Writings Of An Outsider Looking In

Freedom or Hypocrisy? Two Opinions

Which one do you subscribe to?

Cartoons and Hypocrisy
By RACHARD ITANI

In many European countries, there are laws that will land in jail any person who has the chutzpah to deny not only the historicity of the Jewish holocaust, but also the method by which Jews were put to death by the Nazis. In some of these countries, this prohibition goes as far as prosecuting those who would claim or attempt to prove that less than 6 million jews were slaughtered by the Nazis. In none of these countries are there similar laws that threaten people with loss of freedom and wealth for denying that large percentages of gypsies, gays, mentally retarded, and other miscellaneous "debris of humanity" were also eliminated by the Jew-slaughtering Nazis.

Quickly now: what defines a hypocrite? Answer: a person who follows the letter of the law, but not its spirit. The laws against anti-semitism are just that:laws against anti-semitism enacted by hypocritical Europeans with blood on their hands from the genocides in their recent and distant past, and much guilt to  atone for in their hearts and minds.

The spirit of the law, which would extend this protection to Muslims as well, if not indeed other religious groups, is nowhere to be found in the Western legal code. You can curse the Prophet of the Muslims at will and with total impunity. However, approach the holocaust at your own risks and perils if you do not include in your discussion the standard, ritualistic incantations about the six million Jewish victims of the European Nazis. There is a word for this in the English language: hypocrisy.

I used to have a lot of respect for the Dutch, the Danes, and the Norwegians, and still do. However, I cannot claim that this respect is not more nuanced today. The coloring started when the Dutch, who are invariably and automatically described as being amongst the most "tolerant" people in the West, if not the world, proved that their tolerance was little more than skin deep. Their reaction to the murder of Theo Van Gogh was anything but driven by tolerance. They behaved as a mob in reaction to the criminal, despicable action of an extremist and murderer, by painting the whole Dutch muslim community with the same broad brush that Vincent Van Gogh would have eschewed. They burnt Muslim schools and mosques. They directed opprobrium at Muslims in their midst, calling on them "to go home" though many had been born in the Netherlands. No subtlety in the Dutch reaction. Just collective anti-semitism which they directed not at the Jews, but at the Jews' cousins, the Muslims.

Then the Danes, who must have felt left out, decided to go the Dutch one better: a Danish paper published cartoons that are no less offensive to Muslims than anti-semitism is to Jews. The cartoons were described by Danish politicians and the press as not provocation, but a principled case of free speech, although many Danish and Scandinavian newspaper editors are on record stating that they published the cartoons as an act of defiance against "radical Islam." This is akin to these ignorant morons recommending that the U.S. ought to nuke Tehran because that would teach Iranian President Ahmadinejad a lesson.

What free speech are we talking about here? The law says thou shalt not utilize or publish anti-semitic language or imagery. Consequently, Danish (and other European) papers will refrain from doing so, lest they fall foul of the law and offend Jewish sensitivities. The law does not say: thou shalt not offend muslims or use imagery that may be deeply offensive to them. So Danish papers will not refrain from doing so, in fact they will go out of their way to offend Muslims both in Denmark and around the world, in the name of "free speech." And the Norwegians? Well, they just decided to follow the Danes down perdition lane, all in the name of holy hypocrisy, so a Norwegian paper also published the offending cartoons. The statement about "confronting radical Islam" was in fact made by the Norwegian editor of a newspaper that is described as a Norwegian Christian Paper." And now that other European papers and Magazines have also followed suit, if there was any doubt that this affair is one of anti-Muslim bias, it was swept away by the statements of the Editor in Chief of Die Welt, the German magazine, who declared that the right to publish the cartoons was "at the very core of our culture" and that Europeans cannot "stop using our journalistic right of freedom of _expression within legal boundaries." It's the "legal boundaries" qualifier that gives the game away: there are no legal boundaries in Europe protecting Muslims from the same ignominies that the law protects Jews from.

