Woroni plays the Islamic cartoon two step

c_c™ said :

simonleeds said :

c_c™ said :

I don’t recall reading anyone taking exception to the fact that it was a cartoon about Islam. Those comments I saw focused on the cartoons apparent attempt to label Islamic head dress as a form of subjugation and to make it the focus of ridicule. Now an essential civil liberty is freedom of religion, and Woroni is no doubt claiming the creators of the cartoon should be entitled to another civil liberty, that of freedom of expression, thereby putting the two agains one another. On that basis, I think it’s right to weight which is stronger. Were the Woroni content an insightful, critique of Islamic cultural practice surrounding women, I doubt this would have been an issue. But because the piece took the form that it did, I’m not surprised that Woroni’s right is giving way to that of religion on this occasion, and therefore, nor am I surprised the CLA has said what it has said.

Wow c_c, I usually agree with you on ANU issues but I strongly disagree this time. Whether or not islamic head dress is a form of subjugation is a complex debate where, at the very least, there are arguments with merit on both sides. For you to endorse the axing of the piece on the basis that it’s *so obvious* it’s offensive strikes me as unnecessarily arrogant. Why not write a letter to the Woroni editor and outline your objections? It seems to me that your interpretation of freedom of religion extends not to a ‘right not to be offended’, which, to me, rubs up against the right of others to offend.

The claim that the piece should be censored on the basis that it will inspire fanatics to murder the authors seems like pretty hardcore victim blaming to me. How do you guys usually respond when this reasoning is applied to other areas – like whether women should walk alone at night?

I’m not actually saying the piece shomd be censored. I’m trying to explain why the University may have a case to do so, and why the CLA may support it. It was a stupid piece, but I favour it being judged in the public arena.

You’ll note I argued against censoring the original ANU Confessions page when the university moved to shut it down despite its sexist and racist vitriol.

Now regarding head coverings, there was no specific mention, however the piece did have the effect of labelling those who are visibly muslim as subjugated, was the point made in some complaints. That they’re only worth half as much (as the Sharia example eludes to).
The University policies are quite clear on these issues, but they’re also clear on the freedom of academic expression, which is why I’m quite sure were the ideas in the cartoon expressed in at greater length, in a more thoughtful manner, this would never have been an issue.

Additionally, Woroni is funded entirely by public money from the ANU. If they want to escape ANU policy altogether, then they have to become self funding.

This is all well and good. But nothing you’ve said contradicts the notion that anyone who strongly feels the cartoon is a misrepresentation of Islam should respond by writing a letter to the editor.

It would be nice to characterise ANU’s response as wise-level headed-responsible-managers-saving-foolish-student-cartoonists-from-their-own-folly but I think a more cynical (and, based on what we know of Ian Young * co., accurate) view would be that ANU consider brand management and PR to be more important than freedom of expression. Simple as that.

c_c™ said :

Blen_Carmichael said :

>>The head of Civil Liberties Australia Tim Vine says the ANU may have been justified in censoring the newspaper.

Quite ironic that the so-called Civil Liberties Australia publicly endorses censorship, wouldn’t you think?

Not ironic at all, they advocate personal freedom and choice, and what some in the ANU community took exception to, was the cartoon’s attack on freedom and choice, specifically, labelling women who were head coverings as oppressed. .

Not ironic at all? I am reminded of Fahrenheit 451 when one fireman observed that, in the days of yore, fireman actually put out fires, not started them.

simonleeds said :

c_c™ said :

I don’t recall reading anyone taking exception to the fact that it was a cartoon about Islam. Those comments I saw focused on the cartoons apparent attempt to label Islamic head dress as a form of subjugation and to make it the focus of ridicule. Now an essential civil liberty is freedom of religion, and Woroni is no doubt claiming the creators of the cartoon should be entitled to another civil liberty, that of freedom of expression, thereby putting the two agains one another. On that basis, I think it’s right to weight which is stronger. Were the Woroni content an insightful, critique of Islamic cultural practice surrounding women, I doubt this would have been an issue. But because the piece took the form that it did, I’m not surprised that Woroni’s right is giving way to that of religion on this occasion, and therefore, nor am I surprised the CLA has said what it has said.

