The New York Times published an editorial written by Flemming Rose in Der Spiegel explaining why he printed the Muhammad Cartoons in his newspaper last year. He caricaturizes himself as a 60s hippie who, over the years, has become jaded by the exploitation of the left by the very victims they try to protect. He speaks of fundamentalist Muslim clerics in Europe taking advantage of the doctrine of "victimology" to use it against the people who defend them. And so on and so forth.
After making a case against the clerics, he moves onto defending his own actions. He makes a very strong case for himself, writing:
However, as one of my close friends pointed out, it's like covering oneself in honey just after a bee's nest has been poked, merely because covering oneself in honey is within the bounds of allowed action (and perhaps even the "right thing to do"). She referred to his actions as "idiotic" and "mistimed." However, while I agree it was mistimed, I think he sees his own actions as idealistic rather than idiotic. There have been many situations when we have lauded a person for doing something like this, saying he or she "did the right thing" despite having every reason not to. Ultimately, I think, while he had the right to do what he did, especially as his reasons were idealistic, I think he did, in fact, mistime them. But furthermore, as he writes, the Muslim community in Europe should not have reacted quite as violently as it did - being a citizen of a multicultural democracy carries with it the implicit assumption that ones culture and religion may very well be the butt of a joke every once in a while. As a citizen of a democracy, one also has the right to protest such perceived violations, but not to the point of threatening the lives of other humans - such a reaction solves nothing and has potentially gigantic costs.
After making a case against the clerics, he moves onto defending his own actions. He makes a very strong case for himself, writing:
By treating a Muslim figure the same way I would a Christian or Jewish icon, I was sending an important message: You are not strangers, you are here to stay, and we accept you as an integrated part of our life. And we will satirize you, too. It was an act of inclusion, not exclusion...
However, as one of my close friends pointed out, it's like covering oneself in honey just after a bee's nest has been poked, merely because covering oneself in honey is within the bounds of allowed action (and perhaps even the "right thing to do"). She referred to his actions as "idiotic" and "mistimed." However, while I agree it was mistimed, I think he sees his own actions as idealistic rather than idiotic. There have been many situations when we have lauded a person for doing something like this, saying he or she "did the right thing" despite having every reason not to. Ultimately, I think, while he had the right to do what he did, especially as his reasons were idealistic, I think he did, in fact, mistime them. But furthermore, as he writes, the Muslim community in Europe should not have reacted quite as violently as it did - being a citizen of a multicultural democracy carries with it the implicit assumption that ones culture and religion may very well be the butt of a joke every once in a while. As a citizen of a democracy, one also has the right to protest such perceived violations, but not to the point of threatening the lives of other humans - such a reaction solves nothing and has potentially gigantic costs.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment