New Twist In the Cartoon War

Holocaust Fun?

Published on February 7, 2006 By Larry Kuperman In Current Events

Well, the cartoon war just won't go away.

"An Iranian newspaper says it is going to hold a competition for cartoons on the Holocaust to test whether the West will apply the same principles of freedom of expression to the Nazi genocide against Jews as it did to the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed."

It is not as if anyone should be surprised. At the time of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, there were close to 100,000 Jews living in that country. Today, less than 30,000 remain. The remainder fled to Israel or the United States. Whether they remain their by choice or because they can't leave is not clear to me. (I can't imagine what life is like for those that remain in a country whose President and media claim that the Holocaust never happened.)

But there is nothing surprising about this (disgusting) move by Iran. It is a cartoon war. You do this, we'll do that.

Nor is there anything surprising about Iran targeting the Jews. None of the papers involved in publishing the original cartoons are owned by Jews. In fact, France Noir is owned by an Egyptian Christian. But Iran doesn't really want to antogonize Europe lest Iranian oil be boycotted. So they blame the Jews. Once again, history repeats itself.

Sooner or later, someone will ask if I regret the post where I referred to the anti-Arab cartoons as Hate speech and my answer is "No." That was hate and this is hate too. There is no satire here, no lampooning based on current events. The Europeans increasingly resent their Arab populations and the Iranians (and the Syrians and the...well you get the idea) hate the Jews. As I pointed out several times, European communities passed laws making public Holocaust denial a crime, but chose to have a very narrow definition of who was protected and under what circumstances. That selective definition opened up a kettle of fish and we are now treated to the reek that comes from that.

Iran and Syria and other Arab countries have always posted anti-Semitic cartoons. Nothing new here. The only new factor is that now they can claim some justification.

I always knew that the Arabs hated me and all my people. I also have a lot of skepticism that Europe cared one wit, one iota, for my well-being. "The enemy of my enemy" cares nothing for me. The anti-Arab cartooons were not pro-Israel or pro-Jewish. Some in the European press may even carry them, under the guise of "equal time."

Does anyone remember when cartoons were funny?

Comments (Page 2)

Dr Guy

on Feb 08, 2006

It is really odd seeing conservatives taking the tack that liberals often take. "The world shouldn't be the way that it is" they sigh. Great, wonderful theories you guys have, but they aren't pertinent to the issue.

How is defending the basic rights we have and projecting them to others being liberal? They want to contain the world. We accept the bad with the good. You do a disservice with that remark.

bakerstreet

on Feb 08, 2006

" "The world shouldn't be the way that it is" they sigh. Great, wonderful theories you guys have, but they aren't pertinent to the issue."

I was gonna shut up, but that one seems backwards. The people who are trying to erase hate by pretending it doesn't exist are the ones saying things shouldn't be the way they are. You can't erase the spirit of Mein Kampf by outlawing the book, you just betray the fact that you are afraid people might chose some other dogma than the preferred one.

If not being hateful is the way to go, we should expect people to be able to weigh the two options and choose the non-hateful one. In reality, though, some folks want to hide the fact that hate is a choice people have. If it weren't a natural occurance, I might agree. In reality, though, people will hate with or without Mein Kampf. Without it, though, they'll just have one less warning.

Hate is a natural instinct. It will happen with or without hateful propaganda. In an environment of censorship they just have to hide it better. I'd prefer hate out in the open so I don't have to read between the lines. Now I'll shut up.

Larry Kuperman

on Feb 08, 2006

I would agree with you in theory, but not in that theory being applied to this situation. Teach Mein Kampf in a classroom and you do a good thing. Publish an anti-Semitic cartoon and you don't.

"Hate is a natural instinct." No, its not. The capacity for hate may be intrinsic to the human condition. But Palestinian kids aren't born hating Jews. They are taught that. Germany was one of the most accepting countries in Europe for Jews...before Hitler used propaganda, including cartoons in papers like Der Sturmer to teach hate.

Dr. Guy, you said "We accept the bad with the good." This is more than acceptance, this is an embrace. "Oh look, the Arabs hate the Jews. We Europeans are now justified in hating the Arabs."

Last time, I promise. There are NO BASIC RIGHTS being threatened here. The laws are on everyone's books already, have been for a long time. This is selective enforcement.

President Bush said "With freedom comes the responsibility to be thoughtful about others," in condemning the cartoons.

bakerstreet

on Feb 08, 2006

"Dr. Guy, you said "We accept the bad with the good." This is more than acceptance, this is an embrace. "Oh look, the Arabs hate the Jews. We Europeans are now justified in hating the Arabs."