Wow c_c, I usually agree with you on ANU issues but I strongly disagree this time. Whether or not islamic head dress is a form of subjugation is a complex debate where, at the very least, there are arguments with merit on both sides. For you to endorse the axing of the piece on the basis that it’s *so obvious* it’s offensive strikes me as unnecessarily arrogant. Why not write a letter to the Woroni editor and outline your objections? It seems to me that your interpretation of freedom of religion extends not to a ‘right not to be offended’, which, to me, rubs up against the right of others to offend.

The claim that the piece should be censored on the basis that it will inspire fanatics to murder the authors seems like pretty hardcore victim blaming to me. How do you guys usually respond when this reasoning is applied to other areas – like whether women should walk alone at night?

I’m not actually saying the piece shomd be censored. I’m trying to explain why the University may have a case to do so, and why the CLA may support it. It was a stupid piece, but I favour it being judged in the public arena.

You’ll note I argued against censoring the original ANU Confessions page when the university moved to shut it down despite its sexist and racist vitriol.

Now regarding head coverings, there was no specific mention, however the piece did have the effect of labelling those who are visibly muslim as subjugated, was the point made in some complaints. That they’re only worth half as much (as the Sharia example eludes to).
The University policies are quite clear on these issues, but they’re also clear on the freedom of academic expression, which is why I’m quite sure were the ideas in the cartoon expressed in at greater length, in a more thoughtful manner, this would never have been an issue.

Additionally, Woroni is funded entirely by public money from the ANU. If they want to escape ANU policy altogether, then they have to become self funding.

I have the cartoon sitting in front of me now. c_c – nowhere does it say anything at all about headscarves, so I am not really sure where you got that idea from?

I followed this quite closely because I work with a number of people on both sides of the fence of this issue. The bulk of the complaints I saw related to the comment about the Prohet marrying a 9 year old. They had a point about that being something which needs to be viewed within the cultural context of the times, not against current community standards. The cartoon was also bad timing, seeing as it came out just before Muslim Understanding Week….

What I did raise an eyebrow over was university students (male and female) vigerously defending another point the cartoon touched on, which was that the legal testimony of a woman has half the weight of a man’s under Sharia law. It appears that for many that particular idea has yet to be relegated to the status of an outdated belief set.

c_c™ said :

I don’t recall reading anyone taking exception to the fact that it was a cartoon about Islam. Those comments I saw focused on the cartoons apparent attempt to label Islamic head dress as a form of subjugation and to make it the focus of ridicule. Now an essential civil liberty is freedom of religion, and Woroni is no doubt claiming the creators of the cartoon should be entitled to another civil liberty, that of freedom of expression, thereby putting the two agains one another. On that basis, I think it’s right to weight which is stronger. Were the Woroni content an insightful, critique of Islamic cultural practice surrounding women, I doubt this would have been an issue. But because the piece took the form that it did, I’m not surprised that Woroni’s right is giving way to that of religion on this occasion, and therefore, nor am I surprised the CLA has said what it has said.

Wow c_c, I usually agree with you on ANU issues but I strongly disagree this time. Whether or not islamic head dress is a form of subjugation is a complex debate where, at the very least, there are arguments with merit on both sides. For you to endorse the axing of the piece on the basis that it’s *so obvious* it’s offensive strikes me as unnecessarily arrogant. Why not write a letter to the Woroni editor and outline your objections? It seems to me that your interpretation of freedom of religion extends not to a ‘right not to be offended’, which, to me, rubs up against the right of others to offend.

The claim that the piece should be censored on the basis that it will inspire fanatics to murder the authors seems like pretty hardcore victim blaming to me. How do you guys usually respond when this reasoning is applied to other areas – like whether women should walk alone at night?

Wait…… Australians have ‘freedom of speach’ ?

Mrs_Potato_Head said :

Why do Muslims seem to get offended by anything and everything? And yet they don’t bat an eyelid when their Quran says that Mohammed had many wives, including a six year old girl.

