Tyree's Tuppence

by Tyree Campbell

Freedom to Think

Once more let us tilt at those windmills that threaten freedom of the press. 

Granted, I'm biased.  We publish stuff.  Therefore, we have a vested interest in the continued freedom and ability to publish stuff.  If you're reading this, you have a similar bias and vested interest, because you have the freedom to read this Tuppence, to digest it and analyze it, and to disagree with it--and you [presumably] want that freedom to continue.  Also mayhap you like our publications.  :-D

Well, now.

In his editorial in the April 2001 issue of Analog, Stanley Schmidt pointed out that "...science fiction now routinely concerns itself with . . . the meanings of life and death and humanity; and morality and ethics--that whole thorny complex of problems about how people should behave, and why."  Schmidt specifically pointed out that religion, like science fiction, deals with this complex of problems.  So too, say I, does politics.

Politics and religion and science fiction act as filters.  You can add measures of observation, information, and things that you think you "think" into these filters, set your mind on automatic drip--maybe even espresso--and see what fills up the coffee pot below.

Let's have a cuppa, you and I.  I've some measures of contemporary information and observation and things I think I "think" to dump into these filters.  Let's see what comes out.

Back in September 2005, the Danish daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a dozen political cartoons in which the central figure was Muhammad, the founder of the religion known as Islam.  These political cartoons cast barbs of wit at the prophet and the religion.  Muslims are, as it happens, of a different opinion [which they are entitled to]:  that the cartoons are blasphemous and can lead to idolatry.  I've seen the cartoons; many public figures have been treated worse.

But this Tuppence does not judge the quality--artistic or religious--of the Danish political cartoons of Muhammad.  It is concerned, rather, with the right of the free press to publish the cartoons.

You see, the fundamental difference between a Western democracy and a Muslim . . . well, you can't really call them democracies . . . administration, let's say, lies in their respective constitutional ideals.  In the West--which is to say, in the United States of America--the highest ideal is The Law, as embodied in the Constitution of the U.S.A.  And spare me the arguments that some people break the law with impunity; the highest ideal in this country is The Law, regardless. 

Now, sometimes laws are bad or unjust or ineffective or otherwise inappropriate.  What happens then?  Well, a change is introduced--an amendment.  This amendment follows established procedures and, if accepted, becomes law.  The amendment changes The Law.

The archetypical examples of this are the 18th and 21st Amendments to the Constitution.  The 18th was the Prohibition Amendment.  Thanks to the efforts of temperance and religious groups, the manufacture, transportation, and sale of "intoxicating liquors" was prohibited in 1919.  Didn't work.  People still drank.  By 1933, the country had had enough of the Capones and others, and repealed the 18th Amendment with the 21st Amendment.  One changed the law, the other changed the change, effectively back to the way things were.

Such changes have been enacted more than two dozen times since the Constitution was first established.  Not a lot, you say?  Most countries in Latin America have completely rewritten their respective Constitutions more times than that.  Ours, dating back to 1787, has remained relatively stable and yet relevant.  But that's not the point.

In Moslem administrations--and most particularly in those countries that follow sharia law, the law as laid down in the Quran, the book of Islam analogous to the Bible--the highest ideal is the Word of Allah. 

Makes it tough to get an amendment passed.  I mean, how do you approach the Creator Of The Entire Universe and tell Him one of His laws is a mistake and that you want to correct it.

Take for example the prohibition against images and representations of Muhammad.  From an historical standpoint this is a relatively recent prohibition, and [so I am advised] not covered in the original Quran, but what's important is that, according to the newsclips, lots of Muslims believe the representations to be wrong and illegal.  This is not, however, a point of argument.  It is perfectly permissible for a country such as Iran or Turkey or Tunisia--or, for that matter, Liechtenstein or Swaziland--to prohibit images and representations of the Prophet.

On the other hand, it is also perfectly permissible for a country such as Denmark to legislate and champion freedom of the press.  And if that press should happen, for whatever reason, to choose to publish political cartoons of Tony Blair, George Bush, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, or Muhammad Ali, that is perfectly permissible in Denmark--and in most countries in what might be termed Western Civilization. 

What is NOT permitted, in any agreement, treaty, or organizational charter, is for any other country, society, government, or religion to demand of Denmark that it enact or enforce certain laws.  What is NOT permitted, in any agreement, treaty, or organizational charter, is for any other country, society, government, or religion to demand that its laws, practices, or religious strictures be enacted and enforced in Denmark. 

And yet, that is precisely what is being demanded.  Of lands whose foundations of freedom include freedom of the press, it is being demanded that they enforce the strictures of Islam, specifically the prohibition against images and representations of the Prophet.

In defiance of this demand, in one might say a spasm of iconoclasm, German and French newspapers republished these political cartoons.  However, a nation which prides itself on freedom of the press has so far refused to exercise it.  Despite the utter newsworthiness of the political cartoons, the various United States news media have focused primarily on the riots and destruction in Moslem countries, as if these events are somehow separated from their cause. 

Well, perhaps they are separated.  It's worth noting that when the political cartoons were published in Denmark last September, all was quiet.  The protests did not begin until January, five months later.  One wonders why the delay . . . what purpose it served to protest an event five months after the fact.  But that's another story.

Past Tuppence:
September 2007
June 2007
March 2007
December 2006
September 2006
June 2006
March 2006
December 2005
September 2005
June 2005
March 2005
December 2004
September 2004
June 2004
March 2004
December 2003
September 2003
June 2003
March 2003
December 2002
October 2002
August 2002
June 2002
April 2002
February 2002
December 2001
October 2001
August 2001

Read more from Tyree Campbell in any of the following:

The Dog at the Foot of the Bed
by Tyree Campbell

Wondrouse Web Worlds Vol. 6

The Martian Women
by Tyree Campbell

Wondrous Web Worlds Vol. 5

Wondrous Web Worlds Vol. 4

Wondrous Web Worlds Vol. 3

Sex and the Single Alien
An anthology

Nyx
A novel by Tyree Campbell

Wondrous Web Worlds Vol. 2