New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | February 3, 2006

The Danish cartoon controversy may look bad, but it's the best thing that can happen for Muslims and secularists alike.

Comments

|2.3.06 @ 7:03PM|#

Thanks, Tim. Probably one of the better and most thoughtful takes on the situation I've read so far.

|2.3.06 @ 7:58PM|#

Well, for my part I sent off an email blast to the State Department, echoing some of Tim's points. The way their "contact us" process is set up, they don't take comments, but they will accept 'questions.' I get the impression they don't really want to deal with much in the way of commentary from the citizenry, but who knows, maybe it's just their webmaster's fault.

|2.3.06 @ 8:19PM|#

Excellent!
Come Monday, I'll be printing it, rolling it into a cone and jabbing it into the eye of my excellent friend at work, Waki Paki.
The whole fuckin' world needs to loosen up and get nekkid. Not to mention calling a spade a spade.

|2.3.06 @ 8:37PM|#

Need I point out that if the Muslims had been more civil in their protests then the comics wouldn't have been reprinted over and over? If they object to the prophet being depicted they shouldn't take actions that encourage it.

This, by the way, is a real example of irony.

|2.3.06 @ 8:41PM|#

I couldn't wait.
I already e-mailed the column to Waki's hotmail address.
If I don't post again by next Wednesday evening, send a search party.

|2.3.06 @ 9:18PM|#

be interesting to see if non-regular reason readers some on here and bombard this board. BBC5Live radio reported its message and texting board going down after something like 90,000 messages in a few short hours after a long story on the matter.

Seems like the wimpy state dept. message is a way to try and drive the terrorists to blow up Copenhagen rather than a decidely more deserving target like DC. Seems like this is more bread and circuses by muslim leaders to keep muslim attention and outrage on the west rather than the much worst outrages being committed by Mubarak, et al. in the muslim world.

|2.3.06 @ 9:38PM|#

Anyone who advocates the murder of anyone else should be killed.

|2.4.06 @ 1:13AM|#

"While you can't call the reaction good, it has been less bad than we might have expected, ranging from the legitimate (open criticism, demonstrations, boycotts of the offending newspapers)."

I think that the Muslims that are upset should be boycotting the advertisers of the newspaper, not Danish products or the newapaper. Boycotting the advertisers would be much more effective. People do that in the U.S. all the time and it generally works.

"Freedom of speech does not protect the speech that we love; it protects the speech that we hate."


NOTE: I think I heard the above quote from Larry Flynt but I�m entirely sure.

It seems to me that this is an appropriate quote given the current situation.

|2.4.06 @ 2:10AM|#

Two things struck me in the cartoon controversy. First, as Tim rightly observes, the issue is months old, had been pushed into the Danish courts, and its return to the radar screen only came after the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Organization for the Islamic Conference condemned a Norwegian paper's reprinting of the Danish cartoons. There are probably dozens of reasons why the story made a comeback, but domestic Arab politics are likely one, particularly with Arab regimes increasingly alarmed about being outflanked by the Islamists within their midst.

Second, again as Tim suggested, much of the reaction has been bizarrely state-centric: It's Denmark that is to blame, not a Danish newspaper; it's the Danish government that must apologize; it's the Danish flag that is burned, and Danish products that are boycotted. This is probably inevitable, but it also exposes a far deeper problem in many Muslim societies, namely that there is no clear dividing line between what is the state's and what is civil society's. This, I find, is the most damaging aspect of the protests: it's not just about religious sensitivities; it's about people being unable to distinguish whom they must protest against, deeply convinced that the cartoons were a government-directed project, hence reflective of a wider Western anti-Muslim "project". That says much more about the protestors than about the controversy itself, and is precisely why the Danish response, and that in other European countries, must be one of restating the notion that governments don't interfere in how their societies express themselves.

|2.4.06 @ 6:35AM|#

Hey Tim, I read The Satanic Verses and enjoyed it, and judging by your occasional references to Joyce and Pynchon, you would too.

|2.4.06 @ 9:26AM|#

If we introduced the Islamic world to Peter Murphy we wouldn't be having these problems. :)

|2.4.06 @ 11:12AM|#

Hey, wait a minute there, Hak. Doesn't Peter Murphy live in Turkey?

|2.4.06 @ 11:27AM|#

Syria protesters set Danish embassy ablaze over cartoon

|2.4.06 @ 11:30AM|#

Good article, Tim.

