Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Buying or selling? Get the right advice

Woroni plays the Islamic cartoon two step

By johnboy 27 May 2013 38

The ABC has the sad news that ANU’s student rag has gotten itself in trouble with the tired trope of cartoons about Islam.

“Woroni Editors” are defending themselves and detailing the university’s efforts to make them stop being pests.

Five years ago this was cutting edge, today… well Voltaire and all that.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
38 Responses to
Woroni plays the Islamic cartoon two step
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
chewy14 4:24 pm 30 May 13

Malcolm Street said :

Ben_Dover – here ’tis!

http://goo.gl/6bjhC

And I can’t see anything in it that isn’t fair comment.

That can’t be it, can it?

Ben_Dover 3:40 pm 30 May 13

Malcolm Street said :

Ben_Dover – here ’tis!

http://goo.gl/6bjhC

And I can’t see anything in it that isn’t fair comment.

Link doesn’t work for me?

Malcolm Street 12:58 pm 30 May 13

Ben_Dover – here ’tis!

http://goo.gl/6bjhC

And I can’t see anything in it that isn’t fair comment.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 8:56 am 30 May 13

Masquara 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.

Islamic headdress is absolutely definitely used as a tool of subjugation in Afghanistan. We should absolutely be free to satirise and ridicule it.

You really are not very bright, are you?

Ben_Dover 7:13 am 30 May 13

Shame we cannot see the cartoon to make our own minds up eh?

rosscoact 6:41 am 30 May 13

Deckard said :

Masquara said :

This travesty is because of Islamicist fanaticism. (Anyone care to cite the case of a Buddhist threatening life or limb over a silly joke?)

http://mobilebeta.reuters.com/buddhist-mobs-attack-muslim-homes-for-second-day

While not triggered by a silly joke, some Buddhists aren’t the peace lovers most people make them out to be.

Thai buddhists kill muslims an a regular basis on the Thai/Malasia border and Hindi on Muslim violence is also common place

Deckard 11:00 pm 29 May 13

Masquara said :

This travesty is because of Islamicist fanaticism. (Anyone care to cite the case of a Buddhist threatening life or limb over a silly joke?)

http://mobilebeta.reuters.com/buddhist-mobs-attack-muslim-homes-for-second-day

While not triggered by a silly joke, some Buddhists aren’t the peace lovers most people make them out to be.

c_c™ 10:54 pm 29 May 13

Masquara 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.

Islamic headdress is absolutely definitely used as a tool of subjugation in Afghanistan. We should absolutely be free to satirise and ridicule it.

And then you should feel free to walk up to a Hassidic Jew and laugh at his beard, or a Catholic woman with a bunch of kids and laugh at her compliance with Church doctrine?

Where does the pointing and laughing end and more importantly what good does it serve?

Write a piece that is considered and critical of certain religious practices and you’ll actually earn some respect even from those who don’t agree. Draw a picture pointing and laughing, and you look like a fool in my book and you set a dangerous precedent.

banco 8:35 pm 29 May 13

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.

What a moronic argument. How does the publication of a cartoon impact on freedom of religion?

Masquara 7:17 pm 29 May 13

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.

Islamic headdress is absolutely definitely used as a tool of subjugation in Afghanistan. We should absolutely be free to satirise and ridicule it.

simonleeds 4:19 pm 29 May 13

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.

Blen_Carmichael 9:36 pm 28 May 13

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.

c_c™ 2:15 pm 28 May 13

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.

NoAddedMSG 9:44 am 28 May 13

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.

simonleeds 9:29 am 28 May 13

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?

eyeLikeCarrots 7:54 am 28 May 13

Wait…… Australians have ‘freedom of speach’ ?

c_c™ 4:09 am 28 May 13

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.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site