Monday, February 06, 2006
How to get your embassy burnt down:
1. Draw one religiously offensive cartoon
2. Publish in newspaper
3. Wait....
Who could ever possibly take enough offence to a cartoon in a newspaper to protest? Quite a few people actually. The recent demonstrations around the world by Muslims have shown that certain things just should not be joked about. The cartoons, published in a Danish newspaper, and republished in 12 newspapers around the world, depicted the prophet Mohammad. The government of that country has appealed for calm, and apologised for the incident, but some are suggesting that the reaction might be a bit overblown.
Supporters of free speech have critisised those who seek to ban this kind of publication, using the argument that why should they not be allowed to publish whatever they want. After all, most editorials and opinion articles are on controversial subjects which not all readers will find palatable. However, there is a line between harmless freedom of speech and an insult. We in the West have grown up with the idea that some things are to be taken as a joke, and are perhaps less sensitive to caricatures of our religions. Also, standards of living are generally higher in western countries, meaning that people tend to rely on a new god, money. In most Muslim countries, tough living conditions and brutal regimes mean relying on divine intervention to survive a necessity for most. By insulting the backbone of their faith it is to be expected many will be upset.
Islam is going through a tumultuous time, facing modernity while clinging onto its roots. Perhaps editors of newspapers could remember this before publishing anything they fit in the name of free speech.
1. Draw one religiously offensive cartoon
2. Publish in newspaper
3. Wait....
Who could ever possibly take enough offence to a cartoon in a newspaper to protest? Quite a few people actually. The recent demonstrations around the world by Muslims have shown that certain things just should not be joked about. The cartoons, published in a Danish newspaper, and republished in 12 newspapers around the world, depicted the prophet Mohammad. The government of that country has appealed for calm, and apologised for the incident, but some are suggesting that the reaction might be a bit overblown.
Supporters of free speech have critisised those who seek to ban this kind of publication, using the argument that why should they not be allowed to publish whatever they want. After all, most editorials and opinion articles are on controversial subjects which not all readers will find palatable. However, there is a line between harmless freedom of speech and an insult. We in the West have grown up with the idea that some things are to be taken as a joke, and are perhaps less sensitive to caricatures of our religions. Also, standards of living are generally higher in western countries, meaning that people tend to rely on a new god, money. In most Muslim countries, tough living conditions and brutal regimes mean relying on divine intervention to survive a necessity for most. By insulting the backbone of their faith it is to be expected many will be upset.
Islam is going through a tumultuous time, facing modernity while clinging onto its roots. Perhaps editors of newspapers could remember this before publishing anything they fit in the name of free speech.
Monday, January 30, 2006
I just joined the illustrious World of Warcraft guild of Elavion. But now I can't remember my password to log in. Oh well, easy come easy go.
Friday, January 27, 2006
A few weeks ago, whilst perusing through the that highly accurate publication, the West Australian, the topic of politically correct uniforms was brought up for Western Australian police. There was a picture of a woman wearing a headscarf, and a man wearing a turban and sporting a beard.
The next day in the opinion pages, what could only be described as a virulent outpouring of prejudice could be viewed. Of course the editor chooses which letters to print, but all of them pronounced an end to Australian culture and the start of a rabid theocracy spawning fresh recruits for the next global jihad. This continued on for the next week, however I am happy to say that some readers were more than supportive of the uniform changes. The ones continuing to spout their intolerance did so using the argument that everyone should wear the same uniform as Australia was a place where people got a "fair go".
I'm not sure that stopping people from wearing their cultural dress is giving them a "fair go". Some may say that if we were to visit "their" country (in inverted commas as quite a few of "them" were born in Australia), we would have to respect the local dress code. True, but isn't that what is so great about Australia? In a string bikini or wearing a full body chador, everyone is welcome at the beach.
I believe the greatest benefit from allowing police to wear cultural dress is that perhaps they will more easily be able to connect with youths from their own particular cultural groups. I'm not saying multiculturalism works perfectly. It is true to an extent that different cultural groups tend to stick together, and having law enforcement personnel that they can easily relate to will create an atmosphere of trust and cooperation.
And to the person who wrote in and asked if he would get into the Indian police force wearing a singlet and thongs, I'm not even going to begin to tell you why that is just so wrong.
The next day in the opinion pages, what could only be described as a virulent outpouring of prejudice could be viewed. Of course the editor chooses which letters to print, but all of them pronounced an end to Australian culture and the start of a rabid theocracy spawning fresh recruits for the next global jihad. This continued on for the next week, however I am happy to say that some readers were more than supportive of the uniform changes. The ones continuing to spout their intolerance did so using the argument that everyone should wear the same uniform as Australia was a place where people got a "fair go".
I'm not sure that stopping people from wearing their cultural dress is giving them a "fair go". Some may say that if we were to visit "their" country (in inverted commas as quite a few of "them" were born in Australia), we would have to respect the local dress code. True, but isn't that what is so great about Australia? In a string bikini or wearing a full body chador, everyone is welcome at the beach.
I believe the greatest benefit from allowing police to wear cultural dress is that perhaps they will more easily be able to connect with youths from their own particular cultural groups. I'm not saying multiculturalism works perfectly. It is true to an extent that different cultural groups tend to stick together, and having law enforcement personnel that they can easily relate to will create an atmosphere of trust and cooperation.
And to the person who wrote in and asked if he would get into the Indian police force wearing a singlet and thongs, I'm not even going to begin to tell you why that is just so wrong.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
"Inscription for Any War"
Linger not, stranger; shed no tear;
Go back to those who sent us here.
We are the young they drafted out
To wars their folly brought about.
Go tell those old men, safe in bed,
We took their orders and are dead.
A. D. Hope
Linger not, stranger; shed no tear;
Go back to those who sent us here.
We are the young they drafted out
To wars their folly brought about.
Go tell those old men, safe in bed,
We took their orders and are dead.
A. D. Hope