I think when you look at the marriage debate for example, elements of Christianity are just as bad; you see Fred Nile on Q&A describing same-sex marriage as an ‘attack’ on him and on Christian’s sacred institution, echoing the ACL’s diatribe. And yet while they advocate for a ‘blessed’ and ‘loving’ union as described in the bible, they don’t “bat an eye lid” when the same book advocates another type of marriage, defined by Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

I don’t recall reading anyone taking exception to the fact that it was a cartoon about Islam. Those comments I saw focused on the cartoons apparent attempt to label Islamic head dress as a form of subjugation and to make it the focus of ridicule. Now an essential civil liberty is freedom of religion, and Woroni is no doubt claiming the creators of the cartoon should be entitled to another civil liberty, that of freedom of expression, thereby putting the two agains one another. On that basis, I think it’s right to weight which is stronger. Were the Woroni content an insightful, critique of Islamic cultural practice surrounding women, I doubt this would have been an issue. But because the piece took the form that it did, I’m not surprised that Woroni’s right is giving way to that of religion on this occasion, and therefore, nor am I surprised the CLA has said what it has said.

LSWCHP said :

It’s easy to trivialise this. It’s only Woroni, so who cares? It’s just some self-important but soon-to-be-forgotten hipster students trying to be cool after Elvis has left the building, so who cares?

I’m not so sure. I reckon there are some serious issues here that deserve some equally serious thought and public debate.

Are there acceptable limits to public criticism and satire? Equally, how should individuals and groups respond to things they find objectionable in an acceptable manner? What does “acceptable” even mean in both cases? Is it acceptable that public comment may self-censored due to fear of reprisals, as some of the early comments on this thread have hinted at?

Call me crazy, but I think that the manner in which Australian society deals with issues like this really goes to the core of our meaning as a western liberal democracy. How do we allow and promote the free expression of divergent views, without descending into a cycle of bigotry and retaliation?

This is important stuff. I’d really like to hear what everybody has to say, because it means a lot to me.

I agree we need to discuss, however we don’t know what the flip the cartoon is.

c_c™ said :

Blen_Carmichael said :

>>The head of Civil Liberties Australia Tim Vine says the ANU may have been justified in censoring the newspaper.

Quite ironic that the so-called Civil Liberties Australia publicly endorses censorship, wouldn’t you think?

Not ironic at all, they advocate personal freedom and choice, and what some in the ANU community took exception to, was the cartoon’s attack on freedom and choice, specifically, labelling women who were head coverings as oppressed. Now whether you agree with the religious doctrine or not regarding traditional dress, women who make that choice to follow it shouldn’t be labelled or made to feel lesser than their piers because of it.

c_c, are you keeping something from us?

Did you see something that we’re not allowed to see? Did you pass judgement on an image – determining it was not fit for the eyes of people like myself and LSWCHP?

As adults, we decide what is appropriate to view via free choice.

Blen_Carmichael said :

>>The head of Civil Liberties Australia Tim Vine says the ANU may have been justified in censoring the newspaper.

Quite ironic that the so-called Civil Liberties Australia publicly endorses censorship, wouldn’t you think?

Not ironic at all, they advocate personal freedom and choice, and what some in the ANU community took exception to, was the cartoon’s attack on freedom and choice, specifically, labelling women who were head coverings as oppressed. Now whether you agree with the religious doctrine or not regarding traditional dress, women who make that choice to follow it shouldn’t be labelled or made to feel lesser than their piers because of it.

Are pressure cookers flying off the shelves lately?

It’s easy to trivialise this. It’s only Woroni, so who cares? It’s just some self-important but soon-to-be-forgotten hipster students trying to be cool after Elvis has left the building, so who cares?

I’m not so sure. I reckon there are some serious issues here that deserve some equally serious thought and public debate.

Are there acceptable limits to public criticism and satire? Equally, how should individuals and groups respond to things they find objectionable in an acceptable manner? What does “acceptable” even mean in both cases? Is it acceptable that public comment may self-censored due to fear of reprisals, as some of the early comments on this thread have hinted at?

Call me crazy, but I think that the manner in which Australian society deals with issues like this really goes to the core of our meaning as a western liberal democracy. How do we allow and promote the free expression of divergent views, without descending into a cycle of bigotry and retaliation?

This is important stuff. I’d really like to hear what everybody has to say, because it means a lot to me.

“Professor Young says he was also concerned the satire could have provoked a violent response.

“There have been a number of cases internationally of satirical cartoons about the Koran which can have some very unfortunate side effects,” he said”

So the cowards at this university are saying that muslim nutters now get a veto on free speech? Bet they wouldn’t have pulled a cartoon dealing with Catholicism no matter what the content.

