A few months back an English newspaper published a cartoon showing the president of the United States of America buggering a camel. Now I fully accept that some people may find such a drawing offensive - to camels. However, political cartoons sometimes have to be blunt, crude even, to get their point across. It’s the nature of the medium.
A few of the now infamous Danish Dozen cartoons about the Prophet Mohammad are about as subtle as the camel drawing, but most of them are not nearly as direct. Of the twelve, two do not even feature any image of Mohammad. In five of the cartoons, the main satirical target is not even Islam, but rather journalism. Perhaps the NUJ should torch the Danish embassy in London in protest.
I am saddened but not surprised that in 2006 so many people still think they can use their belief in this or that Middle East myth to attack the freedom of speech of others. It is galling that so many still play the "that’s offensive to my people" game, and that some of them play the game with guns.
God forbid that someone should point out the massive human suffering which the religious have inflicted on the world. God forbid that someone should point out that holy books tend to hold as much water as a bullet-riddled sieve. God forbid that someone should point out that many of the Almightys out there are misogynist, homophobic bigots.
Why is it only the religious who get their feelings mollycoddled in this way? What about my feelings, those of a hell-bound atheist?
I can think of dozens of blogs on this site which I find offensive. The chest-beating nationalism, the Francophobia, the smug religiosity, the Darwin denying, the refusal to acknowledge Bush’s idiocy - I find if it all very offensive. But I don’t want the people responsible for this drivel to be shot or imprisoned. I accept their right to express their opinions.
If the religious are offended by criticism of their particular choice of fairy-tale then they can comfort themselves with the fact that they have God on their side. The Big Guy will settle accounts with the blasphemers in due course.
The angry protests and boycotts in the Islamic world are tragi-comic on a number of levels. It’s bad enough that people should protest against these cartoons in the first place. But their choice of targets is bewildering. What control does the Danish government have over the press in its country? What has it done to deserve all these threats? Likewise, Danish industry has done nothing which necessitates a boycott. I suppose the Danes won’t be exporting any more beer or bacon to Saudi Arabia. Ah well.
I shouldn’t joke of course, as it may soon be illegal in this country. For those who don’t follow British politics, let me explain. Tony Blair is trying to push through legislation which would outlaw religious hatred in the UK. On the face of it this seems like a good idea, until you realise that the law could one day be used against those of us who mock the pious. If you think that sounds paranoid, consider this. A protester was arrested under new "anti-terror" legislation at the Cenotaph in London recently. Her offence was to read out the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq.
The legislation is ill-conceived in principle, designed as a sop to the Muslim Council of Britain. As if such legislation will make the average Muslim think "Well, you interned my cousin in Belmarsh for two years and tortured my uncle in Basra, but this anti-religious hatred bill makes up for all that." Why should I pay for Blair’s colossal foreign policy mistakes with my freedom?
What is need now on the secular left is a bit of backbone. Enough of the hand-wringing and the political correctness. Freedom of speech is under attack from religious fundamentalists and war-mongering liars. The time for inoffensiveness has passed.