Tag: Debate (Page 25 of 27)

It seems that the row over cartoon depictions of Mohammed has been cranked up a notch, as several European newspapers re-print the images, in a gesture of solidarity with the Jyllands-Posten. It reminds me of a premiership-brawl, where after one guy gets into a bit of banter with an opponent, his mates run the full length of the pitch in order to inflame the situation further.
A comment from theologian Sohaib Bencheikh caught my eye.

one must find the borders between freedom of expression and freedom to protect the sacred.”

On one hand, declaring that a certain action is off limits to everybody, because one particular group considers it sacred, is a non-argument on a par with screaming children in a supermarket. However, Bencheikh’s wider point is that we should, out of respect for other groups, refrain from deliberately offending them. It is legitimate to ask: “why did you feel you had to do that?” to the editor of the paper, because at that point the debate leaves the realm of faith and enters that of human politics. If the cartoons of Mohammed were not very good, or printed for a frivolous or deliberately antagonistic reason, then we should condemn Jyllands-Posten because it was a risible decision on its own terms, not because we give any credence to the sanctity of the Prophet’s image.
In comparision to Jyllands-Posten, its immitators around Europe do actually have a good reason for publishing the pictures. This is because the debate has moved on. The topic of their articles is not one of provocation or ridicule, but a genuine philosophical question to the muslim world: “Why are these offensive?” And muslims cannot respond with simply or “belief” or “Qu’ran” because they know that these are not our terms, not our points of reference, and are meaningless to anyone outside the faith. So the copy-cats are actually more interesting than the original, because they present a genuine response to the protest, rather than instigating the antagonism in the first place.
I find the attitude of faith groups in these situations rather naive. It is the very fact that they take offence, which prompts the desire to cause offence! Religions, by their very nature, preach certain rules and regulations. If any notion of faith is invoked, then we find that the rules are absolute, and cannot be questioned. They become walls, a psycological prison. Not only is it human nature to want to break free, but it is a human right to do so. Religious dictats invite disobediance, the philosophical equivalent of a “Please Keep Off The Grass” sign.
I am ashamed to admit it, but “Jesus Wants To Fuck His Dad” makes me laugh precisely because I know it will leave others shocked. This is a apparently the point of a lot of Gilbert & George’s art too. The play Bhetzi, which would have passed below my radar, now interests me precisely because it has the power to mobilise an angry mob. The Sheffield Crucible’s production of The Romans In Britain will have sell-out audiences, as a direct result of Mary Whitehouse’s campaign to have it banned in 1980.
All these plays and pictures gain publicity and legitimacy, as a direct result of the complaints against them. As a result, more people will engage with the work than would otherwise have been the case, had the protestors kept quiet. These campaigners achieve the exact opposite of what they intend… and that irony makes me laugh too.

Update

Jesus and Mo agree that protesting too loudly only makes matters worse.

Thrice now, I’ve argued against something by saying that the definition used by the other person is simply, trivially, wrong.

• A policeman in Australia misdefines Multiculturalism
• Anthony Browne misdefines Political Correctness
• Icons of England misdefines Englishness

I have also spent quite a lot of time, online and offline arguing that if a person who calls himself a Muslim does something non-Islamic, like comitting public suicide, then it is unfair to label his Muslim brothers and sisters with the same, bloody brush.
Arguments over definitions make up a great deal of political debate. Understanding that other people define things differently and have a different set of presumptions, is essential for empathising with someone’s point of view. This is also why learning alternative languages is so important.
Please do not mistake this for yet another post about reconcilliation and co-operation. Comprehending how other people define their terms is also crucial when engaging in debate with them. Many people, on both the left and right, begin their argument from such a disparate starting point to their opponent, that they barely convince anyone but themselves. The result that only people who already agree with the author are persuaded by the argument. I think this is why columnists such as Polly Toynbee and Melanie Phillips are so divisive – they are both of the “you either love them or you hate them” school of journalism.
So much of the fisking I read online also falls into this trap too. No-one else is persuaded, least of all the supporters of the alternative point of view. The debate becomes a shouting match, and nothing of interest is achieved.

Protecting children from paedophiles is in the news again, when it transpired that a few gentlemen with crimminal backgrounds had been cleared by the Home Secretary to work in schools. Two men had be caught possessing indecent images of children. Another had been convicted of indencent assault of a 15 year-old girl.
Personally, I think these cases are pretty clear cut. All men have committed not just a sex crime, but one that involves children. However, it is the way we treat people with paedophillic tendencies that I would like to comment on here. Once more, it is the nature of these men and their fetishes that is being discussed. Howard Jacobson went so far as to suggest that all teachers are weird, and that being a pervert is almost a prerequisite for working in a PE department.
But should being a paedophile per se be banned? That is, should harbouring sexual desires for children be illegal? Even if one never acted upon it, and never, ever, exploited children through pornography? To paraphrase the Church of England: The crime is not the impulse, but acting upon it. In any case, banning the very thought would be impossible to police, impossible to eradicate. This is especially true these days, with atrocities like S-Club Juniors singing dance-hall classics such as Grandpa’s Secret Cuddles and Mommy, What’s All This Blood? (although I think that’s a B-side). It seems as though the sexualisation of our youth is complete.
Many types of fetish, kink and ‘deviance’ exist in the world, most of which centre around some sort of unconventional sexual partner: amputees, the elderly, the helpless, the dominant. If there exist people who get off on consuming their partners excrement (and there are plenty), then simply to be sexually attracted to pale young boys seems… well… unimaginative.
How then, to allow people the freedom to explore their sexuality, something they do not have total control over, without recourse to something that is harmful to others? It seems to me that if they had a moral way to do this, then threat they present to society at large could be diminished. Via Andrew Sullivan I found a fascinating picture, an entirely computer generated image of a woman. The photo-realism is quite astonishing. And it begsraises the question: If technology can create images so real, could it create pseudo-photographs of a more sexual nature? If paedophiles could view images that satisfy their desires, without harming one hair (or indeed, synapse) of any child… where is the moral line, and have we crossed it?
Some might say that being this permissive will nevertheless encourage people to act upon their desires. However, computer games and films that regularly depict grotesque violence and murder, are commonplace. There are many people who use these offerings to relieve their agression and satisfy violent desires. Why not the same for sexual desires? Paedophilia is not the only perversion on the table: necrophilia, beastiality and the goulish Christina Aguilera are up for grabs too… although I have a notion that Christina may be computer-generated anyway.

(Very late) update

Child porn in cartoon style – man convicted