Mrs_Potato_Head said :

Why do Muslims seem to get offended by anything and everything? And yet they don’t bat an eyelid when their Quran says that Mohammed had many wives, including a six year old girl.

I think you mean ‘why do SOME Muslims get offended?’. I’m pretty sure most of them couldn’t really care less.

johnboy said :

pooping on religions for the sake of it is pretty vapid behaviour.

when you’re reliant on a university for funding and your pooping goes against their guidelines and endangers their funding it’s just dumb.

Start your own website or magazine and see how you go.

Freedom of speech doesn’t include a requirement that a joke be tasteful or good.

This travesty is because of Islamicist fanaticism. (Anyone care to cite the case of a Buddhist threatening life or limb over a silly joke?) This censoring, while understandable on the grounds of sheer pragmatism, is a very, very sad affair, and let’s not pretend it is anything other than tragic, demonstrating our powerlessness in the face of a dreadful threat to western freedoms. Islamicist fanaticism has truly done its work – we are all afraid.

Blen_Carmichael said :

Quite ironic that the so-called Civil Liberties Australia publicly endorses censorship, wouldn’t you think?

Have you forgotten doublethink, Winston?

>>The head of Civil Liberties Australia Tim Vine says the ANU may have been justified in censoring the newspaper.

Quite ironic that the so-called Civil Liberties Australia publicly endorses censorship, wouldn’t you think?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

johnboy said :

pooping on religions for the sake of it is pretty vapid behaviour.

when you’re reliant on a university for funding and your pooping goes against their guidelines and endangers their funding it’s just dumb.

Start your own website or magazine and see how you go.

All good points, but why was it only the Islam one that got pulled? I find it pretty hard to believe that there were no complaints from catholic organusations.

I see what you did there… Off with his head!

johnboy said :

pooping on religions for the sake of it is pretty vapid behaviour.

when you’re reliant on a university for funding and your pooping goes against their guidelines and endangers their funding it’s just dumb.

Start your own website or magazine and see how you go.

All good points, but why was it only the Islam one that got pulled? I find it pretty hard to believe that there were no complaints from catholic organusations.

The cartoon was moronic. At best heavy with ill-thought stereotypes, at worst, inciting hate. It wasn’t smart, it wasn’t witty, it was just lazy.

I think it’s a bit rich that they’re now playing the freedom of the press card. ANU Student Media is publicly funded, if they want total freedom to publish what is more often than not trash (with a few exceptions), then make a commercial case, attract your own funding and stop taking public money.

Mrs_Potato_Head said :

Why do Muslims seem to get offended by anything and everything?

I’d be pissed off too if I weren’t allowed to enjoy a few ales.

I do not understand why you can poop on any religion except Islam?

Makes no sense and pretty much goes against everything multiculturalism is about.

As a former co-editor of the student newspaper at CCAE in 1986 I’m not surprised at this latest nonsense from Woroni (which we used to call Moronic). I was trying to lift the tone of our paper while at the same time Moronic was publishing things like “Wimmin’s Page” and a stream of other left wing crap.

Unlike Woroni nowadays we were funded from Student Association fees so we were independent from the uni bosses. Even if we wanted to overstep the boundaries, we knew our readership was limited to the campus and a few journalists at The Canberra Times.

Nowadays with the Internet your work goes around the world in a microsecond. While it might have been of little consequence to publish a cartoon mocking Islam in 1986, I have to wonder why someone in the Woroni editorial office didn’t realise that such a cartoon might be seen by Al Qaeda or Al Shabab members overseas. Witness the riots and terrorist attacks following the YouTube video last year.

Like it or not, freedom of the press must be curtailed when you are dealing with murderous fanatics.

Why do Muslims seem to get offended by anything and everything? And yet they don’t bat an eyelid when their Quran says that Mohammed had many wives, including a six year old girl.

I understand why Woroni pulled the cartoons (I assume they like their heads where they are).

Did the cartoons have Dr Who in them or something.

Cowardice in the faces of Islamic religious fanaticism/fascism is so very de rigueur these days.

Maybe they should turn it into a tshirt – it will make it easier for the violent cult members to find them…