The anti-Islam cartoons controversy – Not about “freedom of speech”

Editorial from A World to Win News Service: Last September the editor of a rightwing Danish newspaper, the Jyllands-Posten, commissioned cartoonists to draw pictures of Muhammad, and published a dozen of them. As he has explained in interviews, he deliberately set out to affront observant Muslims, many of whom believe that it is wrong to depict the face of those they consider prophets. But more than that, some of these drawings are very deliberately insulting to Islam as a religion and to those who believe in it, depicting it as the faith of mad bombers and bloodthirsty barbarians. Taken as a whole, they are meant to humiliate and demean a large part of the earth’s population.

In January, a self-styled Christian magazine in Norway rekindled the controversy by reprinting the cartoons. Since then, newspapers in France and Germany, among other countries, have done the same, all in the name of “freedom of the press”.

But “freedom of the press” or “freedom of expression” is the last thing this controversy is about. This case does not involve “speaking truth to power”, but power itself speaking: ruling class elements in imperialist countries trying to incite the native-born population against immigrants and the peoples of the third world countries they dominate and exploit. Their crusade is not against religion, but other people’s religions.

It is probably no coincidence that the centre of the storm is Denmark, a country with one of Europe’s most openly anti-immigrant governments (despite the fact that Denmark has one of Western Europe’s lowest percentages of immigrants) and troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is even less likely to be mere accident that the cartoons were reprinted in France. Their publication by a so-called left newspaper following their appearance in the pages of a more rightist tabloid simply illustrates the degree to which racism has become accepted by the official political mainstream. This situation has become even worse after the revolt of immigrant working-class youth that shook the country late last year. France’s Prime Minister Sarkozy has adopted the kind of anti-immigrant discourse formerly reserved for neo-Nazis. These cartoons fit in very well in a society where Parliament passed – twice – a law requiring schools to teach the “benefits” of French colonialism, which presumably includes the slavery that accompanied it.

The cartoons were also eagerly taken up in Germany, where traditional anti-immigrant policies have taken a leap. Now Muslim applications for citizenship in Bavaria can be rejected on the basis of test questions about the applicant’s tolerance, for instance, of other ethnic groups and gay people, that would leave much of Germany seriously underpopulated if the same standards were applied to the native-born.

Some people argue that the publications of these cartoons should be met with “tolerance”. But this whole affair is a demonstration of officially-backed intolerance against “the other”, the ones who are not like “us” – people who were forced to leave their homelands by the conditions imposed by imperialist countries like France, Germany, Denmark and the US in the first place, and whose labour is a large part of what has made these countries rich.

The deliberate offence was directed not so much at Muhammad as against people who might have a child called Muhammad. As long as they bear an “Islamic” name or certain complexions, they are never going to be treated like white children named Christian, no matter what their beliefs may be.

We are told that the publication of these cartoons must be supported in the name of the ideals of the Enlightenment. Yet the rise of reason and science during that period was accompanied by the naked plunder and enslavement of much of the world’s people in the name of those values. Isn’t this hypocrisy still what’s going on in the world today – even as the West, with the United States of George W. Bush at its head, is increasingly waging its own religious holy war?

All the pious talk about today’s European secular values is equally hypocritical. The Danish constitution makes Lutheranism the official religion and states that the government must protect, financially support and administer the Evangelical Lutheran Church. In that sense, there’s no freedom from this religion in Denmark. The UK Guardian revealed that three years ago the Danish newspaper that started this controversy refused to print cartoons lampooning Jesus Christ because “they could be offensive to readers and were not funny”. Apparently, more tolerant church-goers did laugh when shown them, so what someone finds “funny” depends on their outlook.  In real, if not legal terms, Christianity is just as much the official religion in France and Germany – not to mention the USA, where many of George W. Bush’s leading supporters (and the president himself) believe he was chosen to be US president by god.

How can anyone accept the expressions of solidarity with these newspapers (and the governments that support them) in the name of “freedom of speech” from the Bush government, which last week had the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq arrested, handcuffed and dragged off for wearing an anti-war T-shirt at a speech by the president?