And what further argument does Die Welt put forward to justify its "legal" action? " It pointed out that "Syrian TV had depicted Jewish rabbis as cannibals." You can imagine how helpful a similar argument would hold up in a court of law: "But your honor, I only killed one guy and raped two women: the other guy killed four and raped 10!" That a German editor-in-chief of a major German paper should use the "legal" argument to justify offending the religious sensitivities of Muslims, when that same "legal" framework would see him thrown in jail faster than he could spell the word legal if he offended the sensitivities of Jews, may be a testament at least of his own deep-seated contempt for Muslims. That so many European papers have now reprinted the offensive cartoons is an indication that the contempt for Muslims does not stop with the editor-in-chief of Die Welt.

This whole affair is nothing but an over-reaction to a simple cartoon, you say? Not if you remember a certain other cartoon that appeared in the British newspaper, The Independent, on 27 January 2003. It depicted Prime Minister Sharon of Israel eating the head of a Palestinian child while saying: "What's wrong? You've never seen a politician kissing babies before?" Jews in Britain and around the world erupted with indignation, arguably because the depiction reminded them of millennial charges levied against them by Christians who accused them of using the blood of babies in ritualistic killings. You see, Sharon can actually kill, maim and spill the real, actual blood of Palestinian babies: that is not offensive to Zionist Jews and their apologists in the West. But let Sharon be depicted in a cartoon metaphorically as the ogre that he has proved to be in his real life, symbolically eating a Palestinian child, and the world will erupt in offended indignation. A cartoon that is offensive to Muslims, on the other hand, is depicted as nothing but an _expression of "free speech." There is a word for this in any language: hypocrisy.

Before the Danish cartoon incident started to evolve into a growing international crisis, the Danish Prime Minister and the publisher of the Danish newspaper that first published the offending cartoons both declared that they would never apologize on grounds of free speech and because publishing the cartoons had not broken any Danish laws. (Yes, the "no law broken" argument again.) Yesterday, however, they both ended up apologizing in the face of a growing tsunami of protests on the part of Arab and Muslim governments, some of whom withdrew their Ambassadors from Copenhagen. The Danish prime minister did not apologize because his moral compas suddenly found True North again. The real reason, of course, is that he understood, though a tad too late, the potential economic consequences of a widespread boycott of Danish goods on the part of one billion people. There is a word for this in the Danish language:realpolitik.

Muslims and other reasoning people around the world understand well that European laws against anti-Semitic speech, writing, and behavior, were enacted for two reasons. The stated reason was to protect the Jews from the continued onslaught of anti-Semitic attacks, both verbal and physical, which culminated historically in the repeated pogroms that Christian Europeans launched against Jews repeatedly through the centuries. (Historically, it was the Arabs who protected the Jews and took them in whenever they fled Christian barbarity, especially in the Middle Ages.) The real reason, of course, is to protect the Europeans from the pangs of their own conscience, which has very good reason to feel guilty indeed, given what Europeans did to Jews in the last millennium, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries, not to mention what they did to the indiginous people of the Carribean and the Americas since the 1600s, and to the people of Asia, Africa and Oceania as well. I have long thought that it's European Christians, more so than Jews, who ought to observe Yom Kippur, or adopt a similar atonement observance of their own.

While the spirit of the law is that Europeans shalt not offend any ethnic or religious groups including Muslims, this seems to be lost only on the Europeans themselves, or at least the Danes, the Germans and their ilk amongst them, who only care about, or fear,the letter of the law. Why should we therefore be shocked when Muslims depict Europeans as nothing but a bunch of hypocrites? Why shouldn't Governments of Muslim countries recall their Ambassadors to Denmark in protest, as some did? The only disappointment is that no Western or non-Muslim government, the meek complaints to a French newspaper by the French Foreign Office excepted, had the moral and ethical courage to publicly, unequivocally and forcefully condemn an act that is as deeply offensive to Muslims as the desecration of a Torah scroll, or of a Jewish cemetery, is offensive to all civilized people in the world, be they Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Animist, or Atheist.

