Garry Trudeau slams Mohammed cartoons; Update: Two Danish teens in hiding
posted at 9:01 pm on October 9, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Q. What did you make of the Danish cartoon mess? I understand that you said you would never play with the image of Allah. But did you feel you should have done so out of a sense of professional solidarity, or to make a statement about freedom of speech?
A. What exactly would that statement be? That we can say whatever we want in the West? Everyone already knows that. So then the question becomes, should we say whatever we want? That, to me, is the crux. Do you hurt people just because you can? Because you feel they shouldn’t be deeply hurt, does that mean they aren’t? Should the New York Times run vicious caricatures of blacks and Jews just to show the First Amendment in action? At some point, common sense and sensitivity have to be brought to bear.
Yeah, the thing is, not everyone does know that. Or else the Western Standard wouldn’t have been sued and Fallaci wouldn’t have been prosecuted and religious-hate-speech laws wouldn’t have been passed and Theo Van Gogh wouldn’t have been stabbed in the street and the Danish cartoonists wouldn’t have gone into hiding. As for the second bolded statment, lay aside his suggestion that cultural criticis should censor themselves to suit subjective standards of offensiveness. It’s so stupid, unrealistic, and hypocritical as not to warrant further discussion. The real point, of course, is that the cartoons weren’t self-censored due to “sensitivity;” they were censored due to fear. Comedy Central admitted that flat out when they refused to let South Park show Mohammed, as did Borders when they refused to carry the issue of Free Inquiry magazine that reprinted the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. And now, in Denmark, video of the DPP kids drawing images of Mohammed has been taken offline on the same day that the foreign ministry issued a travel advisory warning Danes to stay out of the Middle East until this blows over.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference, which has 57 member nations, issued a statement today condemning the kids for drawing the images, because apparently a major Islamic international body has nothing better to do than worry about what moronic Scandinavian teens do in their spare time at camp for cheap thrills. Martin Amis pegged this the other day:
Impatience with religion is inescapable for a rationalist in the West. But it’s not the same in the East. Conrad said that religion is an outrage on our dignity. But it’s sort of the other way round in the East - it’s the centre of your dignity because so much else is wrong.
The video of the images has since been reposted at YouTube. But YouTube being YouTube, it won’t be up for long. Watch it at Sugiero’s while you still can.
Exit question for Trudeau: would it make any difference to his free-speech hypothetical if blacks or Jews were threatening to kill Bill Keller if he ran vicious caricatures of them? What would “common sense” counsel in that case?
Update: I have to quote the actual statement from the OIC here, so pungently rich is it with filthy hypocrisy:
“Muslims have noted with concern that the values of tolerance are eroding and there is now shrinking space for others’ religious, social and cultural values in the West,” said a statement sent to Reuters by the Jeddah-based OIC, the world’s largest Islamic grouping.
And there you have it, from a body representing some of the most fascistically intolerant cultures on the face of the earth.
Update: Two of the kids seen in the DPP video have reportedly gone underground. The Danish government has invited several Muslim ambassadors to “discuss” the video with them.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Wow AP! What a thoroughgoing beat down.
Kudos.
Stephen M on October 9, 2006 at 9:06 PM
I wonder if someone handy with pen-and-ink or Photoshop could arrange to change G. B. Trudeau’s mind about making images of Mohammed. Word on the street is that Mohammed is intensely desirous of appearing to Mike Doonesbury in a dream–and self-detonating.
Kralizec on October 9, 2006 at 9:39 PM
And then of course the equation of mostly-neutral portraits of Muhammed with “vicious caricatures” of races. That’s been a popular disingenuous comparison. The only ones that were at all critical were critical of terrorism–it would be like Trudeau’s satires of, say, creationists’ attitiude toward science being taken as “vicious caricatures” of Christians per se.
As for Trudeau’s first pompous question–what statement did the cartoons make–he answered it backwards himself: you no longer can say whatever you want in the West. Here’s another version of the answer.
Alex K on October 9, 2006 at 10:01 PM
He a really tolerant guy ain’t he? Lets seem him print “pbuh Dammit”. I guess it’s okay to use the Catholic prayer ending in an offensive way, let’s see if he antes up and uses the Ilamic prayer ending whilest defaming it. I’m tired of all the lefty’s religious hypocrisy.
Psycotte on October 9, 2006 at 10:16 PM
“Should we say whatever we want?”
Well, Mr. Trudeau, that never stopped you before.
Oh! Excuse me! Insulting my values has never mattered because I would not call for his death.
PattyAnn on October 9, 2006 at 10:17 PM
C’mon AP, we are the only ones that are capable of being intolerant - these rules don’t apply to anybody else. Also, and more specifically, inside the U.S. the only true intolerant ones are the conservatives. So show some tolerance, man.
Rick on October 9, 2006 at 10:28 PM
AP,
Granted it’s a wonder the Jihadists can talk about the value of tolerance without bursting into sustained, maniacal laughter. And Trudeau is the Keith Oblermann of editorial cartoonists. I’d rather be waterboarded than defend him, which makes what I’m about to say personally painful.