It has been harder than it should have been for many Europeans to understand what’s going on here. If similar cartoons depicting Jewish figures had appeared instead, many more people would have recognized the stench of concentration camps. Ask immigrants from Muslim backgrounds in the UK or any other country in Europe if such a thing seems impossible today.

It is also true that the response against these cartoons has been manipulated for reactionary ends. Egypt’s government, a wholly-owned American subsidiary, deliberately took to the forefront against the cartoons in an effort to pull the rug out from under the feet of the Islamic opposition. The attacks on embassies in Lebanon and Syria are very much intertwined with the jockeying for power of various reactionary forces in those countries. In Syria, the opposition to the government the US seeks to kick out is more likely to have been behind these attacks than the secular regime. It seems particularly ridiculous that the anti-cartoon banner has been most waved in Iraq by Muqtada Sadr, who seems very happy to call for attacking Danish troops instead of those of the US, with whom he has tried to avoid conflict and may want to come to an agreement.

As can be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, where fundamentalist Islamic regimes have been brought to power by American guns, and in a less obvious but no less real way in all of the countries of the Middle East, the US and other imperialists have played a double game with religion. They raise the banner of Christian holy war for their own people when convenient and no less conveniently encourage the rise of Islamic religious fundamentalism in the countries they dominate as a way to confine the resistance of the people to narrow religious channels and often to impose compliant regimes.

Maoists are against these cartoons not for religious reasons but because they are an expression both of the domination of much of the earth’s people by the rulers of a handful of imperialist powers and of the oppression their system is based on. By exposing and opposing these Nazi-like incitements to religious hatred from a revolutionary viewpoint, we can strengthen the unity of the world’s people against these rulers and build understanding freed from the shackles of any religion.

Comments

[the burningman]

I'd like to thank the authors of this editorial for laying it down straight. These are the ideas they say we can't express, that don't exist, that are a "nightmare." When communist ideas contend -- they will win.

Millions of people need to hear this, to have these ideas in their consciousness contending with all the reactionary bullshit out there.

People are always ready for the truth.

[srogouski]

Just a note: the editor of the -Posten has direct ties to Daniel Pipes.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=84976

"Rose told the international paper owned by The New York Times that "he would not publish a cartoon of Israel's Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby, since that could be construed as 'racist.'"

Asked why he was protecting Sharon, a known war criminal, while abusing Muslims and their Prophet in the name of free speech, Rose told American Free Press that he had been "misquoted" in the Times article.

Rose traveled to Philadelphia in October 2004 to visit Daniel Pipes, the Neo-Con ideologue who says the only path to Middle East peace will come through a total Israeli military victory. Rose then penned a positive article about Pipes, who compares "militant Islam" with fascism and communism."

[antid]

Burningman:
“People are always ready for the truth.”

Here’s a truth for you: Mohammed was most certainly a man, a male mammal of the species home sapiens. The real gravamen of the Muslim protest is that the Danish cartoons had the gall to portray him in human form. Ridiculous. Islamic sects and moments throughout history have rendered Mohammed in all sorts of lovely colors and engravings: you can enjoy 14th and 15th century Persian art, some of which portrays Mohammed with a face, in major metropolitan museums. These cartoons are as inane as they goofy and if you haven’t seen them I encourage you all to do so. A simple google search should suffice and then we can discuss just how offensive they truly are, and whether the Free Muslims Coalition is right in telling their distant co-religionists that they need to chill out and grow up.
Extremists searching for offense are bound to find some sort of provocation, no matter how remote or petty. This is both. 99.9% of humanity never heard of this Danish rag before this stunt, why should the Muslim world dignify it with a response? The A World to Win editorial states:
“If similar cartoons depicting Jewish figures had appeared instead, many more people would have recognized the stench of concentration camps.”