There are two ways for Europeans to redeem themselves: the immediate temptation would be to call on their national parliaments to extend the protections of the laws against anti-Semitism and Holocaust denying to Islam and Muslims, as well as any other religious group . That would be the wrong recommendation however. The right recommendation would be to repeal the laws that govern holocaust denying and other laws that favor one group over another, so that the issue truly becomes one of free speech. And if Europeans are the civilized people they claim to be, then their politicians and newspaper publishers ought to find it easy to immediately apologize when they have unwittingly offended the taboos of any human community, be it religious or otherwise.

Muslims and Arabs have suffered enough hypocrisy on the hands of European Christians, just as Jews suffered in the past on the hands of these same Europeans, and as Palestinian Muslims and Christians alike are suffering today on the hands of Americans, Europeans and, of course, Zionist Jews, both Sephardim and Ashkenazi. If Europe thinks of itself as a civilized society, then it ought to do its utmost to redress the wrongs that too many people around the world have suffered as a result of European misbehavior and often outright criminal actions, most especially since the 1400s.

Muslims deserve nothing more nor less than for Christians in the U.S. and Europe, and Zionist Jews in Israel, to simply abide by the golden rule: treat others as you would have others treat you. So far, Christians and Zionist Jews have proven that they only abide by the alternative definition of this rule: "They who have the gold, make the rule." The gold in this case is a combination of economic and military might. Of this, Europeans, Zionist Jews and their American overlords have aplenty in reserve. Were it that they also had an equal reserve of un-hypocritical, civilized morality and ethical behavior to underpin their feelings of sanctimonious superiority.

And the other measure that Europeans can adopt to redeem themselves? The European people can start by throwing out of office, and initiating criminal proceedings against, any politician responsible for sending a single soldier to invade, occupy, and initiate pogroms against the people of Iraq: these politicians have been guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, which makes them unfit for the honors that continued office holding bestows upon them. Europeans can also give the boot to any politician who has approved or turned a blind eye to a single rendition flight that sent any person to the torture chambers of the Americans or their surrogate torturers in some Arab or Muslim countries. These are the same countries whose religious sensitivities we should all respect as strongly as we respect Jewish sensitivities when it comes to the Jewish holocaust, not because the law says so, but because it's the right thing to do. These are also the same countries whose human rights trespasses Europeans ought to condemn as equally and vehemently as they should condemn the continued human rights abuses and state terrorism perpetrated by the Israeli government in Palestine/Israel, and by some European governments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in other out-of-sight/out-of-mind places like Haiti, Africa, and elsewhere.

In other words, Europeans can start by applying the simple rule of one weight and one measure to both friends and foes, equally to themselves and to the rest of the world, because policy and politics, both domestic and foreign, ought to be based upon and subject to principled moral considerations, not expediency of the economic, financial or religious kind.

Is that such an unreasonable moral proposition to consider?

Cartoon wars
From The Economist print edition

“I DISAGREE with what you say and even if you are threatened with death I will not defend very strongly your right to say it.” That, with apologies to Voltaire, seems to have been the initial pathetic response of some western governments to the republication by many European newspapers of several cartoons of Muhammad first published in a Danish newspaper in September. When the republished cartoons stirred Muslim violence across the world, Britain and America took fright. It was “unacceptable” to incite religious hatred by publishing such pictures, said America's State Department. Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, called their publication unnecessary, insensitive, disrespectful and wrong.

Really? There is no question that these cartoons are offensive to many Muslims. They offend against a convention in Islam that the Prophet should not be depicted. And they offend because they can be read as equating Islam with terrorism: one cartoon has Muhammad with a bomb for his headgear. It is not a good idea for newspapers to insult people's religious or any other beliefs just for the sake of it. But that is and should be their own decision, not a decision for governments, clerics or other self-appointed arbiters of taste and responsibility. In a free country people should be free to publish whatever they want within the limits set by law.

