age has issued this on the subject of why they chose not to re-publish:

"The Danish cartoons were neither insightful nor effective, just stereotypical smears. At the level of content, there was little justification to run them. Even given their curiosity value, such material carries a responsibility to consider whether the point of publication outweighs any likely offence. Having the freedom to publish does not mean we must publish to prove it. Any newspaper ought to be offended, however, by the use of threats or violence to dictate what may be published; an intimidated media is no longer a free media."

What is more important in this case? Freedom of Speech? Freedom from Offence? Freedom of Expression? Freedom from Antagonistic Muckrakers?

We'll probably never know. But if history is a judge - just like the Lawrence government, Jyllands-Posten wll be considered by historians as the party responsible for the carnage that we are seeing.