Larry Kuperman Larry Kuperman

New Twist In the Cartoon War

Well, the cartoon war just won't go away.

"An Iranian newspaper says it is going to hold a competition for cartoons on the Holocaust to test whether the West will apply the same principles of freedom of expression to the Nazi genocide against Jews as it did to the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed."

It is not as if anyone should be surprised. At the time of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, there were close to 100,000 Jews living in that country. Today, less than 30,000 remain. The remainder fled to Israel or the United States. Whether they remain their by choice or because they can't leave is not clear to me. (I can't imagine what life is like for those that remain in a country whose President and media claim that the Holocaust never happened.)

But there is nothing surprising about this (disgusting) move by Iran. It is a cartoon war. You do this, we'll do that.

Nor is there anything surprising about Iran targeting the Jews. None of the papers involved in publishing the original cartoons are owned by Jews. In fact, France Noir is owned by an Egyptian Christian. But Iran doesn't really want to antogonize Europe lest Iranian oil be boycotted. So they blame the Jews. Once again, history repeats itself.

Sooner or later, someone will ask if I regret the post where I referred to the anti-Arab cartoons as Hate speech and my answer is "No." That was hate and this is hate too. There is no satire here, no lampooning based on current events. The Europeans increasingly resent their Arab populations and the Iranians (and the Syrians and the...well you get the idea) hate the Jews. As I pointed out several times, European communities passed laws making public Holocaust denial a crime, but chose to have a very narrow definition of who was protected and under what circumstances. That selective definition opened up a kettle of fish and we are now treated to the reek that comes from that.

Iran and Syria and other Arab countries have always posted anti-Semitic cartoons. Nothing new here. The only new factor is that now they can claim some justification.

I always knew that the Arabs hated me and all my people. I also have a lot of skepticism that Europe cared one wit, one iota, for my well-being. "The enemy of my enemy" cares nothing for me. The anti-Arab cartooons were not pro-Israel or pro-Jewish. Some in the European press may even carry them, under the guise of "equal time."

Does anyone remember when cartoons were funny?
6,404 views 43 replies
Reply #26 Top
Now you can all be politically correct and get outraged.


Uhhhh what about us atheist, Iconoclast?

Surely there must be a cartoon out there to offend us too. I want to be offended, just like the next guy. I want to be enraged too. I want a reason to burn embassies.

So, could you please track down an offending atheist cartoon that will sufficiently rile me up to do unspeakable violence.

Thanks in advance.
Reply #27 Top
could you please track down an offending athiest cartoon that will sufficiently rile me up to do unspeakable violence


this would have to be illustrated:

madelyn murray o'hare, her idiot son, john, jaweh, allah, jesus, muhammed, baal, odin, zeus and the paraclete go into a bar. the bartender says, 'hey you'll have to leave the bird outside or none yall are gettin served.' madelyn starts cackling which prompts jesus to tell her, 'i don't know why you think that's so damn funny. remember, me and the boys here can see thru your clothes, so don't give us none of your nonbelievin crap...you're wearing holy panties.' the bartender says,'jeez this is even worse than the time jesus rode into jerusalem on his ass...but i just hadda epiphany'.

then he 86s the whole lot of em.
Reply #28 Top
From Wikipedia Link:
**************************************************************
Laws against hate speech
In many countries, deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offense prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation. Such prohibitions have parallels with earlier prohibitions on such issues as obscenity and blasphemy, which are or were also prosecutable offenses.

Some examples:

Holocaust denial is outlawed in most European countries as a form of hate speech (see also historical revisionism).

In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offense under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment.

In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine.

Victoria, Australia has enacted the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, which prohibits conduct that incites hatred against or serious contempt for, or involves revulsion or severe ridicule of another on the grounds of his race or religious beliefs.
**************************************************************

Guys, you keep on saying there shouldn't be standards, and I keep on saying that there already are. BakerStreet asks "Who defines what hate is?" I repeat over and over that the countries that published the cartoons have such laws and definitions. Danish law says:

"Section 140 of the Criminal Code prohibits any person from publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing religious community in Denmark. Section 266b criminalises the dissemination of statements or other information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their religion."

They didn't enact this law retroactive to my blog. The cartoons violated the law in effect at the time they were published. Section 140 of the Danish Penal Code prohibits blasphemy. Section 266b of the Danish Penal Code prohibits expressions that threaten, deride or degrade on the grounds of race, colour, national or ethnic origin, belief or sexual orientation. Danish police began their investigation of these complaints on 27 October 2005. However the investigations were called off.