No country permits completely free speech. Typically, it is limited by prohibitions against libel, defamation, obscenity, judicial or parliamentary privilege and what have you. In seven European countries it is illegal to say that Hitler did not murder millions of Jews. Britain still has a pretty dormant blasphemy law (the Christian God only) on its statute books. Drawing the line requires fine judgements by both lawmakers and juries. Britain, for example, has just jailed a notorious imam, Abu Hamza of London's Finsbury Park mosque, for using language a jury construed as solicitation to murder (see article). Last week, however, another British jury acquitted Nick Griffin, a notorious bigot who calls Islam “vicious and wicked”, on charges of stirring racial hatred.

Drawing the line

In this newspaper's view, the fewer constraints that are placed on free speech the better. Limits designed to protect people (from libel and murder, for example) are easier to justify than those that aim in some way to control thinking (such as laws on blasphemy, obscenity and Holocaust-denial). Denying the Holocaust should certainly not be outlawed: far better to let those who deny well-documented facts expose themselves to ridicule than pose as martyrs. But the Muhammad cartoons were lawful in all the European countries where they were published. And when western newspapers lawfully publish words or pictures that cause offence—be they ever so unnecessary, insensitive or disrespectful—western governments should think very carefully before denouncing them.

Freedom of expression, including the freedom to poke fun at religion, is not just a hard-won human right but the defining freedom of liberal societies. When such a freedom comes under threat of violence, the job of governments should be to defend it without reservation. To their credit, many politicians in continental Europe have done just that. France's interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said rather magnificently that he preferred “an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship”—though President Jacques Chirac later spoiled the effect by condemning the cartoons as a “manifest provocation”.

Shouldn't the right to free speech be tempered by a sense of responsibility? Of course. Most people do not go about insulting their fellows just because they have a right to. The media ought to show special sensitivity when the things they say might stir up hatred or hurt the feelings of vulnerable minorities. But sensitivity cannot always ordain silence. Protecting free expression will often require hurting the feelings of individuals or groups, even if this damages social harmony. The Muhammad cartoons may be such a case.

In Britain and America, few newspapers feel that their freedoms are at risk. But on the European mainland, some of the papers that published the cartoons say they did so precisely because their right to publish was being called into question. In the Netherlands two years ago a film maker was murdered for daring to criticise Islam. Danish journalists have received death threats. In a climate in which political correctness has morphed into fear of physical attack, showing solidarity may well be the responsible thing for a free press to do. And the decision, of course, must lie with the press, not governments.

It's good to talk

It is no coincidence that the feeblest response to the outpouring of Muslim rage has come from Britain and America. Having sent their armies rampaging into the Muslim heartland, planting their flags in Afghanistan and Iraq and putting Saddam Hussein on trial, George Bush and Tony Blair have some making up to do with Muslims. Long before making a drama out of the Danish cartoons, a great many Muslims had come to equate the war on terrorism with a war against Islam. This is an equation Osama bin Laden and other enemies of the West would like very much to encourage and exploit. In circumstances in which embassies are being torched, isn't denouncing the cartoons the least the West can do to show its respect for Islam, and to stave off a much-feared clash of civilisations?

No. There are many things western countries could usefully say and do to ease relations with Islam, but shutting up their own newspapers is not one of them. People who feel that they are not free to give voice to their worries about terrorism, globalisation or the encroachment of new cultures or religions will not love their neighbours any better. If anything, the opposite is the case: people need to let off steam. And freedom of expression, remember, is not just a pillar of western democracy, as sacred in its own way as Muhammad is to pious Muslims. It is also a freedom that millions of Muslims have come to enjoy or to aspire to themselves. Ultimately, spreading and strengthening it may be one of the best hopes for avoiding the incomprehension that can lead civilisations into conflict.

