Freedom to say anything doesn't equate to an obligation to say everything.
Tze Ming's right: except for the lineup one, the cartoons are lame.
But the issue is not the quality of the cartoons, but the point behind them - that is, to challenge Muslim sensibilities by offending them. It is not offensive in aid of a point, its point is to offend; and through offence, to redraw the borders of acceptability in favour of liberal, secular society, against the traditional teachings of Islam.
It was a declaration to the Muslim public that they cannot expect their religious sensibilities to be taken seriously by Western societies. They can practice their religion, but they can't expect others to obey it, too.
And they can't. We don't take Christian sensibilities seriously, so why would we take Muslim sensibilities seriously? We stick statues of the Virgin Mary in condoms, we have crucifixes in urine, we give Jesus a bit-roles in South Park. Jesusmaryandjoseph, we are just a goddamn blasphemous lot.
We have the right to freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to blaspheme; it's a right that I've personally enjoyed on many, many occasions. But having a right to act does not make it right to act. Nobody should be allowed to stop you, but it doesn't mean that what you are doing is necessarily a responsible action or a good idea.
In this instance, what was Jyllands-Posten's goal? To obtain Muslim assent to the liberal democratic social contract by *offending* them into agreement? To make Muslims abandon their dogma by demonstrating that they are powerless to stop it from being contravened?
Jyllands-Posten's original position seems ill-considered, but the subsequent decisions by other publications to reprint the cartoons is more complex. Since its original publication, Jyllands-Posten and Denmark (!!!) has been pressured and threatened. The subsequent reprints was the media circling the wagons around its own, giving them aid to resist the pressure.
From the media's perspective, political and economic pressure, and of course, death threats, are unacceptable responses to free speech, and must be quashed thoroughly, lest such tactics are tried again in the future. It's not a matter of putting the boot in - it's about demonstrating that the media will stand up for itself, and for each other.
The violence and the threats of violence are obviously unacceptable (not to mention stupid, as the subsequent media response shows). But do boycotts and political pressure really fall into the same category?
Regardless of whether those cartoons serve a greater cause, they are offensive. Which, yes, is perfectly permissible in a liberal society. But likewise, people are allowed to be offended by them - that's what offensive means, no? And offended people have the freedom to take their money elsewhere.
Muslims taking offence to those cartoons seem perfectly reasonable (again - the death threats are not). On the other hand, I still think it's rather noble for the media to band together to defend their bit of the liberal society turf.
The issue has moved beyond "was printing the cartoon a good idea?" to "is *not* printing the cartoon a good idea?". It's insensitive of the media to continue to cause offence in defence of freedom of the press, but they've made a call about what's more important to them - and fair enough.
It's a dilemma - if the media succumbs to pressure, then the media will face similar pressures and threats when considering publishing material that may legitimately offend Muslims in the future. It's a battle that needs to be won, if only to set a precedent.
But why is the pressure there? Because the media was unreasonable to begin with.
And why was it unreasonable to begin with? Because there was unreasonable pressure prior to the cartoons...
Time for a bit of de-escalation, eh?
(Legal aside: Blasphemous libel is still illegal in New Zealand, under section 123 of the Crimes Act.)
All this talk of blasphemy is making me blasphemous. So here's one of my own pieces of blasphemous satire, published in Salient in 2003...
--
Christ Caught Drink Driving
UPPER HUTT - Jesus Christ was taken into police custody at approximately 3 am on Sunday morning for suspected drink driving. A police statement said that the inebriated deity was accompanied by fellow Upper Hutt resident, Mary Magdalene, who is a known sex worker.
Christ was stopped by police after he levitated his car for 2 km on top of the Hutt River. He was driving an angelic white 1978 Holden Kingswood at the time of the arrest. Police pursued him for 20 minutes until he exited the vehicle to urinate and the vehicle sank to the bottom of the river. Magdalene was found drowned in the vehicle, but was resurrected.
A subsequent blood test revealed Christ's blood content to be approximately 200,000 ppm, 1,000 times over the legal limit. "The Blood of Christ is a traditional, full-bodied dry red grape wine with a strong oak aroma, and a 20% alcohol content. Everyone knows this, but the police are persecuting [sic] our client simply because he is Jewish," read a statement from Christ's legal representatives, Armageddon, Armageddon and Jehoshaphat.
Christ, son of God, has had a long and troubled past. His first run in with the law occurred 2000 years ago with Roman authorities, who arrested and executed him for challenging the rule of Caesar and claiming to be the King of the Jews. A warrant was later issued for his re-arrest for resisting execution. New Zealand does not have an extradition treaty with the Roman Empire.
Christ later began a successful career in publishing, starring as the main character in his own critically acclaimed book, The Bible. This was later adapted as a popular musical, though it never achieved the success of the original book. Christ's career in film has also been sporadic, playing various bit-parts in the 60s and 70s.
Friends of Christ have revealed that the downturn in his career has driven him to alcoholism and eating disorders. "I've seen him bless a whole bathtub and turn it into wine. Sometimes, he'd pull bits off himself and start eating it," said one disciple, who wished to remain unnamed.
Upon hearing the news, United Future leader Peter Dunne further condemned the popular religious figure: "As a high-profile leader in the faith community, Jesus [Christ] had a responsibility to set a moral example for our children. If I wasn't out of stones, I'd throw one at him."