Lenin's Tomb contains a very good post about the double standards regarding freedom of expression. A magazine featuring a cartoon has just been banned and forcibly taken off the shelves in Spain because a group was offended by it. Group in question being the royal family.
Europe has not been vexed by this blatant act of censorship. You can read some excellent points about this here (though the cartoon is a little full on, please be warned).
I would add that for me this says a lot about power. If Muslims are upset about something, they can only take to the streets. There were no "royal family angry" headlines, press releases or burning effigies of magazine editors needed here. Quietly, phone calls were made, and it was resolved to the satisfaction of the prince and princess.
It must be added too however, that this kind of censorship goes on all the time. The BBC, for example, has been running scared of the government ever since Hutton. When people want to censor the BBC, they accuse it of left-wing liberal bias.
Take for example, the recent House of Commons report into the capture of the British soldiers by Iran. One of the conclusions of the report was that the government published "inaccurate" information when they stated that the submarine was definitely not in Iranian waters (kudos to Craig Murray for pointing this out at the time). You'll have to go all the way to Australia to hear this news about the British government though. The BBC focus in on the soldiers selling of their stories to the tabloids.
This censorship by the powerful troubles nobody, and instead we just have hand-wringing about Muslims and the threat they pose to free speech.
What makes you think no one's angry? The Spanish blogosphere is positively bristling with outrage. And rightly so. This is a shocking assault of freedom of expression based on an archaic and illiberal Spanish law which prohibits nasty things being said about the royal family. There has also been plenty of international reaction and comment.
Did you mean that the reaction hasn't been as widesread and condemnatory as that which accompanied the Danish cartoons' publication? Well, of course not. It is a local phenomenon which only effects Spain. If a British or American newspaper wishes to reproduce the cartoon it can do so without fear of consequences, legal or otherwise.
If, on the other hand, Spanish Royalists across the world were rioting, burning embassies, calling for the murder of the editor and cartoonist responsible, and intimidating the rest of the world's press into silent submission with threats of violence - then you might now be seeing an equivalent reaction.
In spite of the fact that you are apparently blind to it, anger about this latest act of censorship most certainly does exist - and it is in proportion to the seriousness and range of the offence. The fact that the reaction isn't on the same scale as the Motoons farrago is not evidence of "islamophobia".
Posted by: DavidMWW | 24 July 2007 at 03:10 PM
Be that as it may DavidMWW, the fact is that a hundred other news outlets have NOT picked up on the story and rammed it down our throats, they have NOT reproduced those photos in a bid to shown their enlightened freedom of expression, and they have NOT made it a huge deal because it has something to do with liberal democracy.
What always gets me is when people try and use double standards to judge the muslim community. You should be frothing at the mouth and crying "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION" like a lot of people did when the Danish cartoons were published and the muslim community were (rightly) outraged. And yet here you are giving a reasonable breakdown of the event. Not so enthusiastic when it isn't part of some imaginary war between the West and Islam?
Posted by: Random Guy | 26 July 2007 at 11:18 AM
David, interesting comment, but you choose not to address my wider point about people of influence and the media.
Would it have been big news in this country if Spanish Muslims had forced off the shelves a cartoon about an imam or other well know Muslim in the same position as the Prince? I think it would.
If you follow the Danish cartoon controversy, one of the key elements was how other European publications leapt to the defence of the Danish newspaper by publishing the cartoons. Why was this not replicated here?
What would the reaction in this country have been if Prince Charles had been depicted in this way by a British magazine? Why is no one calling for us to test the bounds of our freedom of expression on this one just for the sake of it?
Posted by: Osama | 26 July 2007 at 11:49 AM
Quite right, Random Guy. Why let a "reasonable breakdown of the event" get in the way of an opportunity to play the victim card?
The reason for the difference in coverage between the two cases is not only one of degree but of substance. The Motoons farrago registered so highly on the Richter scale mainly because a large number of Muslims worldwide reacted in such a disgraceful manner.
If Spanish royalists around the world were to behave in a similarly appalling way, then the coverage would be equvalent. There is no double standard involved.
Posted by: DavidMWW | 26 July 2007 at 03:25 PM
Osama, you are right. I didn't address your point about power. It is true - Muslims are not in the same position of power and privilege as the royal families of Spain or the UK. That is undeniable. But nobody outside royalty is, so you really shouldn't feel singled out in that respect, tempting though it may be.
