Democracy and Anti-Semitism
Toni Kramer | 15.02.2006 08:13 | Analysis | Anti-racism
Today, Ronald Dworkin finally took the chance of the situation in the guardian to defend freedom of speech as the fundamental value of democracy. It was, however, not an attack against those muslims who believe they could be offended. Instead Dworkin simultaniously defended the decision of British newspapers not to print the cartoons because they would fuel the conflict, help the extremists and
`cause many British Muslims great pain because they would have been told that the publication was intended to show contempt for their religion, and though that perception would have been inaccurate and unjustified the pain would nevertheless have been genuine' (Dworkin, Donald `Even bigots and Holocaust deniers must have their say', The Guardian, 14.02.2006)
So although Dworkin defends freedom of speech, it was the right decision not to print the cartoons because of what the muslims would have been told by extremists? It is important to remember this because to the rest of Dworkin's argument it remains central that in a democracy, people can think and evaluate for themselves rather than being subject to `extremists' who inject their ideology into them.
Yet, Dworkin admits that in a democracy nobody can be insulted or offended. How can that be made compatible with what he said before? The muslims in Britain must be protected . Even although the idea, the cartoons would be a direct attack on all muslims is admitedly, so Mr. Dworkin, not reprinting them is only sensible. Lean back and enjoy while seeing where Ronald is going:
`Muslims who are outraged by the Danish cartoons point out that in several European countries it is a crime publicly to deny, as the president of Iran has denied, that the Holocaust ever took place. They say that western concern for free speech is therefore only self-serving hypocrisy, and they have a point. But of course the remedy is not to make the compromise of democratic legitimacy even greater than it already is but to work toward a new understanding of the European convention on human rights that would strike down the Holocaust-denial law and similar laws across Europe...' (ibid.)
It is argued, that this freedom of speech is not a Western value in itself but a fundamental necessaty for legitimate democratic government. It is therefore in the interest of democracy to, on the one hand, protect the muslims from feeling bad about the cartoons (because they are under the control of extremists -- what claim could be more islamophobic') but on the other hand open the debate about the Holocaust. Of course only in the interest of democratic legitimacy. Contrary to Dworkin's believe, democratic legitimacy does not make anti-semitism any better. Consequently, as long as a debate on the Holocaust is likely to feed anti-semitism (again), I won't debate, particularly not with those, who deny, insult and play down those who suffered during the Holocaust.
So although Dworkin defends freedom of speech, it was the right decision not to print the cartoons because of what the muslims would have been told by extremists? It is important to remember this because to the rest of Dworkin's argument it remains central that in a democracy, people can think and evaluate for themselves rather than being subject to `extremists' who inject their ideology into them.
Yet, Dworkin admits that in a democracy nobody can be insulted or offended. How can that be made compatible with what he said before? The muslims in Britain must be protected . Even although the idea, the cartoons would be a direct attack on all muslims is admitedly, so Mr. Dworkin, not reprinting them is only sensible. Lean back and enjoy while seeing where Ronald is going:
`Muslims who are outraged by the Danish cartoons point out that in several European countries it is a crime publicly to deny, as the president of Iran has denied, that the Holocaust ever took place. They say that western concern for free speech is therefore only self-serving hypocrisy, and they have a point. But of course the remedy is not to make the compromise of democratic legitimacy even greater than it already is but to work toward a new understanding of the European convention on human rights that would strike down the Holocaust-denial law and similar laws across Europe...' (ibid.)
It is argued, that this freedom of speech is not a Western value in itself but a fundamental necessaty for legitimate democratic government. It is therefore in the interest of democracy to, on the one hand, protect the muslims from feeling bad about the cartoons (because they are under the control of extremists -- what claim could be more islamophobic') but on the other hand open the debate about the Holocaust. Of course only in the interest of democratic legitimacy. Contrary to Dworkin's believe, democratic legitimacy does not make anti-semitism any better. Consequently, as long as a debate on the Holocaust is likely to feed anti-semitism (again), I won't debate, particularly not with those, who deny, insult and play down those who suffered during the Holocaust.
