The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:30 am
British cartoonists reflect on their courage and decency:
When the political cartoonist Martin Rowson draws President Bush with blood on his hands, he gets hundreds of angry and obscene e-mails. But he doesn’t mind, he said, because “the purpose of satire is to attack people more powerful than you are.”
Still, Rowson said, he would not have drawn the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that were published by a Danish newspaper and led to often violent protests around the world. Rowson said the cartoons insulted a minority group—“poor and powerless Muslims in Denmark.”
If the purpose of satire is to attack people more powerful than you are, attack the Prophet Muhammad! He’s way more powerful than George W. Bush. How dare you insult him! Interesting that Rowson, who works for a British paper, is so keen to avoid offending Muslims in Denmark.
Steve Bell, who, like Rowson, draws mainly for the Guardian newspaper … [recently] drew an excited Bush having relations with a camel, which was supposed to symbolize Iraq.
But even as a believer in harsh political satire, Bell said, he would not have drawn the Danish cartoons, including one that featured Muhammad with a bomb in his turban. He defended the Danish newspaper’s right to publish the drawings, saying limitations on free speech should be “self-imposed.”
“The limits are one’s own integrity and one’s own beliefs,” he said. “Sometimes you want to offend. But you target the powerful, not the weak.”
The Prophet won’t be happy about all these infidels mocking his weakness. Hey, Prophet! You’re so lame that Brit cartoonists won’t draw you!
[Hunt ]Emerson also said he would not have published the Muhammad cartoons, partly because they were “not very good” and partly out of fear of violent reprisals. “As a cartoonist, I have quite a few views about it,” he said. “But as a human being, I’m not going to put me and my family in danger. So you might say they’re winning.”
Yes. Yes, you might say that.
- You target those who cannot harm you and fear those who can.Posted by Inurbanus on 2006 02 24 at 12:26 PM • permalink
- “It is not cowardice! It is…deferred bravery!”Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 2006 02 24 at 12:28 PM • permalink
- So … If Bush and Rove threatened to kill this cartoonist, he wouldn’t publish obscene and offensive cartoons about them? So then, since he does publish such cartoons, he must not REALLY consider them dangerous to his family. Interesting.Posted by robert speirs on 2006 02 24 at 12:40 PM • permalink
he would not have published the Muhammad cartoons, partly because they were “not very good”
Oh, that’s rich. They give awards to that talentless hack Steve Bell, who makes Michael Leunig and Ted Rall look like Rembrandts, and he has the balls to say that? Notice how all those “thoughtful” editors have said the same thing? What a cop-out!
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 02 24 at 12:50 PM • permalink
“As a cartoonist, I have quite a few views about it,” he said. “But as a human being, I’m not going to put me and my family in danger. So you might say they’re winning.”
In making these statements in defense of their position, aren’t these cartoonists inadvertently highlighting the very issue that makes the War Against Terrorism necessary? If people fear Muslims committing violent acts against them individually for such a meaningless act as drawing a cartoon, what should we fear as a group as a result of acts of more meaningful and far-reaching nature?
Such acts as:
— exporting Western culture into a medieval mind set
— promoting democracy
— supporting the right to worship as one pleases
— equal rights for all people, regardless of gender, creed, religion, or ethnic background
— the right to associate with whomever and how ever one chooses
— the right to share equally and fairly in the wealth of one’s nation
— the right to hold our political and religious leaders accountablePosted by wronwright on 2006 02 24 at 12:50 PM • permalink
“Sometimes you want to offend. But you target the powerful, not the weak.”
The Left has no concept of right and wrong, only strong and weak. Strong = bad, weak = good. That’s why they’ll build museums for Holocaust victims, but call Jews Israelis “Zionist oppressors.”
Makes it simple, doesn’t it? You don’t have to analyze the history and culture of the various parties in a dispute, or try to judge the merits of their complaints. Just figure out who’s kicking whose ass, or who’s got stuff while the other doesn’t have so much stuff, and there’s your bad guy. But oh, don’t ever forget how very nuanced the “reality-based community” is compared to us simplismeRWDBs.
- So much for the quill of the people.Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 02 24 at 01:04 PM • permalink
- I studied English Literature, and I do not remember anything about the purpose of satire being the ability to attack those more powerful than you. Satire is merely a humorous (and generally subtle) way to get people to look at societal norms, customs, politics, religion, etc by poking fun of them. To be funny, the satire had to be based somewhat in truth, or the point you were making just wouldn’t be communicated.