Actually the BBC just reported that the editor of the Danish Jyllands-Posten is trying to republish Iranian cartoons about the Holocaust, just to show that the J-P is an equal opportunity offender. I’m sure A World to Win will take the opportunity to correct the record and explain how close the Danes are to starting up concentration camps. The Danes.

Since when has a religious taboo or blasphemy become a global standard for censorship? And when did “communists” who once had such a proud tradition of skewering the pieties and superstitions of ALL religions decide to suddenly jump to their defense, to label blasphemy as “reactionary”? Is it really anti-Imperial to grovel at the feet of Jihadi clerics because their delicate sensibilities have been offended?

[antid]

"All great truths start as blasphemies."
-- G. B. Shaw

[rope]

antid writes: "I’m sure A World to Win will take the opportunity to correct the record and explain how close the Danes are to starting up concentration camps. The Danes."

Hmmmm. I guess we need to dig into this. from several sides.

What about "the Danes"?

The Danish ruling class has been more and more open in its arrogant attack on Third World Peoples and more aggressive in its stand with the U.S. global offensive.

Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that Danish troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan? that "the danes" have decided to step out -- to be part of the front line of the Bushite New World Order and to provide valuable political cover (if not massive military force) to this aggressive crusade.

Perhaps you are not aware of the smug racism that is so rampant in Scandinavia? Where reactionary danes speak of immigrants (who their society so bitterly exploits) in ways that remind you of white assholes in 1950's mississippi.

Yes, the danes -- not all of them (of course) but certainly a dominant and rising political current with high level support in their (yes, IMPERIALIST!) ruling class.

And let's ask: when these reactionaries (who are the euro-equivalent of Buchanan's fighting for White Christian America) demand that the cultural integrity (and unspoken "racial purity") of their societies be maintained -- what is the logic and program of that?

On one hand they need and want the cheap labor -- and on the other hand they want to "preserve" their Europe welfare states floating above those lower tiers. These are programs for apartheid -- where the immigrants are not allowed to become nestled and permanent -- or else have to give up their cultures, language and religion (in favor of the vaulted "western civilization" that -- though promoting secularism and rational/scientific thought in ways and at times -- has also tormented the world with its imperialism and chauvinism).

"Since when has a religious taboo or blasphemy become a global standard for censorship?... Is it really anti-Imperial to grovel at the feet of Jihadi clerics because their delicate sensibilities have been offended? "

That is not the issue. We don't say "it is wrong to offend religion."

In fact we communists are pretty aggressively daring to confront religion in the U.S. right now (and I hope you are too!) -- including in ways that some people consider "offensive."

Offensiveness is not the crime here (at least not from a communist perspective.) If you can't offend some people, how can you be upholding what is right and necessary? If we can't offend the dominent sensibilities of this culture, we can't be upholding communist politics, ideology and morality!

Now when we "offend" we need to do it with substance -- with ways that dig into the essense and importance and implications of the issues at hand. But daring to give offense if necessary will be part of the dynamic and landscape.

And, obviously communists don't stand with religious fundamentalists (including of the Islamic variety -- who are killing our comrades to this day in Afghanistan and elsewhere when they can!)

But this racist provocative arrogant shameless treatment of the immigrant peoples of europe, this celebration of the supposed "superiority" of the imperialist countries and their culture (and their electoral democracy that legitimizes every fucked up thing they do in the nameof "the people"!) -- well it must not be supported.

[Qasim]

Interesting discussion..

Just a quick point... The person who is asserting that all the fuss over the cartoons is because of showing Mohammad as a Man has completely missed the point... The issue is not the depiction of the Prophet... It is the depiction of the Prophet with a bomb on his head... Effectively what you are trying to say is that all followers of Islam are terrorist... That day does nt seem far when this might become true... (if the west continues to allow its media outlets insult Islam and Muslims... and with brainless anti muslim attitudes... you know who you are)... but till that time... thank God that most muslims are not terrorists... and although the jews and christians may disagree but neither was Mohammad (peace be on him)...

Regards

[leftclick]

Here's a good article on Jyllands-Posten's hypocrisy: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060227/younge

No way is this primarily about freedom of speech.