Re your hypothetical Spanish imam cartoon - if it was contained locally (ie, nobody went touting for outrage in the Middle East in an effort to stir up a generalised sense of grievance), then I don't imagine it would have got any more coverage than the story under discussion is getting. (I would have blogged about it, because I specialise in religiously-motivated censorship - but I don't think the media in general would have shown much more interest).
Other European publications leapt to the defence of the Jyllands-Posten because they were being illegally threatened with violence, and they thought it unacceptable and unwise to cower before such threats. As I have said (three times now - the second time crossed your reply in the post), if Spanish royalists were to react in a similar way, you might get a similar response.
Re Prince Charles being depicted in tha way in a British magazine - have you read Viz lately? The Royal family are frequently treated with amazing disrespect. Any why not? Unlike in Spain, there's no law against it.
Posted by: DavidMWW | 26 July 2007 at 04:02 PM
David, I seem to be more concerned with the issue of freedom of speech than you do. What you're doing is focussing on the protests (no freedom of speech there? - it wasn't by any stretch all violent). What I'm doing is saying that those protests had absolutely no effect on freedom of speech. We said and printed what we liked about the cartoons. What's happened in the Spanish case is that freedom of speech has actually been repressed, but Europe has not acted in revulsion at the actions of this EU member state.
And by the way, "a large number of Muslims" were not involved in the cartoon protests, it only seemed so because of the disproportional media coverage. But again, their actual effect is far outweighed by the actions of the powerful e.g. the Spanish royal family.
Posted by: Osama | 26 July 2007 at 07:46 PM
Osama, your original post and its tag suggest strongly that you are not so much concerned with freedom of speech as you are with spinning this Spanish story into another example of "islamophobia". To do this you are contrasting the apparent lack of outrage at Spanish censorship compared to that which accompanied the Danish cartoons.
I have been arguing that a) there is no lack of outrage, and that it is proportionate to the severity and scope of the offence againt freedom of speech; and b) that the contrast in press coverage and passion between the two events is due entirely to the newsworthily disgraceful reaction of a significant number of Muslims to the prior event.
Your "islamophobia" hypothesis is unnecessary. Frankly, it looks like wishful thinking.
And now you are claiming that the Muslim reaction to the Motoons had "no effect on freedom of speech", and that "we said and printed what we liked"! Do you honestly think that no newspaper in the UK or USA reprinted those eminently newsworthy cartoons out of politeness?
Posted by: DavidMWW | 26 July 2007 at 09:39 PM
David, you seem to have become overly hung up on the subject tag, rather than what I actually said. Maybe you're new here, but if you peruse things that are listed, it's not exclusively strictly Islamophobia issues. My apologies for that, maybe I should find a better heading.
My main point is in the words I've used, and frankly I'm disappointed that you're not taking this assault on freedom of speech more seriously. But hey, your site is exclusively dedicated to monitoring religion, so I can see why you'd be so keen on preserving faith as the fount of all evil. Me, I'll keep a more open mind on all the factors affecting our media.
Posted by: Osama | 26 July 2007 at 10:34 PM
DavidWWW said "Quite right, Random Guy. Why let a "reasonable breakdown of the event" get in the way of an opportunity to play the victim card?"
And why not let it get in the way of an opportunity to play down the victim card, eh?
Also "The Motoons farrago registered so highly on the Richter scale mainly because a large number of Muslims worldwide reacted in such a disgraceful manner."
So you are the judge of grace and disgrace? Take some advice DavidWWW, don't judge others by your lofty standards, especially if you have no idea what is going on in the minds of the people who reacted. Double standards (yet) again.
Posted by: Random Guy | 31 July 2007 at 09:56 AM
"don't judge others by your lofty standards, especially if you have no idea what is going on in the minds of the people who reacted"
May be it is a lofty standard elsewhere , but here in is a part and parcel of democracy , or you are not used to it ? You may well be offended by something , takes a lot to make me cry but threatening with physical violence and beheading infidels won't work in the modern world. But it apparently did to silence it and the apparent poo-pooing of our poliicians to that . I don't care what goes in your mind when you start killing somebody , for blasphemy. May be we can study it when you are in Jail. For the time being just keep the ball rolling.
Posted by: Anirban | 14 August 2007 at 07:30 PM