I look forward to the day when Radical Islam generates the same amount of eye rolling among "Muslim" countries as Focus on the Family does in "Christian" ones.

|2.4.06 @ 11:59AM|#

What a load of garbage his article is. "The reaction of the Muslims is not as bad as expected"? The reaction is perfectly keeping with a group that Ayn Rand rightfully calls savages. The terrorists today are not perverting Islam; they are Islam. The are helping Islam establish a world wide caliphate by their orgasmic murder of Jews and Americans.

That Reason Magazine would express sympathy for these savages is not suprising. Anyone remember the pro pedophile/anti-Semite Steve Birmingham who used to write for Reason? With his support of child pornography and Arabic anti-Semitism he perfectly fits the Libertarian ethos.

180 degrees|2.4.06 @ 2:16PM|#

Tim,
Why is it your default observation that there is a "European dysfunction in dealing with its Muslim populations"?

Rather, why is it not that the Muslim populations are having a hard time dealing with their European home?

When I lived in North London, I often saw the question begged: If new Muslim arrivals to Britain hated that country, Europe and the West so much -- then why did they even move there to begin with?

It seems that you've got the premise of the situation ass backwards.

|2.4.06 @ 2:39PM|#

"If new Muslim arrivals to Britain hated that country, Europe and the West so much -- then why did they even move there to begin with?"

They want to have their cake and eat it too: They like the freedom and economic well-being that the West offers, but they want to be able to impose their own narrow viewpoints on us. Kind of like the modern-day muslim version of the Puritans.

|2.4.06 @ 2:44PM|#

"Tim,
Why is it your default observation that there is a "European dysfunction in dealing with its Muslim populations"?

Rather, why is it not that the Muslim populations are having a hard time dealing with their European home?

When I lived in North London, I often saw the question begged: If new Muslim arrivals to Britain hated that country, Europe and the West so much -- then why did they even move there to begin with?

It seems that you've got the premise of the situation ass backwards."

Seems a two way street to me -- Europeans are largely racist against muslims and there is a lot of institutional/legal racism against them -- combine with tight labor mrkets, etc. and you see why they are marginalized -- muslims coming from repressive governments and repressive cultural traditions and move to europe for work and don't know a thing about liberalism, are marginalized -- turn further toward islam -- you can't blame totally one or the other.

|2.4.06 @ 2:48PM|#

spur,

I think your hypothesis would make more sense if there weren't so many muslims still going to Europe and staying there even after they see how it is. If they're going to "turn further toward islam," then why are they staying in Europe?

|2.4.06 @ 2:54PM|#

"There have been objections that this controversy undermines our own efforts to enlist potentially friendly Muslims in the struggle against tyranny. This is no doubt the motivation of the U.S. State Department in its decision to side with the rioters. But this view is not only unprincipled (free speech is to be defended even if it inconveniences the war on terror); it condescends to the perceived close-mindedness of Muslims..."

kind of a corollary to the idea of "the soft bigotry of low expectations"?

Tim Cavanaugh|2.4.06 @ 2:55PM|#

I think your hypothesis would make more sense if there weren't so many muslims still going to Europe and staying there even after they see how it is.

Sure, because just look how prejudice kept the Poles, Germans, Italians, Jews, Irish, and Chinese out of the United States.

|2.4.06 @ 2:57PM|#

A book can cause plenty of harm. So can a cartoon.

This is same sort fetishization and technological determinism I often see in the arguments of gun control advocates.

Free expression advocates have made an effort to frame the Jyllands-Posten cartoons as a responsible attempt to broaden the conversation on religious freedom, when in fact (as several of the cartoonists themselves acknowledged) the stunt is unambiguously provocative, juvenile, offensive, and irresponsible. That's why it needs to be defended.

When being "responsible" means that one can have no discourse which is critical of Islam, and certainly none which depicts an image of Mohammed, the line between what is "responsible" and what is "irresponsible" seems impossible not to cross.

The cartoon controversy can not be removed from its context of European dysfunction in dealing with its Muslim populations.