There is no requirement that the subject being attacked be more powerful. The subject merely needs to be ridiculous. Such as expecting that 72 virgins wait for you in paradise. What happens when they are no longer virgins? And did you ever wonder WHY they were virgins? And what do female martyrs get? So many questions on that belief…it would make good satire.
So, are pictures w/blood on Bush’s hands funny or satirical? Only if you really believe that he has purposely killed innocents. And that’s not really funny, just angering. Certainly not subtle. Are pictures of Big Mo wearing a turban bomb funny and satirical? I don’t think they’re funny, but I can see the element of truth. Lots of people believe that islam IS a religion of violence.
- No doubt, deciding precisely who is ‘strong’ and, thus, suitable for satire is entirely the prerogative of our self-annointed intellectual clerisy. I’d like to see a breakdown of who qualifies.
With cartoons about the cartoons—and soon, I’m sure, even discussion of the cartoons—now off limits, the West finds itself on two very slippery slopes.
“So you might say they’re winning.”
And the idiot appears not to really care one way or the other. This dude is most certainly on autopilot.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 24 at 01:33 PM • permalink
- OTOH, there are these guys: (from Insty) Cartoonists strike back
- Muslims are “weak?” How patronizing. Naturally the self-perception of weakness promulgates Islamist rage, maybe they will protest these patronizing cartoonists.Posted by theoclitus on 2006 02 24 at 02:50 PM • permalink
- Rocket surgeon Hasan Moron Bolkhari eruditely deconstructs Tom & Jerry:
The Jewish Walt Disney Company gained international fame with this cartoon.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!! I bet there’s earth tremors in Anaheim California today, from Unca Walt spinning in his grave, along three different axes at the same time! The old antisemite gets credited with his competitor’s work AND gets posthumously Jew-ified, both on the same day. HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW !!!
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 24 at 03:51 PM • permalink
- 27. Mencken, the Dipshit of Baltimore?Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 02 24 at 04:00 PM • permalink
- Speaking of cartoon censorship, it looks as if our old pals Tom and Jerry have been Whoopi Goldbergized. Not sure if these are the deletions and changes that Imam Bolkhari would have made, tho …Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 24 at 04:06 PM • permalink
- #26: Yep, ol’ Hasan really hit the moron trifecta that time.
#28: I dunno; it doesn’t sound like Mencken to me. Does quick Google search.
And in fact, it wasn’t; it was Finley Peter Dunne. Here’s an interesting item from Mencken’s “New Dictionary of Quotations”, Samuel Johnson’s definition of a journalist (“newswriter”): “A newswriter is a man without virtue, who writes lies at home for his own profit. To these compositions is required neither genius nor knowledge, neither industry nor sprightliness; but contempt of shame and indifference to truth are absolutely necessary.”
If the purpose of satire is to attack people more powerful than you are, attack the Prophet Muhammad!
WTF Tim? When was the last time you (or the New York Times) referred to Jesus as “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”?
(OK, maybe you’re just using a dihmmified voice to make a point, but way too many “secular” news reports seem to confer status upon the murderous cult founder.)
- The courage and decency on display in this blog is nothing short of astonishing.Posted by Miranda Divide on 2006 02 24 at 04:19 PM • permalink
- That’s nice dear (pat pat), here’s your pail and shovel and there’s some nice quicksand. Go play, run along now, that’s nice.Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 02 24 at 04:26 PM • permalink
- These “artists” give new meaning to the term “Yellow Journalism.”Posted by perfectsense on 2006 02 24 at 04:35 PM • permalink
- Hey Paco, please point me to some evidence of decency.
Please, point away, in the name of 30,000 dead Iraqis that GWB will admit to killing in the name of fictitious WMD and the chance to set up permanent military super bases.
30,000 and some. Just collateral damage. Put ‘em in a pit and that’s some mass grave, huh? The price of democracy. Democracy’s all about choice, no? Freedom to choose, freedom of choice. Did the dead have a choice? Who chose to call them expendable? Their families? Their children?
Granted, it takes a lot of courage to stick to a stupid plan when you know in the years ahead thousands of people will die to save your miserable bacon.
Posted by Miranda Divide on 2006 02 24 at 05:11 PM • permalink
- Ah, that’s the Miranda we knew and loved so long ago, slinging insane accusations and freaky confabulations. Welcome back to the Blogmire!Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 24 at 05:32 PM • permalink
- Crazy Miranda
LIves on propaganda
She believes everything she reads…Jefferson Airplane
Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 02 24 at 05:47 PM • permalink
- “Sometimes you want to offend. But you target the powerful, not the weak.”
