Two things about the furore over the cartoons of Mohammad.
scarfwoman notes that the U.S. media is missing the point. They seem to think the cartoons are offensive because they're intentionally offensive images, rather than because to Islam making any image of the prophet is offensive. Remarks like Condoleeza Rice's and some of them on CNN's Reliable Sources show that the U.S. media doesn't understand the true source or magnitude of the offense.
My own thoughts - it's trite because it's true: With great power comes great responsibility. It's one thing to draw and publish a cartoon to intentionally fire people up over an issue. It's quite another to draw and publish a cartoon to intentionally offend an entire demographic. The Danish editor and cartoonist(s) abused their power, and did it against a world demographic whose extremists are known to be dangerous. They trolled the world.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-12 05:26 pm (UTC)It's also important to remember that in the United States, Muslims are mostly a part of are foreign policy. According to http://www.adherents.com/, .5% of the US population in 2000 were Muslim. Not so much in Europe. According to the BBC, In Denmark, it's 5%. In France, where the controversy rapidly expanded, it's 8-9.6%. The Europeans aren't taking a shot at some distant land, they're taking a shot at an oppressed minority group in their own nations. Though there may not be any good way to legislate against it, anything that oppresses people goes against the underpinnings of the free press.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-12 07:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-13 01:59 am (UTC)*has all of The Mark Steel Revolution on tape - except episode two, which Radio National always skips for some reason*