[reposter]

Ali Abunimah, the fantastic founder of Electronic Intifada took on an "official Arab" from John Hopkins University on the PPS Newshour.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4463.shtml

[antid]

There is basic information missing from this debate that is too vital to leave out. First off, the Egyptian paper Al Fagar republished the cartoons 5 MONTHS ago, and on their FRONT page. Where were the riots, the charges of racism? I guess it is permissible to run these cartoons in an Egyptian paper, but not in an American or Danish one.
http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2006/02/egyptian-newspaper-pictures-that.html

Second, as even the A World to Win editorial acknowledges, the Islamist reaction – the protests, death threats, embassy stormings and torchings – were part of a carefully coordinated campaign between reactionary clerics and authoritarian states: namely Egypt, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The pivotal meeting was in Mecca this past December:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/international/middleeast/09cartoon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

So let’s put these items together. An Egyptian newspaper republishes the offending cartoons and there is virtually no reaction, yet after a campaign (including Pres. Ahmadinejad) involving Islamist clerics and police states, parts of the “Islamic world” vents its newfound outrage and calls for global censorship. And in taking a page out of Sam Marcy’s playbook, in which any opposition to the West is inherently anti-Imperialial, elements of the Left decide to stand with the allegedly enraged sensibilities of the “Islamic world”. Is this really a freedom of speech issue? Why is Al Fagar excluded but Jyllands-Posten is not? Here is Hezbollah’s Sheik Nasrallah:

"We are a nation that can't forgive . . . we will defend our prophet with our blood, not our voices,” Nasrallah added”

“Nasrallah said there would be no compromise before Denmark apologizes and the European Parliament and individual assemblies in Europe pass laws that prohibit insulting the Prophet.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11251690/

So Hezbollah is demanding laws against blasphemy in a foreign country. Nope, that’s not censorship. And we on the Left should definitely excoriate blasphemy wherever we see it. Right.

rope writes:
“Hmmmm. I guess we need to dig into this. from several sides.
What about "the Danes"?”

But rope’s effort to “dig” doesn’t address even the surface of my complaint. Read it again: antid writes: "I’m sure A World to Win will take the opportunity to correct the record and explain how close the Danes are to starting up concentration camps. The Danes."

Instead of telling us of how close Denmark is to establishing concentration camps, we have a comparison between Denmark and the late Jim Crow South:
“Perhaps you are not aware of the smug racism that is so rampant in Scandinavia? Where reactionary danes speak of immigrants (who their society so bitterly exploits) in ways that remind you of white assholes in 1950's mississippi.”

While I’ve evidence that there is vile and often “smug” racist sentiment in Scandinavia, claiming that the Danes are the same as Mississippi in the 50’s is quite a stretch, especially without supporting evidence. rope can substantiate this point by finding and posting recent examples of Danish state sponsored lynchings, torture, use of attack dogs and fire hoses etc. Then, once that’s proved, maybe rope will move on to show how close Denmark is too starting up concentration camps, just like those of which they were so famous for in WWII.

rope writes:
“Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that Danish troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan? that "the danes" have decided to step out -- to be part of the front line of the Bushite New World Order and to provide valuable political cover (if not massive military force) to this aggressive crusade.”

If there was any justice in the world, then the Danish government would have to answer for their criminal collaboration with the Bush regime. But Denmark is a tiny nation of just 5.4 million, let’s not get all bent out of shape about their “massive military force”.

Qasim writes:
“The person who is asserting that all the fuss over the cartoons is because of showing Mohammad as a Man has completely missed the point... The issue is not the depiction of the Prophet... It is the depiction of the Prophet with a bomb on his head.”

I disagree. The BBC has interviewed five different Islamist clerics who claim that it is an unforgiveable insult to portray the Prophet at all, and this has been backed up by statements by Hezbollah and Hamas. That is what the Mecca conference was all about (even though the Shi'a still produce paintings and posters of Mohammded). Most of the rioters have not seen the cartoons, but are enraged that Mohammed’s image has been rendered. And what of Al Fagar, was their republishing of the cartoons not worthy of the same opprobrium? Evidently not.