So let’s see:
STRONG: Unable, due to social and legal constraints, to take violent action against you for offending them with your satire.
WEAK: Able to take violent action against you, your countrymen, and random people on the street for offending them with your satire.
Oh, it much take such courage to limit your satire to the strong, Mr. Bell.
Posted by Warmongering Lunatic on 2006 02 24 at 05:56 PM • permalink
- “Rowson said the cartoons insulted a minority group…”
So, a religion with over a billion followers is a minority? My, how ever can these “poor and hopeless” people get their message out to be heard over the voices of the big boys of the religious world?
This guy in an idiot in thought as well as principle. Guess that’s why he’s a journalist.
Who was the dipshit who said that the purpose of journalism was “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable”?
It was Finley Peter Dunne, writing as “Mr. Dooley.” The complete quote is:
“Th newspaper does ivrything f’r us. It runs th’ polis foorce an’ th’ banks, commands th’ milishy, controls th’ ligislachure, baptizes th’ young, marries th’ foolish, comforts th’ afflicted, afflicts th’ comfortable, buries th’ dead an’ roasts thim aftherward.”
Dunne was, through the vehicle of satire, attacking the arrogance and presumption of the newspapers of his day. (And ours)
- #8 Spiny Norman. That bothers me a lot too.
It seems almost obligatory among the apologists for dhimmitude to toss in some insult about the quality of the cartoons. They seem like typical political cartoons to me–no worse then any others out there. And at least one of them is quite a bit better.
I think the one of Mohammed with a sword flanked by two women in full hajib, only their eyes visible while Mohammed is blinded by the stip of cloth removed from the eyes of the women, makes a sublime statement. Obviously over the heads of the idiot dhimmis.
Posted by tim maguire on 2006 02 24 at 06:34 PM • permalink
- A serenade to the British cartoonists, with a chorus or three of Brave Sir Robin.
- ”…you target the powerful, not the weak.” Huh. And it only took them a couple of weeks to come up with that rationalization for their cowardice.
I love the half-witted, ham-fisted depiction of Iraq as a camel. Next up, a cartoon of GWB devouring a watermelon to show him as a ruthless murderer of poor black folks.
- Miranda,
I’ll spell out the obvious for you.
Displaying highly controversial political comment/art/cartoons= courage.
People have died, people have gone to gaol, for doing the same.
Supporting artists that have had death threats made against them = decent.
Any other questions?Posted by daddy dave on 2006 02 24 at 07:19 PM • permalink
- #36 of course dead people is a Bad Thing. but aside from the fact that most of the killing in iraq is iraqi against iraqi, these people now have a chance to decide whether they slide into civil war or build a nation. it’s their choice. a choice they didn’t have under saddam. if the experiment fails & we get a sharia dominated iran clone, that’s their choice too. people will argue till the cows come home over whether the iraq project was well or ill advised, but the mere sight of people voting in a voteless region is a huge result
- Miranda
It is indeed a breath of fresh air to have you back posting – just be careful, lately I have noticed a distinctly conservative element at this blog, some of it antagonistic to the light of compassion that we few brave souls shine into these stinky quagmires of darkness.
I too would like to see Saddam back in power keeping Iraq free from tyranny, gassing kurds, raping Kuwaitis and keeping women’s minds free from the modern scourge of education.
Iraqi soccer players have also been lacking resolve since Odai tragically lost the reins – treat ‘em mean, keep ‘em keen I say.
Must get back to my painting.
Solidarity
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 02 24 at 07:36 PM • permalink
- #46, #8 Regarding the quality of the cartoons, I’ve always thought they were very good. I like the one about running out of virgins. That cracks me up every time.
As for women martyrs and what they get? I haven’t got the links to hand, but I’m pretty sure they get their husbands back. Most of them are going to hell anyway, according to Mohammed.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 02 24 at 07:39 PM • permalink
- These guy are skirting the issue to cover up for their own fundamental lack of belief in genuine free speech. The issue isn’t whether you would draw the cartoons but whether they should be published. These guys might have their neo-marxist justification for not doing some satire but there might be cartoonists with very different definitions of satire – for example some might specialise in satirising the foibles of organised religion (and anyone who doesn’t think there is plenty of material for satire in any organised religion must have had their frontal satire lobe removed).
The question is should these type of cartoons be published. In a genuine free speech culture the answer is simply yes – no ifs and buts.