The article in question is about France, not Europe and as is patently clear about the situation there, its the immigrant population as a whole, not just Muslims, who have suffered from French society's problematic approach to immigrants. Note though that this problematic approach has included a laissez-faire policy towards immigrant populations in many respects, which means that in many numerous ways, the problems in the banlieus are indeed the creation of their inhabitants (e.g., rampant anal rape of young women).

It's not particularly noble or admirable for the folks at Jyllands-Posten to set out to provoke their own country's second class citizens.

This returns one to the fact that they are so easily provoked that the dividing line between the "responsible" and the "irresponsible" are almost married together.

|2.4.06 @ 3:05PM|#

"Sure, because just look how prejudice kept the Poles, Germans, Italians, Jews, Irish, and Chinese out of the United States.

Yeah, but they fought for equality and they all assimilated eventually (for the most part). The muslims in Europe show no signs of doing so in large numbers.

|2.4.06 @ 3:07PM|#

Spur,

Seems a two way street to me -- Europeans are largely racist against muslims and there is a lot of institutional/legal racism against them...

First of all, Muslims aren't a race, they're a religious group. Second of all, European legal systems have generally bent over backwards to accomadate Muslims (see how the Dutch deal with immigrants for example). Third, while many Europeans have prejudiced views towards Muslims, Muslims in Europe have a great deal of freedom and a great many of them have used this freedom rather poorly.

Tim Cavanaugh,

Sure, because just look how prejudice kept the Poles, Germans, Italians, Jews, Irish, and Chinese out of the United States.

Actually it did. Indeed, one of the reasons why on average 1/4rd of all immigrants went back to their home countries during the great waves of migration in the 19th century was due to nativism. Immigration itself was further limited by official legal regimes against immigration in the case of specific populations of immigrants (e.g., Chinese and Japanese) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. From what I know of post-WWII immigration to Europe from outside Europe you see nothing like this happening.

|2.4.06 @ 3:10PM|#

1/3rd

|2.4.06 @ 3:10PM|#

andy,

There are some nice comparative histories of immigration that Cavanaugh needs to read to disabuse him of some immigration myths.

|2.4.06 @ 3:15PM|#

Anyway, the psychological and sociological dissonance demonstrated by Muslims is rather amusing.

|2.4.06 @ 3:25PM|#

Jesus Christ superterrorstar

|2.4.06 @ 3:28PM|#

"if freedom isn't dangerous, then it isn't worth defending."

Might be the most stirring, and rational, thing I've heard in a long, long time. The negative publicity/pig wrestling simile was classic as well.

|2.4.06 @ 4:18PM|#

"First of all, Muslims aren't a race, they're a religious group. Second of all, European legal systems have generally bent over backwards to accomadate Muslims (see how the Dutch deal with immigrants for example). Third, while many Europeans have prejudiced views towards Muslims, Muslims in Europe have a great deal of freedom and a great many of them have used this freedom rather poorly."

Muslims aren't a race, but they are largely not white and stick out and seen as The Other. If you mean by 'bending over backwards' you mean having a 20%++ unemployment rate, getting them on the dole and not assimilating them, then yes...most european countries especially of late have enacted
very harsh immigration laws which makes the US look like we have an open border policy...

|2.4.06 @ 5:23PM|#

spur,

Muslims aren't a race, but they are largely not white and stick out and seen as The Other.

Which hardly makes them a "race." Why is it that whenever discrimination is claimed its automatically seen through the problematic lense of biologically related and/or fabricated criteria? Islam is a culturally created construct and has nothing to do with biology; arguing otherwise leads to all manner of confusion.

If you mean by 'bending over backwards' you mean having a 20%++ unemployment rate, getting them on the dole and not assimilating them...

Are you arguing that the state has a positive duty to "assimilate" people? What exactly is the role of individual in all of this? Or the particular community in question? You're painting European muslims as if they have no responsibility as far as their own lives. To do be blunt, whatever de facto discrimination exists in Europe is rather tame and much of the problems associated with the community stem directly from the community itself.

...most european countries especially of late have enacted very harsh immigration laws which makes the US look like we have an open border policy...

