Cartoons and the like
Hmmm. Some nutters have been getting hot under the collar. Cartoons mocking some of their favourite superstitions have been published. Well, how awful. Obviously we musn't mock idiots. Of any persuasion. Let them flourish. That seems to be the motto - even Home Secretary Straw has been weighing in with idiocies involving how we must allow nutters to get away with believing crap without pointing it out to them. Obviously, said nutters can spew all manner of bile about homosexuals, and so on. But their deeply held superstitions must be respected.
Well, bollocks. I have a film proposal. I want to make a porn film. In fact a gay porn film. Actors in it would portray various "prophets" from the past - Moses, Abraham, Elijah, Jesus, Mohammed, etc. These characters would then get violently buggered, and obviously enjoy the experience. I don't think the film itself would be a great work of art, but it would certainly irritate a few people who deserve to be slapped.
Also, the contraversy would mean it would make a fortune at the box office. Probably.
Well, bollocks. I have a film proposal. I want to make a porn film. In fact a gay porn film. Actors in it would portray various "prophets" from the past - Moses, Abraham, Elijah, Jesus, Mohammed, etc. These characters would then get violently buggered, and obviously enjoy the experience. I don't think the film itself would be a great work of art, but it would certainly irritate a few people who deserve to be slapped.
Also, the contraversy would mean it would make a fortune at the box office. Probably.
18 Comments:
Funny idea about the film! I think the decision to publish the cartoons was a silly one. Why provoke people, especially hyper-sensitive ones? It brings the unnecessary, ugly and much discussed "clash of civilisations" a step closer.
I disagree. Caricature cartoons are a centuries old tradition in broadsheet newspapers and every institution has been fair game. Until now.
Except that you cannot use them to cause race hate. That is actually illegal. And for good reason. To attempt to fan the flames of religious hatred is irresponsible at best, and potentially catastrophic in a multi-ethnic society like the UK.
I don't think it really is about *race*, though. The cartoons were mocking depictions of a religious leader, not a racial heritage. Check out 'potholes' to see other cartoons (chosen from hundreds of thousands) mocking a religious prophet. Okay, two of them were political in content but one was a straightforward caricature/piss-take of that religion's ethos and spiritual leader.
Problems begin when you define your entire identity not by your race or your nation or your accomplishments or your outlook or your secular values or your norms, but by your religion (this applies across the board, of course). Caricaturing a God is not - should not - be taken as an assault on the individual, personally. (Surely?!)
I don't care about this as much as I'm bothered about censorship (and freedom of expression). In this country in particular, we have a long tradition of holding up all kinds of institutions to public scorn. Political, social, religious, etc have all been targets.
If this sounds a bit un-PC, sorry!, but everyone has to take a bit of rough and tumble from time to time. Roll with it. It's not about YOU personally? Or is it? There are countless things that can and do cause insult every day but when it's a religion it's suddenly unquestionably beyond the pale. Why? This doesn't happen with other things that define (for better or worse) your identity, such as sexuality, class, etc. I'm fully aware that religious people would say 'Because it's an insulting attack on ME'. Now, I know it's not ideal when something you feel strongly about is portrayed in an unflattering light, but, c'mom! it's not the worst thing that could ever happen.
This entire post demonstrates how fundamentally I have failed to grasp or even tentatively understand the religious mindset, not believing in a God myself. I like to hope, though, that even if I did believe in a God, I would be able to deal with a cartoon.
This issue is like treading on eggshells.
The problem is that these people are likely to take offence. It may not be reasonable, but there it is.
Given that they're not going to moderate their views all of a sudden, we should try not to provoke them unless there is some obvious greater good to be gained by doing so, wouldn't you say? It's called "enlightened self-interest".
(Grudgingly and sulkily) I suppose so!
You say, "These people are likely to take offence. It may not be reasonable, but there it is".
Substitute 'those people' for 'it' - and you get 'Those people may not be reasonable'. And thus, what happens? - It falls to others to pick up the reasonableness slack by tiptoeing around their superstitions. And I'm not wholly convinced that this is entirely reasonable, either.
I don't think there's an alternative, unless we want to plunge headlong into a conflict. (I do realise why people find that the prospect exciting. The reality would be something different.)
If there is a conflict, it will be of the making of people who don't want ideas discussed in public. We have to ask ourselves the question: Supposing we were living in Germany in the late 1930s. Would we opt for an easy life and not challenge the consensus, or would we see it as something worth challenging?
If an ideology exists in the public domain, and its adherents are prepared to use violence to prevent discussion of it, then its adherents deserve no respect, and a doubling off effort should be made to attack it. Otherwise, what sort of society are we living in?
I'm sorry, but challenging a dictatorship which is oppressing you is quite a different thing from insulting a group who include an increasingly unpopular minority within your own country! The case of 1930s Germany is apposite.
By the way, I agree - of course - that violence should not be tolerated.
So we shouldn't criticise people's beliefs on the basis that they might be insulted? Even if said people have no qualms about not criticising other beliefs? That seems utterly ludicrous to me.
Wouldn't it be better if man could leave God out of his petty squabbles?
Why can't we appreciate that pointing the finger can but perpetuate problems?
Why can't we grasp that our differences are to be celebrated, that tolerance and compassion and respect are not mere platitudes but real principles with the power to sustain us all?
Brindlecats, I think the problem here seems to be that people have difficulty celebrating and respecting different beliefs because - where there is more than one system - people are apt to get competitive and try to gain the ascendancy. It's almost asking too much - we are animals, after all - to be content with what we hold dear and accept with grace that others might disagree. I believe that where there is more than one of anything, there is also an (innate?) compulsion to believe that your [whatever it might be] is somehow 'better' than all the others. Neil, wasn't this what 'Straw Dogs' was all about? I believe this is an unavoidable human drive. N will correct me if I'm wrong.
Puskas - criticising cherished beliefs is different from ridiculing someone's supreme religious icon. I'm sure you have the imagination to see the difference! I can criticise yout fervent belief in communism, for example, but that's different from portraying your mother as a whore in a cartoon, for example.
Plymouth - I've forgotten the detail of Straw Dogs, but it was an attempt to rubbish humanism and lay bare the fact that we are all animals, and barking... Apologies for my humanistic tendencies. I know they're a bit naive, but the fragments of humanism are all that protect us from Nietzsche, the abyss, and undisguised conflict forevermore. It's the attempt to have dialogue rather than take sides. It's Piggy's approach, and the Perennial Philosophy (Huxley).
A worthwhile attempt, even if ultimately futile?
Brindle - yes to tolerance and compassion, especially among those educated or just aware enough to be able to cultivate them.
Neil - I think there's a large difference between insulting someone's relatives and mocking an individual that died over a thousand years ago, no matter how firmly deluded someone is in believing they know them - don't you?
And if you ever criticse my fervent belief in communism, I'll have you beheaded. Or, at the very least, sent to a gulag in Siberia...
Well, for the film idea, and for general rampant atheism in your blog, I reckon you're asking for a fatwa...
Amen.
Post a Comment
<< Home