2 Comments 10.2.06 07:30, comment

The Changing World

Azim Premji

Chairman, Wipro Corporation on The Changing World



Prelude

A very inspiring, interesting and thought provoking speech by Shri Azim
Premji At the 37th Annual Convocation 2002, IIM, Ahmedabad



“While change and uncertainty have always been a part of life, what has

been shocking over the last year has been both the quantum and

suddenness of change. For many people who were cruising along on placid

waters, the wind was knocked out of their sails. The entire logic of doing

business was turned on its head. Not only business, but also every aspect

of human life has been impacted by the change. What lies ahead is even

more dynamic and uncertain. I would like to use this opportunity to share

with you some of our own guiding principles of staying afloat in a changing

world. This is based on our experience in Wipro. I hope you find them

useful.”



LESSON 1

“Be alert for the first signs of change.”



Change descends on every One equally; it is just that some realize it faster.

Some changes are sudden but many others are gradual.While sudden

changes get attention because they are dramatic, it is the gradual changes

that are ignored till it is too late. You must have all heard of story of the frog

in boiling water. If the temperature of the water is suddenly increased, the

frog realizes it and jumps out of the water. But if the temperature is very

slowly increased, one degree at a time, the frog does not realize it till it boils

to death. You must develop your own early warning system, which warns

you of changes and calls your attention to it. In the case of change, being

forewarned is being forearmed.



LESSON 2

“Anticipate change even when things are going right."



Most people wait for something to go wrong before they think of change. It

is like going to the doctor for a check up only when you are seriously sick

or thinking of maintaining your vehicle only when it breaks down. The

biggest enemy of future success is past success. When you succeed, you

feel that you must be doing something right for it to happen. But when

the parameters for success change, doing the same things may or may

not continue to lead to success. Guard against complacency all the time.

Complacency makes you blind to the early signals from the environment

that something is going wrong.



LESSON 3

“Always look at the opportunities that change represents.”



Managing change has a lot to go with our own attitude towards it. It is

proverbial half-full or half empty glass approach. For every problem

that change represents, there is an opportunity lurking in disguise

somewhere. It is up to you to spot it before someone else does.



LESSON 4

“Do not allow routines to become chains."



For many of us the routine. We have got accustomed to obstructs

change. Routines represent our own zones of comfort. There is a

sense of predictability about them. They have structured our time and

even our thought in a certain way. While routines are useful, do not

let them enslave you. Deliberately break out of them from time to time.



LESSON 5

“Realize that fear of the unknown is natural.”



With change comes a feeling of insecurity. Many people believe

that brave people are not afflicted by this malady. The truth is different.

Every one feels the fear of unknown. Courage is not the absence of fear

but the ability to manage fear without getting paralyzed. Feel the fear,

but move on regardless.



LESSON 6

“Keep renewing yourself.”



This prepares you to anticipate change and be ready for it when it comes.

Constantly ask yourself what new skills and competencies will be needed.

Begin working on them before it becomes necessary and you will have a

natural advantage. The greatest benefit of your education lies not only in

what you have learnt, but in working how to learn. Formal education is the

beginning of the journey of learning. Yet I do meet youngsters who feel that

they have already learnt all there is to learn. You have to constantly learn

about people and how to interact effectively with them. In the world of

tomorrow, only those individuals and organizations will succeed who have

mastered the art of rapid and on-going learning.



LESSON 7

"Surround yourself with people who are open to change."

 

If you are always in the company of cynics, you will soon find yourself

becoming like them. A cynic knows all the reasons why something cannot

be done. Instead, spend time with people who have a "can-do" approach.

Choose your advisors and mentors correctly. Pessimism is contagious, but

then so is enthusiasm. In fact, reasonable optimism can be an amazing

force multiplier.



LESSON 8

“Play to win..!!"



I have said this many times in the past. Playing to win is not the same as

cutting corners. When you play to win, you stretch yourself to your

maximum and use all your potential. It also helps you to concentrate

your energy on what you can influence instead of getting bogged down

with the worry of what you cannot change. Do your best and leave the

rest.