Toni Kramer
Homepage:
http://blowupyournation.org/
Comments
Hide the following 9 comments
Too right
15.02.2006 11:08
It's impossible (not to mention not my place) for me to answer that, but frankly, I'd like to think most Muslims could take some criticism of their religion, as all religions ought to (but dont always). And, when we get right down to it, the cartoons were just that: cartoons, and not very funny ones at that, only the racist readers of the tabloid rag that first printed them would really take them seriously.
But as for anti-semitism, whilst so-called 'Islamophobia' is becoming disgustingly widespread, anti-semitism is also experiencing a resurgence, including amongst so-called 'radicals' and self proclaimed 'anti-fascists'. And yes, some of them are here, a fact I regret, but must accept. Now, if they wish to engage in reasoned debate, fine, the evidence is on our side, but when they spout ill-informed opinion, then is the time we must (with regret) censor them, by hiding the information (but not deleting it).
HOWEVER, in a recently hidden thread (because it was itself nonsense) someone denied the holocaust with nothing but coincidence (people give money to Israel, as if that were evidence that there was no Holocause) and some maths dodier that that used by Bush's economists when working out their economy (he didnt even give figures, just "subtract that number").
IF WE ARE TO BE ETHICALLY AND JOURNALISTICALLY CONSISTANT we ought to hide comments such as these, and if the poster whishes to repost, they ought to have more evidence.
Afterall, rational and empirical evidence is the only way to make democratic decisions, and this site is all about democracy, those who wish to misinform ought to have their racist/fascist/unevidenced comments hidden - the EDITORIAL GUIDLINES themselves say so.
The above mentioned comment was never hidden, and still isnt, even though the posting (in itself not explicitly denying the holocause) was. Is this the way we discorage those who misinform and who spread opinions as fact?
In the name of truth, lets bring back the journalism to Citizens' Journalism. When debate is rational and truthful, we can build a proper democracy.
(P.S., i have not linked to the mentioned hidden article - I am uncertain of the guidelines governing linking to hidden material. It was an Open Letter to the BBC, if anyone is terribly interested)
The Last Bondsman
There is one big difference ...
15.02.2006 11:28
The cartoons are comments - offensive if you like, but none the less comments - on people's beliefs. These beliefs, like all religious beliefs, are unverifiable. They are matters of faith rather than fact.
The Holocaust is a reality from the past. Can you imagine the German reaction if we said that well, perhaps only a few hundred died in Dresden? Or the Russians - Stalingrad? Can you prove all those people died there? Got birth and death certificates have you?
The incessant mention of the Holocaust by the Iranian president, and its resonances on Indymedia, gives one quite some sympathy for the Jews in Israel.
sceptic
skeptic - short, concise and the damn simple truth
15.02.2006 12:11
In my rather rambling rant I neglected such a simple fact, boy to i feel foolish.
Once again, simplicity and rational argument win over verbal meandering.
The Last Bondsman
Wow - good sense spoken on Indymedia
15.02.2006 13:38
Haleluyah
real facts
15.02.2006 16:35
kro
Hatred Is Not A Right
16.02.2006 02:17
This Was An Intentional Provocation
But what about the facts already?
16.02.2006 10:41
Even tentatively offering up this for discussion is illegal in lots of places - how can liberals, lefties, info anarchist and the like allow this state of affairs to persist unchallanged?
How can one accept a mandate in law for 'historical truth'?
Why does the word revisionism provoke such hysteria?
Why can we discuss the ethnic/religious status of perpetrator and victim in the case of SOME of the camps inmates, but be shouted down as a nazi for recognising that the red terror that killed 10 times more people in the same period had similar ethnic/religious fractures?
Some of my relatives and friends shrink at mere asking of these questions, some address them openly and honestly. The strange thing to me is that the majority of them that shrink are for the most part agnostic about their jewish-ness - or at least very lax! - and those that face the questions head on are those amoung them that retain in the full their jewish customs and habits.
My grandmothers sister (who has never left england) cannot bare for even the word nazi to be mentioned in her house, yet my mothers brother (whom she discribes as the 'best rabbi our family ever had' and comes from the branch of the family that lost horribly in the war) has a bookcase in his house full of so called 'revisionist' literature and will discuss the matter openly and without breaking into a sweat.
People are strange.
PS. I am not the 'jewish and proud/J&P' that posts here so regularly and offensively, I am 'jewish and not particularly proud' OK!
jewish BUT not particularly proud
crimes ...