If you are looking for cartoon art that exemplifies hate, try this:




How about this cover which reads "Jewish Murder Plan against Gentile Humanity Revealed." This cover appeared in a pro-Nazi publication that implied that both Jews and Catholics drink the blood of innocents. Are we good with this?
Reply #29 Top

Now you can all be politically correct and get outraged.

Why?  I thought they were funny.  Does that make me irreverent?

Reply #30 Top

Oddly enough that doesn't seem to stop American companies from printing and selling copies of the book.

I know.  I tried to read it back in college.  It is terribly written.

Reply #31 Top
Have we really come to a point where parody = hate?

Is appearing in "black face" hate?

Is joking that Jewish People being greedy hate?

Is joking about Mormons and Polygamy hate?

Is characterizing liberals as "mindlessly emotional bleeding hearts" hate?

Is characterizing conservatives as "living heart donors" hate?

Are these examples of hate or just stereotyping?

If we've come to the point that we can't tell the difference then we don't deserve the freedom we have.
Reply #32 Top
Kupe, everything you show there is interesting as far as the laws go. That's fine. The US even has similar laws in place.

Where the disagreement comes in are the phrases


the dissemination of statements or other information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their religion.


and

publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing religious community ...


Both of these use phrasing that leaves qualifying material up to a subjective interpretation. What's ridiculing or insulting to one person may be viable political satire to another and may be down right funny to another. All members of the targeted group.

You see the cartoons as insulting or ridiculing. Others see them (especially the original) as being legitimate commentary done in a non-insulting/ridiculing manner. Oh, right. Other than the mere PRESENCE of a particular person in the cartoon. Which, wasn't deemed insulting until 4 months after it's initial publication. Where was the outcry and denunciations prior to now? Why now?
Reply #33 Top
note to self: Burn iconoclasts embassy...


It's already burning, Baker; in hell.
Reply #34 Top
Why? I thought they were funny. Does that make me irreverent?


As much as it does me.
Reply #35 Top
If we've come to the point that we can't tell the difference then we don't deserve the freedom we have.


We've come to the point where very few people have a sense of humor about themselves.
Reply #36 Top
Kupe: I understood what you said when you said it. If this is considered "hate", then yes it was against the law, but the law is unjust, and should never, ever be emulated here. You implicitly trust the authorities not to misuse this sort of thing.

You have evoked the image of persecution of Jews enough here that I can't believe that you could avoid seeing how these laws could be turned right around to stifle your own religious expression. They're doing it in France right now. You can't risk offending the sensibilities of other religions, so your kid can't wear a yarmulke to a public school.

Laws like this are "more honoured in the breach than the observance". I doubt you'd have to travel far at all to find someone who would consider the Old Testament just as hateful as Mein Kampf. The difference is you believe that it will always be people like yourself who decides the difference between "hate" and "faith". In the end, most people who hate that way consider it a faith.

You would risk your future freedom to save yourself from offense. I would suffer offense to prevent those who may take power later from abusing these laws to rob me of my freedom.
Reply #37 Top
Here's my take. I WILL be outraged, I WILL be insulted...but I WON'T burn embassies or call for government censorship of the Iranian cartoons. In fact, I believe every major newspaper in America should carry these cartoons, if only to show us the mindset of the "peaceful Islamists".

Yes, I thought the cartoons depicting Mohammed were inflammatory. But as a Christian, I assure you I have seen FAR MORE inflammatory depictions of Christ. Did we riot when "The Last Temptation of Christ" aired? We DID protest, but arson and violent protest weren't part of the agenda.
Reply #38 Top
Well, I don't think people understood The Last Temptation of Christ at all. I saw all the outrage, and when I saw the movie I realized that they had totally misinterpreted the situation in the movie, and it was a lot more of an affirmation of Christ's "perfection" than anyone even knew.

That's the problem when you cave in to outrage and insult. Most of the time people who are insulted haven't even bothered to see it from the artist's point of view. I have no doubt that MAYBE one in ten of the people protesting have seen the cartoons at the most.

When you put the law on the side of such outrage, it doesn't matter what the artist meant. All it takes is a misunderstanding to make an artist into a criminal.
Reply #40 Top
If we've come to the point that we can't tell the difference then we don't deserve the freedom we have.

I agree....
We've come to the point where very few people have a sense of humor about themselves.

Also, a growing reality....and a sorry one at that. Who knows where this one will lead us.
Reply #41 Top

Why? I thought they were funny. Does that make me irreverent?


As much as it does me.

Can we start a club?

Reply #42 Top

Reply By: Voyager9

Yep!  that is funny!

Reply #43 Top
Excellent article koop I will be stalking your article from now on. Spot on views and always superb writing skills makes me your new fan. Keep it up love your talking points.