Hi flu,

Hope you can see the following photos with your naked eyes:

Islam will conquer Rome, Pope go to Hell
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6193/3077/320/DSCF0035.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6193/3077/320/DSCF0032.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6193/3077/320/DSCF0036.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6193/3077/320/DSCF0031.jpg etc..

....

http://catholiclondoner.blogspot.com/2006/09/very-rushed-post.html

flu, in you opinion, are those photos genuine or fake

[Deleted because poster tried to circumvent the word limit with hyphens.]Deeply ingrained liberal rights - reflected in our institutions and our culture - are what enable us to come together in a forum, and speak our minds without fear of repression. It certainly was not always this way, and unless we value what we have achieved in this sense, it might not always remain this way either.

That said, it is an aspect of Enlightenment tradition that there ought be free, open and critical inquiry: if necessary 'ruthless criticism of all that exists'. Those very liberal ideals that help provide the rationale for the liberties so many take for granted: need to be held up to the same scrutiny as any other idea; as do our institutions and the policies of our governments. The problem with the Conservative approach to rights and traditions is that it is 'uncritically celebratory'. Pluralism, including the inclusion of the critical perspectives Donnelly seems to find offensive, is the stuff of a free and open public sphere: a crucial precondition for the exercise of human reason.

That said, we ought subject ourselves to the same searching criticism that we subject the Islamic world to. Where were our liberal ideals during the Cold War; when about 300,000 were slaughtered in Gautemala? Where were our liberal ideals when Reagan mined the ports in Nicargua, and when US client regimes in Central and South America slaughtered tens of thousands? Where were our liberal ideals when the PKK - Indonesian Communist Party - was liquidated with the support of the CIA: with over half a million deaths? It is simply not good enough to say: 'Do as I say but not as I do'. And it is for the sake of representing these perspectives that would otherwise be marginalised that we ought remember: the public sphere is not simply a vehicle for celebrating liberal democracy: it is the vehicle through which liberal democracy must criticise itelf. And it is in this sense that we so badly fail.

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST........

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST........

Finally, as I will argue in an article I hope to be published here soon, our liberal democratic inheritance has nothing to say with regards to 'social rights'. What about the right to a quality public education, quality free health care and aged care, central and accessible civic space for free use by citizens? At least before the collapse of Communism - whatever Communism's faults - it exerted pressure which forced the pace of social democratic reform around the world... Nowadays - there is a worldwide neoliberal ideological offensive which has as its aim the liquidation of those social rights won during the post-war era.

Donnelly is right to view the system of industrial arbitration and centralised wage fixation as being one of the core achievements of Australia's 'social liberal settlement' - but the core aspects of this settlement are now being dismantled by the Conservatives; and meanwhile our liberal rights are at threat because of the use of the spectre of terrorism being used as a rationale for retrospective laws, sedition legislation and so on.

We should recognise our liberal traditions and values, and the role these play in upholding all our rights: but unless we our willing to subject ourselves to the same searching criticism we subject others to - alas - it will all be in vain.

Tristan

tao: It's odd to say something outweighs the right to free speech and not mean censorship, and what would the reference to conventions in the Declaration of Human Rights mean? Unless we're going to say that the U.N. came up with such a convention with no intention of backing it up (which would seem rather pointless of them), then appealing to it would have to imply some sort of action (should) be taken.

Regarding the cartoons, firstly, they were mild compared to the sort of skewering cartoonists give everyone else. The ratbag element who over-reacted don't need a reason, they just need an excuse. Besides that, as I keep saying, if we started getting upset every time the media potentially offended someone, we'd still be living in the Victorian age. The point is that Christians, politicians, sportsmen, whomever, all put up with it and live with it. Once again, why are so many Muslims so bloody fragile? Why can't they just turn off the channel or boycott newspapers like everyone else, and make that well known to those who advertise in such media?

The point is that if people believe what newspapers or political leaders say in this day and age then they're damned naive! How do we get around that though? Where's the grain of salt?

Who is to say that modern cartooning isn't a refined critical art? I suggest that the reason those cartoons were so "inciteful" is because they got right to the heart of a matter and forced those who didn't want to be honest with themselves to engage in self-reflection.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the media have agendas. Innocence or guilt is irrelevant to free speech.

It's not incumbent upon me or anyone else to say anything about media stances any more than it is to say anything about any other topic. If we choose to do so, that's our choice.

Finally, since you're so hung up about inciting prejudice, I'll expect you to vehemently denounce anyone (including Muslims) who slags off Christians, Scientologists or even the Collingwood Football Club.

shorbe, while I agree with you on the issue of censorship, I think there is also a need for care that we don't put freedom of speech ahead of tolerance and the avoidance of needless incitement on very inflammatory issues.

We are all for rights and freedoms in today's societies, but we tend to think of them as infinite and extending only from the centre that is our self. (Is that another way of saying we've become self-centred? I'd say yes.)

But one individual's rights end precisely where they infringe another individual's.

The corollary of a right is a responsibility. We are all well aware of our rights. Do we have the same passion about our responsibilities?

As for the cartoons, I'm extremely ambivalent. First, was their impact in inflaming passionate anger among Muslims worth it? The potential implications of doing so are a little more serious than slagging off the Collingwood FC (which, frankly, deserves it ;-) ). Second, there is sometimes a fine line, or even no line at all, between art and propaganda:

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/display/ShowPicture?moduleId=127130&pictureId=121241&galleryId=10607

We need to give very, very serious consideration about how we conduct relations with the Muslim world. Needless needling is neither necessary nor wise.

Freedom of speech? I'm all for it. But it must be tempered with wisdom and responsibility.

Shorbe,

(A)"Once again, why are so many Muslims so bloody fragile?" - Shorbe

1. Religiosity. The State is bellow God and the Prophets.
2. Tribalism and a vendetta mindset
3. The minorities are large minorities. Moreover, the Islamic
majority will
identify will fellow believed before, we, infedels.
4. A sense of injustice in relation to Israel
5. A long memory [Crusades]
6. Manic and opportunistic leaders

(B)H.G. Wells (He was a historian) notes a remergence of the Roman Empire under Charlemagne. Roman had fallen and the Byzantine empire was in decay:

"The Roman Church, clinging tenaciously to its position of the title "potntifex maximus", had long abandoned its appointed task of achievig the Kingdom of Heaven. It was preoccupied with the revival of ascendancy on Earth. which in conceived as its inheritance. It had become a political body... It clung to the tradition of the Roman Empire and to the idea that it was the natural method of European unity." - Wells

(c) If you are a mad dictator and want to unify the Arabs; what do you do? Use religion to unify the Arabs against an identififiable rivival, with a bad track record.