[rope]

i'm not sure how to respond since antid seems to have misunderstood what i said (inadvertantly or otherwise).

For example I said "Perhaps you are not aware of the smug racism that is so rampant in Scandinavia? Where reactionary danes speak of immigrants (who their society so bitterly exploits) in ways that remind you of white assholes in 1950's mississippi.”

To which antid answer that "While I’ve evidence that there is vile and often “smug” racist sentiment in Scandinavia, claiming that the Danes are the same as Mississippi in the 50’s is quite a stretch, especially without supporting evidence. rope can substantiate this point by finding and posting recent examples of Danish state sponsored lynchings, torture, use of attack dogs and fire hoses etc."

In fact I said they SPEAK in ways that are quite similar to the way white racist assholes SPOKE in the south -- and that is fairly clear if you re-read what i wrote. To ask where are the lynchings and attack dogs distorts my point.

But since you raise it -- let me remind you again that the Danish state has sent troops (armed troops) into the Middle East (where, as we all now know) it is quite routine for the occupiers to use torture and murder to impose their rule. So, let me ask: Denmark has seen a series of police beatings, and racist murders over the last years (and, I assume, more than are known through the press), and there is a link between the current racist hysteria to BOTH the exploitation and isolation of immigrants within their borders AND to their participation in naked agression in the Middle East.

I wrote: “Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that Danish troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan? that "the danes" have decided to step out -- to be part of the front line of the Bushite New World Order and to provide valuable political cover (if not massive military force) to this aggressive crusade.”

Antid wrote: "...the Danish government would have to answer for their criminal collaboration with the Bush regime. But Denmark is a tiny nation of just 5.4 million, let’s not get all bent out of shape about their 'massive military force'."

Did you miss that I wrote even "if NOT" by massive military force.

In other words they don't HAVE massive military force -- but they have sent part of what (quite modern and deadly) military force they do HAVE for these imperialist purposes.

Tiny? perhaps.

But what is the point? European imperialism is divided up into different Euro states -- with various degrees of sovereignty and global power. But are they on the oppressor imperialists side of the world divide or not? Is it a reactionary act when Norway or Denmark send troups, planes and logistics to help U.S./NATO attacks on SErbia, or Iraq or Afghanistan (or not)?

Look, here is the issue (or at least a major issue): Is it an outrage that Denmark is accused in the Middle East and within Denmark of racism and imperialism, or is it an outrage that Danish voice claim their "tolerance"?and "openness" are being abused by "foreigners."

Which is reality? And which is the apologia for oppressors? (And here I mainly mean the imperialists, not the "Danish people.")

Antid drags in World War 2 into the discussion. saying "Then, once that’s proved, maybe rope will move on to show how close Denmark is too starting up concentration camps, just like those of which they were so famous for in WWII."

Antid's point with this sarcasm is that (in Antid's view) it is silly because Denmark is not famous for "concentration camps in world war 2."

Have you bothered to look into this? In fact Denmark split, both at the bottom (the masses of people) and at the top (the ruling class.) The danish state and police largely went over and worked for the German occupiers (and rounded up resistance fighters and sent htem to contcentration camps). Do you know about this? Do you think it doesn't matter that Danish imperialism (or at least powerful parts of this) DID send people to concentration camps? Or are you content with a cartoon version of this history (and of class society generally)?

In the last twenty years, there have been repeated attempts by former resistance fighters in Denmark to call out the Danes who tracked them down and imprisoned them. War criminals who the modern Danish state has consistently refused to try or indict. Do you know about this? do you care?

There were resistance fighters agaisnt the Nazis (who have been lionized AFTER the victory over the Nazis) -- and yet the Danish King himself famously put on a yellow star. But are you implying this is the whole story? And the (now often suppressed) history of Danish government collaboration WITH the nazis is unimportant?

It is also true that there as a racist and pro-nazi section of the danish population -- including volunteers for the Scandinavian "Viking" units in the Waffen-SS.