LIke the “quality” issue that commenters like tim maguire have mentioned – all this blather is simply rationalisation for self-imposing a limit to free speech this one instance.
- There are a handful of editors, etc. in custody through out the Middle East for having simply ‘republished’ these cartoons in order to have their readers see the current controversy in its context.
What an outrage!
And the defenders of freedom in the West offer to sooth only the hurt of those murdering Christians in Nigeria, burning embassies in Damascus, or threatening to murder any one asociated with the publication of these cartoons whereever they are found.
Now, that is outrageous.
Posted by dover_beach on 2006 02 24 at 08:29 PM • permalink
- these people are a very good argument for another decade of john howard. or peter costello: “If you have a strong objection to walking in your socks, don’t enter the mosque. Before becoming an Australian, you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values don’t come to Australia.”
- By the way, by saying satire should be aimed only at the Big, Bad USA and other Western nations, Bell and others aren’t really attacking “the powerful,” they are attacking those who won’t physically attack them in retaliation. It’s actually the safest bet to mock and deride Western nations, because it’s part of our culture to both respect and ignore the opinions of others. But most Muslim nations aren’t “weak,” unless you adopt their own definition of “weak,” meaning “not top dog on Earth.” Which it seems these big, brave cartoonists have done.Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 02 24 at 09:16 PM • permalink
- Here is a video of a group of “New York members of the oxymoronic ‘Islamic Thinkers Society’” attacking an American flag and shouting a lot.
But what really interested me about this blog post is that the author (The Autonomist) states that, “Islamist suicide bombers often wrap their penises in tinfoil so that it’s still usable … after Allah supposedly greets what’s left of them in ‘Paradise.’”
I didn’t think it could possibly be true. I didn’t think anyone could really be so astonishly stupid, but here it is at FrontPage too.
“Some of the Palestinian suicide bombers wrap their penises into fire-proof aluminum foil to save them for the pleasures to come.”
And the bleeding heart types would have us try to reason with such people?
- Oh, come now, Andrea. I’m sure Miranda is as outraged and vocal over Darfur, which has seen far, far more death and suffering at the hands of the Janjaweed than Iraq from the US. And I’ll bet he/she/it was all over Saddam like stink on shit when he was gassing villages and such.
Right?
[sound of crickets]
Mencken, the Dipshit of Baltimore?
Now THERE was an antisemite’s antisemite!
And who let Miranda out of the kitchen?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 25 at 12:37 AM • permalink
- Robert Speirs nails it. These are the people who think the all-powerful imperialist Bush is the real terrorist, the real danger to the planet. Yet they know they can say or print anything they want about him without fear of reprisal. But, attack the “poor and powerless Muslims”? They dare not. Not if they want to keep their heads, that is. How can such people be at once so self-absorbed while, at the same time, so lacking in self awareness.
And Rowson can stuff that crap about only targeting the powerful. Cartoons of Bush with blood on his hands or humping a camel are an affront to each and every one of us who voted for him–twice–and support his policies. Though they may pretend otherwise for public consumption, this crew considers us every bit as culpable.
May I further suggest to these knockers that they read some Mark Twain or watch a little Woody Allen and then get back to us about the “purpose of satire”.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 02 25 at 01:45 AM • permalink
- Palestinian suicide bombers are going to be sooo unhappy when they get to the other side. Hot tin foil burns like hell (yuk yuk).
Anyone looking for insight into the Muslim psyche (male and female) should spend some time reading over at Ask the Imam
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 02 25 at 02:01 AM • permalink
- #73 Kyda Sylvester
How about this site for Islamic ‘thought’
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=9790&dgn=4
- Yes, Montalban, I understand the Koran is quite instructive on matters of bathroom etiquette (Ask the Imam links to that site often).
