Religion - The Terrorists' Cloak

What an interesting contrast.

SBS airing visions of prisoner abuse in Iraq are met with Western societies' calls for harsh judgement on the perpetrators of abuse and the condemnation of the US administrators.

Compared this to the indignation of Islamic extremists views on the airing of anti-terrorist cartoons. The terrorist sympathisers' calls for harsh judgement are reserved for the authors who expose the attitudes of people who are willing to murder for their cause.

This leaves a rhetorical question. Should serious issues be spotlighted and resolved, or is it better that we allow terrorists to cloak their aims under the cover of religious sensitivities?

Fear and Terror are Partners

John Bruni's article in the last Sunday Mail concerning, what price do we put on freedom? .. is a sad reflection on our democracy.

I would like to clarify what looked like misrepresentation in that article. The editor of Jyllands-Posten, has clearly stated his aim of publishing the anti terrorist cartoons. My real concern is why Mr Bruni is prepared to so easily sweep freedom under the carpet.

Carsten Juste, the Danish paper’s editor, said "...the cartoons were a test of whether the threat of Islamic terrorism had limited the freedom of expression in Denmark."

I guess it is up to the reader to decide if that is the case.

My experience with people who would be bullies, is that you confront them before they develop a habit and an organised power base. Bullies rely on apathy or fear to allow them to pick off defenceless minorities. I guess in this we are destined to always be too late.

However, there is hope. In the poll taken in the democratic nation of Denmark indicated a 57% support for the Jyllands-Posten’s decision to publish the cartoons.

Somehow, being Australians, where the majority of us do not bow to extreme religious attitudes, should entitle us to draw a satirical sword and cut through the terrorist's cloak of "religious sensitivity". At least it is a subject worth honestly debating, if not satirising.

Are we sensitive...and Australian?

Is the concept of editorial sensitivity sweeping our freedom under the carpet?

There seems to be an unusual argument in favour of censorship of cartoons because they are insensitive. As the Danish editor of Jyllands-Posten ably argued, most people are offended by insensitive or bad taste cartoons, but only a few use them as an excuse for a beheading.

About seventy years ago Jewish leaders in Germany suggested that if they removed any hint of satire regarding a response to the Nazi's views, they would not incite Hitler and his followers and eventually they would be left alone.

We now have a condition of history repeating itself. We can not use cartoons to depict people using religion as a cover for terrorism, because it is argued, we will upset religious sensitivities? That is the same argument used by the grand inquisitors to deal with their detractors over six hundred years ago.

Possibly the cartoons are a good way to flush out potential terrorists, or better still those who have incited the "expression of outrage" as an excuse for terrorism. But then again, maybe sticking your head in the sand, being sensitive to thugs and avoiding confrontation on this issue will fix the wider root problem?

My limited experience with people who would be bullies, is that you confront them before they have an organised power base. Bullies rely on apathy or fear to allow them to go about picking off defenceless minorities.

Many Muslims are indicating that bowing to the extremist's calls for censorship, will detract from the debate and not do Islam any favours when it comes to dealing with the root cause of conflict. Somehow, being overly sensitive and sheathing the satirical sword, instead of using it to cut through the terrorist's cloak of religious sensitivity, does not sound very Australian to me.

Danish Cartoons - Not everyone's Piece of Cake

Have we let our freedom of speech get hijacked? There are some people who object to a few satirical cartoons in a Danish newspaper depicting the religious justification and cover used by terrorists. There are calls from some quarters to take a culturally sensitive and politically correct approach and avoid satire because of fear of offence to a group with extreme views.

Satire is a tool that was used very effectively in ancient times in early democracies, until it was ruthlessly put down, particularly in the Dark Ages as a challenge to authority. Religious satire was seen as blasphemous and perpetrators were condemned to terrible torture and death.

Extreme attitudes were parodied in brilliant satires, like Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels. Swift held up a mirror to show the folly of leaders who divided their people into "Big Endians and Littlendians". It is a satire still relevant today.

There are many more recent examples where satire can be used to help illustrate false divisions, such as between Hutus and Tutus, Jews and Muslims etc etc. These concocted differences when used to justify terror need the freedom of speech to shatter bigotry and highlight it for what it is.

A humorous satirical cartoon is one of the important free speech devices in a democracy and it challenges the futility of concocted wedges driven into society.It is good to see the Danes and now the Norwegians take a stand and publish the anti terrorist cartoons.

See the Danish imams, who protested the publication of 12 Muhammad cartoons