That's only true if you consider drawing Mohammed with a bomb for a turban to be hate. Who defines what hate is? I think what PETA puts out is hateful. They call me a murderer and make pamphlets to hand out to children with an image of a woman muutilating a live rabbit that says the same thing.

What can I do to go about silencing them? Is my idea of 'hate' less apt than someone who takes issue with these cartoons? If *everyone* is allowed to define hate, will there be any expression left? Without your definition of hate, the whole argument falls flat. I don't see hate in those cartoons. WHy should you get to decide for us all?

bakerstreet

on Feb 08, 2006

Oh, wait, I was supposed to have shut up... drat, sorry.

Ionolast

on Feb 08, 2006

I think that any cartoons depicting Religion, Race or creed is crossing the line,

Tough titties.

Ionolast

on Feb 08, 2006

Ionolast

on Feb 08, 2006

Now you can all be politically correct and get outraged.

bakerstreet

on Feb 08, 2006

note to self: Burn iconoclasts embassy...

Leauki

on Feb 09, 2006

As for Mein Kampf not being legal to buy,

Oh, it's legal all right. But the copyright is owned by the Bavarian government (assigned to it by the allies) and Bavaria won't allow prints.

Oddly enough that doesn't seem to stop American companies from printing and selling copies of the book.

UBoB

on Feb 09, 2006

Now you can all be politically correct and get outraged.

Uhhhh what about us atheist, Iconoclast?

Surely there must be a cartoon out there to offend us too. I want to be offended, just like the next guy. I want to be enraged too. I want a reason to burn embassies.

So, could you please track down an offending atheist cartoon that will sufficiently rile me up to do unspeakable violence.

Thanks in advance.

kingbee

on Feb 09, 2006

could you please track down an offending athiest cartoon that will sufficiently rile me up to do unspeakable violence

this would have to be illustrated:

madelyn murray o'hare, her idiot son, john, jaweh, allah, jesus, muhammed, baal, odin, zeus and the paraclete go into a bar. the bartender says, 'hey you'll have to leave the bird outside or none yall are gettin served.' madelyn starts cackling which prompts jesus to tell her, 'i don't know why you think that's so damn funny. remember, me and the boys here can see thru your clothes, so don't give us none of your nonbelievin crap...you're wearing holy panties.' the bartender says,'jeez this is even worse than the time jesus rode into jerusalem on his ass...but i just hadda epiphany'.

then he 86s the whole lot of em.

Larry Kuperman

on Feb 09, 2006

From Wikipedia Link:
**************************************************************
Laws against hate speech
In many countries, deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offense prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation. Such prohibitions have parallels with earlier prohibitions on such issues as obscenity and blasphemy, which are or were also prosecutable offenses.

Some examples:

Holocaust denial is outlawed in most European countries as a form of hate speech (see also historical revisionism).

In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offense under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment.

In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine.

Victoria, Australia has enacted the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, which prohibits conduct that incites hatred against or serious contempt for, or involves revulsion or severe ridicule of another on the grounds of his race or religious beliefs.
**************************************************************

Guys, you keep on saying there shouldn't be standards, and I keep on saying that there already are. BakerStreet asks "Who defines what hate is?" I repeat over and over that the countries that published the cartoons have such laws and definitions. Danish law says:

"Section 140 of the Criminal Code prohibits any person from publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing religious community in Denmark. Section 266b criminalises the dissemination of statements or other information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their religion."

They didn't enact this law retroactive to my blog. The cartoons violated the law in effect at the time they were published. Section 140 of the Danish Penal Code prohibits blasphemy. Section 266b of the Danish Penal Code prohibits expressions that threaten, deride or degrade on the grounds of race, colour, national or ethnic origin, belief or sexual orientation. Danish police began their investigation of these complaints on 27 October 2005. However the investigations were called off.

If you are looking for cartoon art that exemplifies hate, try this:

How about this cover which reads "Jewish Murder Plan against Gentile Humanity Revealed." This cover appeared in a pro-Nazi publication that implied that both Jews and Catholics drink the blood of innocents. Are we good with this?

Dr Guy

on Feb 09, 2006

Now you can all be politically correct and get outraged.

Why? I thought they were funny. Does that make me irreverent?

Dr Guy

on Feb 09, 2006

Oddly enough that doesn't seem to stop American companies from printing and selling copies of the book.

I know. I tried to read it back in college. It is terribly written.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!