16.02.2006 13:42
sceptic
Who decides what we can or can't say?
19.02.2006 16:10
1. Why didn't the Germans just shoot the Jews? Why build huge concentration camps, then (allegedly) put 100s of Jews into a gas chamber, gas them, then have to physically carry out the bodies and then physically cremate them? Why not just dig pits, get them to stand on the edge, and shoot them in the back of the head? (I've seen awful footage of this being done in the 2nd World War, I presume it was Jews being murdered like this, so it's not as if it was never done).
2. How were the bodies cremated? Do you know how much coke or gas is needed to burn just one body, let alone six million? How were the bones crushed into powder? (Bones don't burn adequately in cremation and have to be crushed...) There was no machinery for doing this in any of the concentration camps.
3. How was the gas extracted from the chambers rapidly so that German soldiers could go in and remove the bodies safely? There were no fans to extract the gas, which is highly toxic indeed, and merely opening a couple of doors would have meant it would take six or seven hours for sufficient air to have gone through the chamber to remove all traces, especially from the bodies.
The mere fact that several famous historians are now in prison for merely QUESTIONING the 'holycause' proves, at least to me, that the whole thing is a big lie. Nobody is suggesting that tens if not hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed in the war, but not as a policy of mass extermination. If there was a policy of mass extermination, again I ask: why didn't the Germans just shoot them? Why waste precious resources on a group of people you were intending to murder, by building camps and clothing and feeding them for years?
Do you know that any Jew that LEFT Germany during the 2nd World War is officially a 'holocaust survivor'? Maybe that explains why there seem to be so many 'survivors', who allegedly 'survived' a concentration camp, or even the amazing ones who have been in SEVERAL 'concentration camps', without being murdered!
Why would the Germans waste huge amounts of money keeping Jews alive in camps, if they wanted to kill them?
Read up about cremation and how long it takes for one body to burn. Then count how many ovens there were. Then calculate whether it was at all possible.
What if it was not? What will you say then?
I just loved this bit:
"It's impossible (not to mention not my place) for me to answer that, but frankly, I'd like to think most Muslims could take some criticism of their religion, as all religions ought to (but dont always). And, when we get right down to it, the cartoons were just that: cartoons, and not very funny ones at that, only the racist readers of the tabloid rag that first printed them would really take them seriously."
Well, most muslims can't take ANY criticism of their 'religion', precisely because it's such an awful 'religion'. Just compare the life of Mu-ham-mad to that of Jesus - they couldn't be more diametrically opposed to each other if they tried. One was a mass murderer, the other was murdered by psychopathic Jews, merely for SAYING something they didn't like...
Sounds like history is repeating itself...
You say "Only the 'racist' readers of the tabloid 'rag' that first printed them would really take them seriously"... My god! What planet are you on? It's only the mad muslims who have 'taken them seriously' you fool! How many Christians did the muslims in Nigeria MURDER yesterday during a 'protest'? The BBC worded it very nicely, Big Brother would be proud: "Nigeria cartoon protests kill 16"... So the 'protests' 'killed' 16 people? No, MUSLIMS murdered 16 CHRISTIANS in Nigeria, because they were CHRISTIANS...
It must be that 'religion of 'peace'' again...
"But as for anti-semitism, whilst so-called 'Islamophobia' is becoming disgustingly widespread, anti-semitism is also experiencing a resurgence, including amongst so-called 'radicals' and self proclaimed 'anti-fascists'. And yes, some of them are here, a fact I regret, but must accept. Now, if they wish to engage in reasoned debate, fine, the evidence is on our side, but when they spout ill-informed opinion, then is the time we must (with regret) censor them, by hiding the information (but not deleting it)."
So which genius gets to decide when the 'evil ones' (who dare to disagree with you) are 'engaging in reasoned debate' and when they are 'spouting ill-informed opinion'? And why shouldn't anybody be able to 'spout ill-informed opinion' if they want to? So you must 'censor them' by 'hiding information' (but not deleting it)...
Hmmm... So you aren't actually 'censoring' them then... Just 'hiding the information'....
What could you possibly have to hide?
You are typical of most lefties - you can't even debate your own viewpoint, and you have to resort to silencing any critic or opposition, who can produce MOUNDS of evidence to support their point of view...
Leftie Fools