That's absolute horseshit. The legal regimes in Europe and the U.S. are roughly similar.

|2.4.06 @ 5:30PM|#

Spur,

BTW, they weren't forced to be on the dole, to live in public housing, etc., folks who moved there took advantage of the offer given to them because it was a far better deal than what they could ever imagine in the nations they were coming from. Admittedly France and other countries made a mistake offering such things, but painting immigrants as coerced parties in this matter (as you certainly imply) borders on the ludicrous.

|2.4.06 @ 7:44PM|#

"Yeah, but they fought for equality and they all assimilated eventually (for the most part). The muslims in Europe show no signs of doing so in large numbers."

Uh, "assimilated eventually" over a period of roughly a century. (Hell, the movie The Last Hurrah addressed continuing anti-Irish prejudice in the 1950s.) I believe a majority of Muslims in Western Europe are either immigrants or only first generation. Plus, as far as I'm aware, no Western European country allows people to obtain citizenship purely by birth, which was certainly a major contributing factor to assimilation in the United States. (Consider by way of comparison Chinese-Americans, who are typically far more assimilated into their "host culture" than Chinese-Vietnamese, Chinese-Indonesians, etc., who often remain significantly detached from it, despite having lived in those countries for centuries or even millennia.)

|2.4.06 @ 8:00PM|#

Plus, as far as I'm aware, no Western European country allows people to obtain citizenship purely by birth, which was certainly a major contributing factor to assimilation in the United States.

Just off the top of my head: Ireland. I'm sure there are others.

|2.4.06 @ 8:35PM|#

"Just off the top of my head: Ireland. I'm sure there are others."

You're out of date - Ireland abolished birth right citizenship in 2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3801839.stm

And according to that same article, Ireland was the only EU member state to allow birthright citizenship prior to that vote.

|2.4.06 @ 9:36PM|#

Most Western European countries, as also several British commonwealth nations, did indeed end birthright citizenship commencing in the 1980's or thereabouts. It may be foolish policy but you know what - denial of BC doesn't selectively ravage the pshyche of Muslim immigrants only, it applies to ALL immigrants equally.

|2.4.06 @ 9:54PM|#

Something's up in the neigbhourhood
Who you gonna call ?
Yup - Chris Hitchens.
www.slate.com/id/2135499/

|2.4.06 @ 10:35PM|#

What strikes me is that virtually the same time that this brouhaha is taking place, Donald Rumsfeld was the butt of "an insensitive cartoon" in The Washington Post". The Pentagon expressed its ire regarding the insensitivity towards US war wounded. They didn't burn the Post or riot, they instead sent a nasty note to the Post and told "everyone" about it. Rumsfeld, in a press conference for presumably something else, mentioned that his depiction "comes with the territory".

I wonder how many muslims will even notice the difference in the two responses? Or if they notice, even care? Muslims have a lot of growing up to do. So do the Europeans who feel the need to egg them on.

I figure its only a matter of time before Denmark and Norway and France get a significant al qaeda attack. Undeserved mind you. Then I figure its only a matter of time before non-white muslims start getting kicked out of some European countries on a wholesale basis on the pretext of either security, or unfair competition for jobs with white, er, born-in-Europe citizens.

Welcome to a kinder gentler world.

|2.5.06 @ 12:52AM|#

The Pentagon not sending troops into The WAPO compares favourably with the behaviour of Danish Imam's !!! Are you for real, happyjuggler0 ? Of course the Pentagon didn't invade the WAPO - mmany people were unhappy that the Pentagon (AKA gubmint) found it neccessary to respond to the cartoon at all.
I didn't think this needed to be said again - People generally hold the US government to a higher standard than dictators and mullahs.

|2.5.06 @ 9:03AM|#

"Then I figure its only a matter of time before non-white muslims start getting kicked out of some European countries on a wholesale basis on the pretext of either security, or unfair competition for jobs with white, er, born-in-Europe citizens."

As far as I know, no such thing has happened in either England or Spain. I'm not sure why other countries would be different.

|2.5.06 @ 12:44PM|#

SM,

It is obvious to both you and me, and to all Americans, that the Pentagon would not dreaom of physically attacking the Post. But in many countries with large muslim populations, physical state repression of the media is not uncommon, and the general public seems to think that this is the norm and to be expected, instead the US pentagon's non-physical response.