No Muslim has the slightest iota of doubt in the fact that the Qur’an is absolutely infallible. How could it be otherwise when the Qur’an is the word of Allah Ta’ala who is All Knowing, All Seeing and the possessor of absolute and perfect wisdom. Every command of Allah Ta’ala is compatible with human nature and its adherence not only earns a person rewards in the hereafter, but is also vital to facilitate the smooth harmony of our existence on earth. No system or mode of life can ever be superior.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 02 25 at 02:33 AM • permalink
- The chief irony of all this is, as Mark Steyn has repeatedly argued – here, for intstance -, is that one particular weak minority is getting less and less weak – and less and less of a minority -by the minute. So that by the time Islamic theocratic tyranny becomes sufficiently “strong” to constitute a legitimate target for satire by the likes of Steve Bell, it’ll be too late, because satirising Islamic theocratic tyranny will have been made punishable by death.Posted by Hector Cross on 2006 02 25 at 02:34 AM • permalink
- #75 Kyda Sylvester there’s also heaps of advice on having a child-wife (because Muhammed had ‘consummated’ one relationship when he was in his 40s and she was 9)
http://www.islam-online.net/livefatwa/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=YFCeOS
see also:
http://www.islamicvoice.com/august.98/marriage.htm#EAR
and
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=22442&dgn=4
and from the same site…
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=1493&dgn=4
- So, overrun half the world at sword’s point, kill millions, and you’re a poor and oppressed minority?Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 02 25 at 12:36 PM • permalink
- Political satire should be aimed at the strong. When I say ‘strong’, I mean, the establishment forces that the baby boomers opposed in the 60’s. So, you should oppose and satirise Republican governments, the Catholic church, war hawks, older generations, banks, the status quo generally, and anyone who looks like they disapprove of dope. Coz that’s cool.
Note that ‘strong’ does not include influential lobby groups (environmentalists, feminists etc), the U.N., non-christian religions, or terrorists. You must not make fun of these.
Coz that’s not cool. Man.Posted by daddy dave on 2006 02 25 at 01:41 PM • permalink
- Montalban #79, from your first link:
Hence, we conclude that puberty is not a condition for executing marriage. The only condition is the wife’s ability to bear responsibilities of marital life. However, we do not recommend marriage before puberty because at that early age the girl can’t fulfill her obligations towards her husband properly, nor can she know her rights towards him.
Thus, to avoid any negligence or liability on her part we do not recommend marriage at such an early age.
I don’t even know what to say.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 02 25 at 02:35 PM • permalink
- #83
How about “What Bullshit”?I gather the Mad Mullahs of Teheran, taking the deeds of the Prophet as the perfect model for human behavior, decreed when they got power that the age of girls to marry would be nine. That was Aisha’s age when Mo consummated their marriage. Even the Mad Mullahs realized after a while what a truly stupid idea this was, and raised the age to a mature, nay elderly thirteen. Anybody with any sense, of course, could have told them that it was stupid. Some courageous and quickly deceased people probably did.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 02 25 at 06:31 PM • permalink
- #83 Kyda Sylvester, some of these Islamic sites say a girl can be married before puberty, but (according to Islamic law) once she reaches puberty she can opt out of the marriage (as if this guarantees that she’ll be treated fairly)… what Moslem man would then have her anyway?
And the fact that a man having his way with a child is itself evil doesn’t seem to escape them.
The problem with these examples (when I’ve used them in some debates) is the apologists will always say “But these represent only ‘some’ Moslems.” There’s no way of convincing some.
- # Michael Lonie, that’s not true! The late Ayatollah Khommeni married (when he was 20) a 10 year old.
The standard Sharia pracitce is that when she’s started her menstural cycle (plus three months) she’s considered an ‘adult’*. Moslems claim her ‘consent’ is necessary too for a marriage to be valid, though her silence is also deemed as consent.
*- oddly enought Moslem nations don’t give her any ‘rights’ of adults such as voting, or the right to drive at the same time.
I’m still blinking stupidly over that info that these morons wrap their penises in tinfoil before blowing themselves (and innocent victims) up.
Perhaps this is the Islamic version of pig in a blanket.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 25 at 10:31 PM • permalink
- Well, the rainbow network in Sheffield England is not Impressed with the Illusionary MO rules, as they banned Gay muslims from their Muslim festival.
Despite claiming in its promotional publicity that the festival will feature the “diversity and plurality” of Muslim cultures, the Festival has rejected a request to stage a photo exhibition, conference and film screening featuring the lives and experiences of lesbian and gay Muslims.
“Lesbians and gay men are part of Muslim faith and society. We are not going to be silenced or victimised any more. We are out and proud, as both gays and Muslims. It is time the conservative leadership of the Muslim community got used to the fact that gay Muslims are here to stay and here to fight.”
This happend in Jan. 2006.
Gay rights for GAY Islam loving BROTHERS
- Cleric Blames Gays For Tsunami
null“The fact that it happened at this particular time is a sign from Allah. It happened at Christmas, when fornicators and corrupt people from all over the world come to commit fornication and sexual perversion.” giggles.
Page 1 of 1 pages
