Anomaly UK

One more reason why mainstream newspapers shouldn’t be pointlessly and childishly offensive: Where would that leave Viz?

A bit more context on the whole Danish Cartoon kerfuffle. 1 2

About a year ago, the local fuss in Luton was over various advertising posters that showed women in a state of partial undress (Some reporting here).

It was alleged that the display of these images was offensive to Muslims.

My opinion then was, and still is, that they can damn well get over it. If they get caught vandalising the posters, they should be prosecuted for their (minor) crimes.

What’s the difference with the recent cartoons?

1. With the posters in question (which were advertising for clothes and cosmetics, in the main), there was clearly no intention to be offensive.
2. Public display of images of unclothed women is a deeply-ingrained and respected aspect of our culture, and has been for hundreds of years.

Also, note the general restraint of the opposition. As far as protest goes, defacing posters, while criminal, and not something I approve of, is well within the scope of minor civil disobedience. Numerous other groups – leftits, fascists, animal-rights nutters, etc. – do at least as much. I’m not defending it, just pointing out that it’s neither unprecedented nor dangerous.

There was no violence, and the Muslim Council of Britain, after whining a bit, said “We don’t condone posters being defaced”.

I’d forgotten the whole thing until just now – the fuss died down long ago.

This might be the explanation for the difference between my view and that of many of those I normally agree with, who are spitting fire and lettuce over the failure of the British press to reprint the Danish cartoons. They read “Muslims are offended”, think of maniacs waving guns in the middle east, and go “sod the bastards”; I think of Pakistanis in Bury Park writing angry letters to the Herald and Post. They were silly to be offended last time, but they’re entitled to be offended now, and there’s no particular merit in offending them for no good reason.

Just seen Jack Straw’s comments, which are very close to my own. I would quibble with one word – he is quoted as saying:

“We have to be very careful about showing the proper respect in this situation.”

Strictly speaking, we don’t have to. I would say we ought to, unless we have some sufficient reason not to (such as, for instance, the literary purpose of The Satanic Verses).

The difficult question is whether the danger of “causing trouble” should be taken into account, as Straw seems to suggest. It’s a question of whether to be polite, or whether to demonstrate that we are not intimidated. To the extent that fear of causing trouble is caused by threats, those threats are wrongful and should be defied. On the other hand, it is generally true that being rude or offensive can cause trouble, and that’s certainly not generally a reason in favour of being rude or offensive.

I suppose I care more about my neighbours in Luton than a bunch of thugs in Gaza. I believe my neighbours would prefer not to have the cartoons all over the papers, but they haven’t (to my knowledge) been violent or threatening. I don’t want to insult them in order to defy the thugs.

There was a drunk tramp on the Northern Line train from London Bridge to St Pancras last night, and he mumbled obscenities at various of his fellow passengers. It would have given me great satisfaction to have thrown him off the train. But it would have been a bit of a stretch to say he was causing “harrassment, alarm or distress” – in fact he was causing annoyance.

As I said, if there is some point to the cartoons beyond being offensive, I don’t know what it is. I suppose they’re funny – that might have been enough reason to publish them once, but not to make a big thing of it. You could say that it is necessary for people to see them in order to understand what a small thing all this fuss has grown out of, but I haven’t heard anyone explicitly claim that, and I’m not convinced.

Being offensive is an absolute right. No legal action and no violence should be brought against anyone, anywhere, for being offensive.

But let’s not get carried away. Being offensive, is not, in itself, a good thing. Other things being equal, it is better not to be offensive than to be offensive. There are, however, many things more important than not being offensive, and so it is sometimes necessary or desirable to be offensive.

If we take The Satanic Verses, or Jerry Springer, the Opera, they both offended a lot of people. They are both, in their different ways, artworks and pieces of entertainment, and their producers felt that their value outweighed any offense they gave. Right or wrong, that was their decision to make.

In the case of the Danish cartoons, I get the impression that the whole point was to be offensive. If so, I’m not able to say it was a good thing to do. What is praiseworthy about insulting people for no reason? Offensiveness is a right, but it’s not a duty. People must put up with being offended, but they are not required to like it.

So now we have the fallout. Many people were offended, and responded, some in legitimate ways, some in illegitimate ways. Violence is unjustified. Complaints are justified. Threats of violence are unjustified. Boycotts are justified. Demands for changes to the law are allowable, but should be refused. Demands backed by threats of violence are wrong.

In the face of this reaction – some of it illegitimate – it has been suggested that it is good to reproduce the cartoons, either to punish those who overreacted, or to “draw fire” from the original publisher. But this also adds to the original offensiveness, and dilutes the effect of legitimate criticism as well as illegitimate threats.

In reality, one side is trying to radicalise their section of society by exaggerating the original offense, and using it as a provocation. This was even more blatant over the Satanic Verses affair, where almost nobody who would be offended would ever have even heard about the offense without strenuous efforts by their “leaders” to bring it to their attention.

Against that, the other side is trying to demonstrate its attachment to, and unwillingness to compromise, its freedom of expression, and, less admirably, to demonstrate its power to be as offenive as possible.

I think it would be better to stand firm, but not to antagonise. Remember that there are many people who are offended, and who are entitled to be offended, and who have not threatened violence or otherwise stepped beyond the bounds of civilised behaviour. In dealing with retaliation, concentrate on the retaliation itself, and do not dwell on the insufficient reason for it. Basically, pretend that the reaction that occurs – withdrawl of ambassadors, or whatever – is completely unprovoked and act accordingly. That is better than the “escalating” response of repeating and amplifying the original, insignificant, offense.

As I discussed last year, I think we can best deal with the intolerant by calmly insisting that the right to free expression is inviolable, while at the same time discussing the content in question rationally, and treating any calls for acutal censorship as “ceremonial” – part of the normal process of objecting to something one doesn’t like, but not serious proposals. Unfortunately, this approach is undermined by any censorship we do have, such as the “inciting hatred” laws which weere used unsuccessfully against the BNP, and which are currently being expanded (fortunately less than the government wished).

Of course, if the point of the cartoons really was solely to be offensive, then there is not really anything of substance to argue, which is a shame.

A spokesman for Devon and Cronwall Police said: ‘We would never recommend confronting a thief but in this instance the victim may have had God on her side’ (Quoted from today’s Metro)

The story was that Reverend Bill Stuart-White broke off his sermon to pursue and apprehend thieves who had run out of the church with a parishioner’s handbag.

But this is what I was complaining about when I said:

In spite of the law of self-defence, and of the traditional principle that it is not only a right, but also a duty of the citizen to prevent crime if possible when it occurs, and indeed to apprehend criminals, the idea has been propogated that the most responsible and respectable thing to do is to leave it all to the police

I really wish the police would explain that they can’t possibly track down every petty criminal on their own, and would go on to recommend that citizens act to prevent crime and apprehend criminals whenever there is no obvious danger.

And as for the “divine intervention” jokes made by police and media alike, would it not have been more insightful to emphasise what could be done by a man in good physical condition who had the respect of the people around him?

Finally, what about the scandal that today’s teenage bag-snatchers cannot outrun a 47-year-old rector (admittedly a rugby-playing one)? I blame the selling-off of school playing fields.

Of course, where there is no obvious danger there might still be non-obvious danger. A petty thief can produce a knife and maim or kill someone. Even if someone is a police officer. No-one – including a police officer – should bite off more than they can chew, but if we are all too terrified to chase a fleeing teenage petty criminal in a small town in Cornwall, then our civilization is already lost.