Like all imperialist countries, Denmark has a brutal and bloody history of oppression -- starting at the dawn of capitalism when its merchants and shipping lines played their role in the slave trade (and developed grim slave colonies in the Virgin Islands), to the colonial rule over Greenland (including the genocidal concentration of Native people by force into a few towns, where they have suffered genocidial death rates, and cultural suppression), to their current participation in the Bush imperialist crusade.

So when you incredulously say "the Danes?" -- it makes me wonder if you have swallowed that one-sided mythology that has PRECISELY fueled and underpinned the racist self-righteousness in Scandinavia today -- where they say "we are the epitome of tolerance, and openness so how fucking dare these dirty, ignorant, smelly foreigners call us racist."

What are you lining up with? What are you leaving of the discussion?

What I'm questioning is the following claim from A World to Win's editorial:

"If similar cartoons depicting Jewish figures had appeared instead, many more people would have recognized the stench of concentration camps. Ask immigrants from Muslim backgrounds in the UK or any other country in Europe if such a thing seems impossible today."

Does rope see (smell) the "stench of [Danish] concentration camps" in these cartoons? Could he point out some evidence?

I'm not disputing the existence of racist or pro-Nazi elements in Danish society -- indeed the Danish King's "yellow star" has covered up too much collaboration, but this debate could be settled quickly if rope can show that concentration camps are being planned by the Danish government.

If not, then maybe, just maybe, the A World to Win editorial is a bit hysterical. All sorts of anti-Semitic cartoons are published in the Arabic press, is this indicative of concentration camps?

What is rope leaving out of the discussion? The Egyptian paper, Al Fagar, that republished the cartoons five months ago without incident. Was that racist, or imperialist? Were they cleansed of their concentration camp "stench" when published in an Islamic country?

Screw racists Danes. Screw racists. But does this mean one should line up with an Islamist campaign coordinated with rank authoritarian gov'ts? What are you lining up with? Will you denounce Islamists as I've denounced racist Danes?

[antid]

above comment mine!

[a question]

isn't the danish government part of a war coalition that has prison camps for arab people in Iraq -- like abu ghraib? And aren't such camps (and that invasion) justified by the kind of portrayals that were concentrated in the cartoons?

Antid: It is not a matter of "planning" camps, Isn't it more that Danish arms are already to help defend and help fill those camps that have been set up?

[two cents]

*** The Egyptian paper, Al Fagar, that republished the cartoons five months ago without incident. Was that racist, or imperialist? Were they cleansed of their concentration camp "stench" when published in an Islamic country? ***

Don't you see the difference between a muslim newspaper publishing these cartoons to denounce them, and european papers printing them to spread the ideas the concentrate?

To use the Jewish analogy: If a jewish newpspaer printed gross antisemitic Nazi cartoons, is it the same as if a Berlin newspaper does it?

You seem caught up in the confusion of mechanical equivalence.

[antid]

a question:
"And aren't such camps (and that invasion) justified by the kind of portrayals that were concentrated in the cartoons?"

Please take a look at the twelve cartoons originally published in the J-P. You can find them on the internet. Could you please tell me which ones justify the invasion of the Iraqi Baathist state?

"isn't the danish government part of a war coalition that has prison camps for arab people in Iraq -- like abu ghraib?"

The coalition members must be condemned for their collaboration in this criminal war, and if there were an international criminal court charged with promoting such a justice, it could apportion blame and punsihment accordingly. I don't think the Danish government was in charge of Abu Ghraib. I've yet to read any evidence that Denmark is about to establish concentration camps for its Muslim immigrants. If you have some, please post it.

"To use the Jewish analogy: If a jewish newpspaer printed gross antisemitic Nazi cartoons, is it the same as if a Berlin newspaper does it?