Things like the Martin Amis quote go a bit beyond sticking it to the mullahs. The Conrad quote within the quote is pure atheist agitprop. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
Now I get that for you and Amis this comes down to some kind of reason vs. religion showdown. But you should realize that when you break things into those categories, you’re essentially lumping everyone who isn’t an agnostic in with the mullahs. I don’t think it’s quite that simple. And I didn’t think you did either, but that’s sort of how it comes across here.
Again, Trudeau is an twit. But if the problem with his comment is that he’s too deferential to “religion” (as opposed to being too deferential to the ROP), then I guess I’m with the twit on this one.
John on October 9, 2006 at 11:20 PM
The Conrad quote would be more accurate if you substituted “pride” for “dignity.” It’s popular to justify the former by calling it the latter.
Alex K on October 9, 2006 at 11:48 PM
Summing up the position of editorial cartoonists like Trudeau, from “Drawn To Extremes” by Chris Lamb:
“If you don’t cross the line occasionally, you forget where it is. Too many of us censor ourselves, and I think it’s a far worse sin to self-censor than to cross the line occasionally.”
Steve Benson, cartoonist for the Arizona Republic, revealed the mindset of the overwhelmingly left-leaning contingent of editorial cartoonists, including Ted Rall, Clay Bennett, and Trudeau. This statement in defense of free speech and the right to caricature just about anything came before the Mohammad cartoon flap. The book was published in 2004, and highlights the “censorship” of those lefty cartoonists who took on the administration after 9/11. To them “censorship” consists of any speech that criticizes their delicate cartoon sensibilities. Trudeau, though, inadvertently reveals the double standard when coming to the “sensibilities” of the victims, in this case offended Muslims:
“So then the question becomes, should we say whatever we want? That, to me, is the crux. Do you hurt people just because you can?”
They apparently have no problem applying this to anything conservative/patriotic, hypocritically invoking the desire “not to offend” those who might actually pose a danger to them. Right-wingers and conservatives? Censors, deserving of scorn and attack. Muslims and their opinion on big Mo’? Victims, deserving of self-censorship and understanding.
elpresidente on October 10, 2006 at 12:23 AM
>Two of the kids seen in the DPP video have reportedly gone underground
Haven’t they heard???–Gary Trudeau says people in the West can say whatever they want!
Alex K on October 10, 2006 at 3:55 AM
These are the slime that know what is better for young kids to hear and see than anyone else. Foul language, trashing the character of people they do not agree with, wardrobe malfunctions and lowering the bar every chance they get as long as it does not insult Islam because they are ater all, cowards.
Hening on October 10, 2006 at 8:07 AM
And there you have it… a Muslim spokesman is ultimately the one who - unwittingly - spills the blunt truth to the whole world.
RD on October 10, 2006 at 8:50 AM
Garry “Brown Sugar” Trudeau is concerned about the sensitivity of the subjects of cartoons?? You’re right AP, it is too hypocritical to state further.
Mallard T. Drake on October 10, 2006 at 10:39 AM
Trudeau is a French name, is it not?
thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 11:22 AM
Beat me to it, thirteen28!
I’ve been deeply hurt by his lame cartoons…
NTWR on October 10, 2006 at 6:10 PM
Trudeau is a LIAR, a FOOL, and a COWARD.
POINT ONE: he lies about the content and meaning and actual images of the 12 Danish, mainly self-satirizing POLITICAL CARTOONS.
They were not done to offend Muslims, but to mock the cowardice of the tiny Danish illustration world, and berate Danish testicular fortitude in general. All because a children’s book author tried and failed to find ONE Dane artist willing to risk Islamic reprisals and illustrate a juvenile “Life of Mohammad”.
Trudeau slanders his fellow cartoonists. Either from ignorance, or malice.
POINT TWO:
He expects his lies to go unchallenged. A Moron.
POINT THREE:
He somehow thinks an audience sophisticated to grasp his cartoon metaphors will not see through this flim-flam, jibber-jabber, tap-dance castrato falderol -posing as tolerance and respect and noblesse oblige.
When we know it is the Chicken Dance. A step done by once-respectable newspapers and t.v. stations everywhere.
The OEDIPUS Press. Who blind themselves rather than face the fearful.
With Gary as their official Cartoonist -without portfolio, of course.
And honorary Court Eunuch.
ALLAH NEWS THATS FIT TO PRINT.
profitsbeard on October 10, 2006 at 8:29 PM
First of all, Trudeau is a lousy cartoonist. He admitted the strange symbols, like a Trojan helmet for Bush, are due to his inability to render a likeness of anyone, and his look alike characters flow from the same lack of talent. Mallard Fillmore is consistently funnier and better drawn political strip than Dingleberry, with it’s oh-so-dry, no punchline “humor.”
Trudeau is the archetypical liberal, mad at the mean old military like some bratty child who hates his parents for not letting him play on a busy street. He and Jane Pauley wake up every morning in their mansion, having slept in safety thanks to a military which endeavors to protect even ingrateful, self-righteous, pompous asses. Everyone is stupid but him, in his mind.
His despicable listing of American war casualties in his “comic” strip, shows he is as cruel as he is demented. He’s so leftist, had Kerry won, we’d be hearing nothing from him regarding the Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns, which would still be going on.
Limousine liberal all the way.
Indy Mark on October 10, 2006 at 10:56 PM