LESSON 9

“Respect yourself. The world will reward you on your successes."

 

Success requires no explanation and failure permits none. But you need to

respect yourself enough so that your self-confidence remains intact

whether you succeed or fail. If you succeed 90 per cent of the time, you

are doing fine. If you are succeeding all the time, you should ask yourself

if you are taking enough risks. If you do not take enough risks, you may

also be losing out on many opportunities. Think through but take the

plunge. If some things do go wrong, learn from them. I came across this

interesting story some time ago:



Story

“One day a farmer's donkey fell down into a well. The animal cried piteously for

hours as the farmer tried to figure out what to do. Finally he decided the animal

was old and the well needed to be covered up anyway it just wasn't worth it to

retrieve the donkey. He invited all his neighbors to come over and help him.

They all grabbed a shovel and begin to shovel dirt into the well. At first, the

donkey realized what was happening and cried horribly. Then, to everyone's

amazement he quieted down. A few shovel loads later, the farmer finally looked

down the well and was astonished at what he saw. With every shovel of dirt

that fell on his back, the donkey was doing some thing amazing. He would

shake it off and take a step up. As the farmer's neighbors continued to shovel

dirt on top of the animal, he would shake it off and take a step up. Pretty soon,

everyone was amazed as the donkey stepped up over the edge of the well and

totted off ! Life is going to shovel dirt on you, all kinds of dirt. The trick is too not

to get bogged down by it. We can get out of the deepest wells by not stopping.

And by never giving up! Shake it off and take a step up !”



LESSON 10

“Never change: your core values."



In spite of all the change around you, decide upon what you will never

change: your core values. Take your time to decide what they are but

once you do, do not compromise on them for any reason. Integrity is

one such value.



LESSON 11

“We must remember that succeeding in a changing world is beyond just surviving.”



It is our responsibility to create and contribute something to the world that

has given us so much. We must remember that many have contributed to

our success, including our parents and others from our society. All of us

have a responsibility to utilize our potential for making our nation a better

place for others, who may not be as well endowed as us, or as fortunate

in having the opportunities that we have got. Let us do our bit, because

doing one good deed can have multiple benefits not only for us but also

for many others. Let me end my talk with a small story I came across

some time back, which illustrates this very well.



Story

“This is a story of a poor Scottish farmer whose name was Fleming. One day,

while trying to make a living for his family, he heard a cry for help coming from a

nearby dog. He dropped his tools and ran to the dog. There, mired to his waist in

black muck, was a terrified boy, screaming and struggling to free himself. Farmer

Fleming saved the boy from what could have been a slow and terrifying death. The

next day, a fancy carriage pulled up to the Scotsman's sparse surroundings. An

elegantly dressed nobleman stepped out and introduced himself as the father of the

boy Farmer Fleming had saved. "I want to repay you“ said the nobleman. " Yes," the

farmer replied proudly. "I'll make you a deal. Let me take your son and give him a

good education. If he's anything like his father, he'll grow to a man you can be proud

of you." And that he did. In time, Farmer Fleming's son graduated from St.Mary's

Hospital Medical School in London, and went on to become known through-out the

world as the noted Sir Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of Penicillin. Years

afterward, the Nobleman's son was stricken with pneumonia. What saved him?

Penicillin. This is not the end. The nobleman's son also made a great contribution to

society. For the nobleman was non other than Lord Randolph Churchill. and his son's

name was Winston Churchill. Let us use all our talent, competence and energy for

creating peace and happiness for the nation.”



“Change is the Only thing that will Never change. So better adapt to it."



“Change is Universal…Change is Permanent…



Be ever willing to Change….. Be ever willing to Change…..For, change alone leads you to success and happiness!!!”



“If one desires a change, one must be that change before that must be that change before that

change can take place”

5 Comments 4.1.05 20:18, comment

Hallelujah by Arooj Aftab (www.soundclick.com)

This cover version of Rufus Wainwright's song is fantastic.

12.11.04 07:36, comment