You seem caught up in the confusion of mechanical equivalence."

two cents, I like this analogy, let's explore it further. If a Jewish newspaper were to publish "gross anti-Semitic cartoons" I imagine there would be a tremendous sense of outrage against the paper in question by the Jewish community. Al Fagar republished the Danish cartoons in Egypt five months ago. Where was the outrage? Why was it considered no big deal until the Islamist/Authoritarian state campaign kicked up the furor? Could it be that the Egyptian audience weren't as offended as Hamas and Hezbollah, that Muslims actually have different standards on what is blasphemous? Perhaps you could settle my confusion.

[the burningman]

Antid -- did you miss the riots in France? Was that just "Islamist/Authoritarian state" meddling in the precious liberal nation of France?

Did you miss the law in Denmark that forbids marriage to "foreigners" before the age of 24?

Did it escape your attention that Denmark is a major European partner to the naked imperialism of the US-led bloc, with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Are you aware of the demonization of the lower classes that uses Euro chauvinism, often in "liberal" guise to cover up the gross racism of it?

Watch the debate with Ali Abunimah and the flunky linked above. The claim that Europe is so liberal and tolerant is a fucking joke.

If the same standards of "Feminism" and "toleration" were applied to Germany and Denmark, a good many more of the whites would fail to live up to what is supposed to define them as peoples.

"Rope" or "Nope" above (get a name already!) spoke some unpopular truths about Denmark in the second world war.

In a continent where LePen is a presidential contender in France, and the far-right is governing Denmark, upholding the rights of European racial bullshit is so far from a discussion of WHO GETS TO SPEAK that it should be obvious to everyone.

That it's not may say something for how imperil chauvinism is still one of those issues that's supposed to "wait."

Well, like the people been saying... the world can't wait.

Oh -- fuck religious fundamentalists. Mohamed was a man and was not a prophet of Allah, who does not exist. Jesus is more useful to keep slaves turning the other cheek than he ever was with dishing out "salvation." Moses was a dick and the Dalai Lama should get a real job.

Happy?

[a comment]

oes antid really think it is ridiculous and implausible that the anti-immigrant hysterias sweeping much of europe could end in physical attacks and round-ups of muslims?

That seems so naive about european politics and history. And it seems so soaked in illusions about "western civilization" and bourgeois democracy.

You don't think that immigrants could be rounded up, interred or mass deported from Europe (with great suffering and injustice)? Why not?

[antid]

Burningman (From comments on Prachanda speaks to BBC):

"In fact, to the anonymous and hesitant -- I'd ask "what is so dirty about democratic rights?"

Why is freedom of association, freedom of the press and so on called "bourgeois?"

Who gave them the fucking charter on free thinking? Maybe the "task" of defending and expanding democratic rights isn't just falling on communists in the third world -- but increasingly right here in the USA."

Freedom of the press? Free thinking? Right on.

Burningman:
"Oh -- fuck religious fundamentalists. Mohamed was a man and was not a prophet of Allah, who does not exist. Jesus is more useful to keep slaves turning the other cheek than he ever was with dishing out "salvation." Moses was a dick and the Dalai Lama should get a real job.

Happy?"

Yes. Now I am. Blasphemer. Are your comments racist, or are they secular and commonsensical? I'd say the latter. What are the real distinctions between Burningman's comments and those of the Danish cartoons? Burningman's profile says his real name in Jed Brandt. Brandt sounds Scandinavian to me.

[antid]

a comment:
"You don't think that immigrants could be rounded up, interred or mass deported from Europe (with great suffering and injustice)? Why not?"

It is possible -- all lot of things are possible. I just don't see such a horrific occurence foreshadowed in the Danish cartoons. Do you?

[John]

Yes.

As burningman said: look at the rebellions in France. Look at what immigrants have been facing (not just now, obviously, just because of a few cartoons, but over time.)

These cartoons are just cartoons -- but anti-immigrant politcs has been used to REORGANIZE AND REPOLARIZE politics in Europe (and not just in Denmark, obviously).

There is huge struggle in Europe over three things: (1) how and whether to dismantle the "social net" in order to be able to "better compete" in a globalized world, and (2) whether to participate in the Bush crusade or stand aside (as rival imp.s) to and (3) how to deal with the major social and cultural contradictions of integrating millions of third world people into (previously, relatively) homogenous imp countries.