This was my point, that muslims are rioting and burning and searching for Danes and others. I shudder to think what might happen to an innocent Dane who is found by one of these mobs. Ordinary Danes have no blame in the printing of images of the Prophet, nor does the Danish government. But in a society where they don't see the Pentagon/Post spat, and how that is handled, they think governments are supposed to crack down on wayward media, and therefore a government that does not engage in a crackdown against blaphemy is just as bad as the paper, assuming fo course one is of the opinion it is blasphemy to begin with.

I personally found the amputee cartoon to be clumsy at best. I had to look closely to realize the amputee was not meant to be a soldier, but a representation of the military. I do however think the media has not been covering US military injuries the way they should. Every day they announce the running total for US dead, but gloss over the fact that multiples of that number have been injured, and many of them maimed or disfigured for life. I personally think the anti-war activists are dropping the ball by not trying to draw attention to these seriously injured American soldiers. It is hard to get too disturbed by yet another anonymous grave or grave marker, but an interview with someone paralyzed or missing a leg or something like that....

|2.5.06 @ 12:55PM|#

Totally off topic, but what are your favorite juggling props, happy juggler?

I don't juggle much these days, mostly bean bags when I do juggle. But I have clubs, rubber chickens, and machetes. Bean bags on a unicycle are fun. I used to juggle apples and take bites out of them until my dentist told me to stop eating apples. (Bad for front teeth.)

|2.5.06 @ 12:56PM|#

andy,

I don't know about Spain all that much, but I suspect they are more sensitive to skin-based discrimination than other Europeans. I know they consider themselves whites-who-tan-well, but not everyone shares that opinion and they can't like that too much I should think.

I am inclined to think the Brits are much more inclined to be tolerant of non-white's than the rest of Europe, based on history and current events. I think an attack or two on France or Germany might provoke some really ugly responses on the part of those countries. Or might not. I just think it a serious possibility though. Both France and Germany have a history over the past few decades of appeasement towards terrorist interests, though they may take a hard line against the terrorists themselves. If such appeasement comes to nought they may feel betrayed, as in "Hey, we refused to go along with the Iraq invasion, we are always anti-Israel, anti-American etc., and now you are attacking us? What's up with that?".

|2.5.06 @ 1:31PM|#

thoreau, (long post)

I never managed to get eating a bite of anything down while juggling. But my main juggling apparatus is lacrosse balls. They hit the hand solidly without bouncing the way that tennis balls do, and are more durable than beanbags. They do have a nasty tendency to bounce all over the place though. There was a time I could juggle by bouncing three balls on the ground though. I might have to try that again, I hadn't even thought of it in a couple of decades.

I was once "this close" to mastering juggling five balls at the same time, about twenty years ago.. I could do it for a minute or so before disaster struck, but most of the time it was a shorter jussling-run with five balls. The weaker left hand inevitably caused the pattern to get a bit off, with a cascading disaster if unable to adjust. I assure you when a single ball is too far off in either geography or timing it is much harder to adapt, although I was getting better. A couple of years ago at Christmas my brother (who juggles) brought a new girlfriend who juggled to my parent's house, and they stayed overnight. So I went home and practiced five balls again, adn the next day came back and my best try got up to about 10 or 15 seconds before dropping the balls. Not like riding a bike. :)

I do all kinds of patterns with 3 balls though. Hard to decribe in print though, I've never been part of a juggling club or anything so I don't know any "formal" names for things. One I believe is the Claw though, imagine you are climbing a ladder and that is roughly the position your hands/arms are when juggling. I guess you could call it overhand juggling.

I do the basic inside-cross juggling (three balls for all of this), and can do it very fast (i.e. short throws). I can juggle easily while focused on someone else's eyes, which many find hard due to the different field of focus, the balls becoming "blurry".

I do outside-cross juggling, basically you throw from the outside going in, rahter than the "normal" throwing fromt he inside and having the ball end up "outside".

The "T" is easy enough, it is basically two balls in one hand while the other hand "juggles" only one ball in it's hand.

I have a funky pattern where I throw all the balls from my right with both hands, and catch them on the left with both hands too (i.e. alternating hands). Basically on the throw the left hand goes under the right arm and throws. If done smoothly all the throws follow the same arc.