This is not about a few cartoons per se -- this is about using fascist/populist politics around (3) in order to slip in a whole package program around ALL THREE.

This is what these cartoons exemplify, intensify and reveal.

Is it an accident that the brazenly anti-immigrant Danish government is also the most brazen of the European governments to participate in Iraq? No, these things are interwoven and mutually reinforcing. The chauvinism about "western civilization" whipped up around one serves the justifications for the other (and vice versa).

So yes, "a comment" et al are right.

There is a solid whiff of concentration camp around all this (and it seems pretty obvious to me). Not because there are elaborate concrete plans (hidden in a secret drawer somewhere) or because cartoons (per se) are calling for this.

But because of the larger logic and trajectory of euro-politics concentrated and exemplified by this whole affair.

As for your comment "it is possible -- a lot of things are possible."

This seems to be saying until something openly announces its arrival we can't know its coming."

No one said anything is inevitable. The point is if such things go undefeated they have a logic, a directionality, in fact a framework of defining necessity that go far beyond what their proponents OPENLY call for now.

That is the point of material analysis (including class analysis). And luckily our ability to analyze trends, currents, and possibilities can be rather potent.

[the burningman]

Europe has had the "stench of the camps" for a long time. Genocides linger. The trafectory of European politics has been not so good for a long time.

The hubris of this talk of "western liberalism" has been turning my stomach. Are they kidding?

Some expect Europeans to be a progressive foil to US imperialism. If that's expected from the ruling classes -- good luck with that one.

The last time they "stood up" to the Anglo-US alliance, it wasn't exactly under progressive leadership.

[leftclick]

Let's not get too caught up in formalism. The fact that it is 'acceptable' to isolate people in condtions where they can be brutalized and tortured [Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo] should serve as a major warning. What does not exist yet, is a specific policy [or 'understanding'] that allows for people to be killed on whim. Given the constant demonization of Arabs, as represented by that cartoon, why should we not consider it as a [strong] possibility? Because the institutions of western liberalism would never permit it? Better look at European history again. While you're at it, look at 1970's Chile too. Chile was a constitutional democracy much like the US. Did that stop Pinochet?

After 9/11, many Japanese survivors of the Manzanar camp noted how similar the atmosphere was to WWII America. Just like the 1940's there were constant threat warnings to keep people on their toes, preceding the roundup of Japanese. The present-day terror alerts are now considred laughable, but ask long-time Japanese residents on the West Coast if the idea of modern-day camps is far-fetched.

[leftclick]

Rambo:
First of all, educate yourself: http://www.electronicintifada.net/new.shtml

Secondly, the greatest terrorist threat in the world today is the US government and its client states, especially Israel.

The idea that a the US should, or would, attack only extremists, to clear the way for 'moderate Muslims' is laughable. Just lok at Abu Ghraib to see how such distinctions are [not] being made. In the West the 'moderate Muslim' is the equivalent of the 'good Jew' - someone willing to lead their own people to subordination and/or destruction "for their own good."

We, on this blog, do not support religious fundamentalism of any kind, especially when it takes violent forms. At the same time, we recognize the historical context in which such ideology arises. If you really want Islamic fundamentalism to end, then the conditions which spawn it should end - primarily the expansionist Zionist state.

Is anyone needs to account for their crimes, it's Israel. First to the Palestinians for displacing them and then subjecting them to brutal and humiliating living conditions and then, to the rest of the Arab world for being s gendarme for the West. Of course, we can never forget the US and its role in financing the Israel for its own imperialist reasons.

[Amanda]

I think someone should close down this site. It offends me.

Stupidity offends me.

[jim]

Of course it's about freedom of speech.
Fuck you for demanding that we lie down and support every fucking religion that wants to kill us.

Seriously, by violently protesting against the cartoons they effectively proved what the cartoons were joking about.

We really shouldn't even respect them.