I have another funky pattern where both hand throw by crossing under the other hand, and catch on the "proper" side. This looks super-cool in my opinion with clubs, but I never managed that pattern with clubs. :( I have seen it done though.

I can fluently take the balls from another accomplished juggler while he/she is juggling, and also be the juggler that is getting taken from.

I can do the circular pattern with either three or four balls, and at my peak I could sort of do it with five balls too. Basically all the circular throws are with the same hand (the right hand for most people, I can use the left instead equally as well with three, but not at all with four), while the left hand catches the balls and hands or short tosses them to the right hand.

I can juggle pins (clubs) in the "normal" inside-cross with single spins fluently, and once upon a time I could do two spins fluently too, but this (double spins) takes practice. You can't pick it (double spins) up easily after a decade or so of down time. :)

I can juggle rings in the "normal" inside-cross, and can do it by keeping the same side facing the same side, or alternating sides. This is probably not explained well, but imagine the rings have a red on one side, with blue on the other side. I can keep all the reds on the same side for a side-viewer, or I can alternate at will and have the ring "magically" change color.

That pretty much covers it. I never tried flaming torches, but I am pretty sure I could handle it no problem. I just never saw the need to try. I never tried anything else dangerous like knives or chainsaws either. :o Chainsaws are heavy by the way, and anything heavy can cause tendonitis.

I got barely competent on a unicycle on a weekend trip where someone else had a unicycle, but I never got good enough to try juggling at the same time. Never been on one since. :(

|2.5.06 @ 2:36PM|#

happyjuggler0,

I am inclined to think the Brits are much more inclined to be tolerant of non-white's than the rest of Europe, based on history and current events.

Right.

I think an attack or two on France or Germany might provoke some really ugly responses on the part of those countries.

France was repeatedly attacked in the 1990s and there were no wholesale or even smallscale reprisals based on ethnic, religious, etc. identity. The French government did take on and defeat the Algerian linked group who undertook the attacks on Paris' Metro though. Similarly such has not happened in the wake of the recent riots in France. What France has done though is create a far more robust anti-terrorism regime than that so far mustered by the U.S., one which breaches civil liberties in a way that would send the ACLU in a fit.

Both France and Germany have a history over the past few decades of appeasement towards terrorist interests...

Right. Be specific and name individual acts of appeasement. I would suspect your one "example" will be not going along with the invasion of Iraq. After a while I can only attribute such ignorance as yours to a blatant attempt to disregard reality.

|2.5.06 @ 2:37PM|#

happyjuggler1,

I don't know about Spain all that much...

I'd say its a pretty safe to conclude that you don't know much about Europe as a whole.

|2.5.06 @ 5:06PM|#

happyjuggler0,

Point taken. It's just that there have been a lot of "we are better than Hugo Chavez" comments lately like it was some Gold Standard.

|2.6.06 @ 10:40AM|#

When I was at Washington Mutual, we had a team building event for the legal department that involved each of us learning how to juggle. As usual, I showed my contempt for such events, though that time, instead of mumbling something about it, I did it by already knowing how to juggle :) As it turned out, out of seventy attorneys, I was the only one who was at all proficient. Not that I really am--I can handle three objects without a problem, but four is still a 20-30 second event, tops. Still, I found it strange that no one else could juggle--are juggling and lawyering mutually exclusive skills?

I'm going to teach my niece this incredibly useful and upwardly mobile skill as soon as she agrees that throwing the balls in the air is better than chewing on them.

|2.6.06 @ 1:57PM|#

I cna teach (in person, and this is not an offer to H&R readers, sorry) anyone willing to learn to juggle in less than five minutes, with another five minutes of supervision for encouragement purposes.

After those ten minutes or so, there is nothing more I can do except say "practice, practice, practice", at least until they master it and come back for the purpose of learning other patterns.

In my experience no one who is not handicapped can learn how to juggle. It is not hard to learn, at least if properly taught, it is the practice, practice, practice that is the hard part, in order to look competent. I learned when I was 13 years old, and I had all the time in the world to practice, and I did so.

|2.6.06 @ 1:58PM|#

In my experience no one who is not handicapped can learn how to juggle

should of course read

In my experience anyone who is not handicapped can learn how to juggle