Cartoons are no joke

Current mood: Peace fighter (is that oxymoronic?)
Current music: 'Hard to Make a Stand' by Sheryl Crow

Those of you who regularly read this blog will have noticed that I generally tend to steer clear of anything on the news, since no news is good news, and you'll probably be fed up with hearing about it anyway. So, however angry I was about the London bombings, or whatever compassion I felt for victims of war, terror, and natural disasters - all passed unmentioned in my happy, rose-tinted blog.

But today I'm going to make an exception because frankly I've had enough of this cartoon nonsense.

If you've been living under a rock, this is what I'm on about:

Last September, the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published a series of twelve cartoons which caricatured the Prophet Muhammad, to go with an article on self-censorship. This came up after a Danish writer called Kare Bluitgen complained about being unable to find someone willing to illustrate his children's book on Muhammad, as no-one was keen on breaking the Islamic rule that the Prophet's image should not be portrayed.

Thus, as far as the newspaper was concerned, this was about freedom of expression.

The paper's main cartoon featured a police line-up of be-turbanned men - one of whom was the Prophet - with a witness quoting, "I don't know which one he is." The joke, of course, is that nobody knows what Muhammad looked like, since no-one is allowed to portray him. This cartoon was at least democratic in its approach to satire, because the line-up featured not only the Prophet but also Jesus Christ, a Danish politician, and the writer, Mr Bluitgen.

Of the other eleven cartoons, some were not particularly critical about the Prophet or Islam in general; one aimed its criticism at Bluitgen instead, suggesting that he has been using this publicity as a PR stunt for selling his children's book. However, a few of the cartoons were definitely and deliberately offensive. The most contentious one depicted the Prophet as a villainous terrorist, with a bomb-shaped turban on his head.

That's just asking for trouble.

And they got it, all right. Here's a timeline of the subsequent events, from the BBC website:

30 Sept 2005: Danish paper publishes cartoons
20 Oct 2005: Muslim ambassadors complain to Danish PM
10 Jan 2006: Norwegian publication reprints cartoons
26 Jan 2006: Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador
31 Jan 2006: Danish paper apologises
1 Feb 2006: Papers in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain reprint cartoons
4-5 Feb 2006: Danish embassies in Damascus and Beirut attacked
6-12 Feb 2006: Twelve killed in Afghanistan as security forces try to suppress protests
13-17 Feb 2006: Violent protests break out across Pakistan
17 Feb 2006: Ten killed in Libya as protestors target the Italian consulate in Benghazi
(Taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4726204.stm)

Hel-lo? Is there anyone here who is sane and speaks tactfully? Can anyone think rationally for a minute? They're only cartoons!

All right, let's take the side of the Muslims first. Yes, some of the cartoons were going too far and were being provocative just for sheer attention. No, they shouldn't have portrayed the Prophet as a terrorist. Apart from being insensitive and disrespectful of Islam, they also seem to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists, as opposed to there being merely a handful of extremists with bloodthirsty tendencies.

BUT: Violence in the streets? Torching symbols of Western culture (which, incidentally, belong to other Muslims) like motorbikes, cinemas, and KFCs? That's just ridiculous and completely irrelevant. Aamer Ahmed Khan, from the BBC News, suggested that the riots in Pakistan weren't so much attacking the cartoons as attacking the liberalism of their President. See this webpage for more:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4716762.stm

I heard on the news this morning that rewards are being offered, presumably by Muslims, for the assassination of the Danish cartoonists. Now hold on a minute there. If this whole thing didn't happen, and instead it was an Islamic paper which published cartoons making fun of Jesus Christ, would those same Muslims have offered rewards for the heads of the illustrators? I don't think so. They'd probably say, hey, they're only cartoons, they're just a bit of harmless fun, no need to make such a big fuss. Right?

This means that there are double standards going on here. You can't expect others to respect your religion if you don't respect theirs.

Moving on to the cartoonists and the newspapers. Yes, freedom of expression is a freedom that everyone should have. But like most kinds of freedom it comes with a responsibility. Free speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want just for the hell of it - you have to consider the consequences. You have to use your discretion. This applies particularly to the media because (as can be seen by these riots) they have such a vast effect on today's information-driven world. What you say in the media would be heard by millions of people. What effect might your words have? Would a newspaper publish an article that contained nothing but swear-words on every line? No - because if it did, then suddenly the newspaper wouldn't have quite as many readers, as well as getting complaints from parents that their children have learnt fifty new swear-words in one day. We don't want to read that trash so we can jolly well go elsewhere, but you also have a moral responsibility because you can shape the minds of the people. So, you have to consider your audience. Otherwise it's plain arrogance.

What also irks me is the awful timing of it all. The Norwegian, French, German, Italian, and Spanish newspapers have chosen a very inopportune moment at which to re-print the controversial cartoons. People are upset about the war in Iraq, which is still in a bit of a mess, and Muslims there are not feeling very friendly towards the West; Iran is being rebellious and wants to get nuclear power no matter what anyone says; and George W Bush is raring for another fight (aaagh! Somebody stop that man!) in his so-called "War against Terrorism", subtitled "More Oil for the USA! P.S. George W hates Muslims". It's only a matter of time before we hear the KA-BOOM... And what about that fool Italian minister, Roberto Calderoli, who went around wearing a T-shirt printed with the cartoons? I'm not surprised that his party want him to step down. Who wants a politician with no sense of diplomacy?

So my message is this: Peace, people. Chill out. Don't take some idiot cartoons to heart. Instead, take a walk in the other person's shoes (be sure to give them back though, or they might feel rather miffed) and see their side of the story. Respect each other. But mind what you say and do, because the world is watching, and a wrong word at the wrong time can give you a lot more trouble than you bargained for...

Anyway, that's my two cents' worth (read: rant) on world affairs. I'll try not to get political next time...

PS Ooh, look at the counter, my blog's almost up to 500 hits! Can the person who gets the big five-oh-oh on their screen please write a happy 'Hello!' message under 'Comments'? Thanks everybody!

A f'w w'rds 'n t' 'Nglsh l'ng'ge

Current mood: Linguist (It was a toss-up between 'linguist' and just plain 'wordy')
Current music: Anggun - a talented and beautiful Indonesian-born singer, who carries out songs in English, French, and Indonesian to perfection but is STILL not a household name

Anyone who knows me (or, in fact, who reads this blog) will probably guess that I'm not overly keen on the increasing laziness in writing. I'm mainly referring to the kind of language you find in text messages and Internet forums or chat rooms, where 'gr8' is 'great', 'cya l8r' is 'see you later', and 'rotfl' is 'rolling on the floor laughing'. Well, these examples aren't too bad, and I admit I occasionally use '2moro' instead of 'tomorrow' when texting, so that I can use the extra three letters for something else. But my point is that it's all downhill from here, and when I have to look up an acronym dictionary just to work out what you're saying, then the whole time-saving aspect crumbles to dust.

If we carry on this scrimping and saving of letters, hacking at the English language and generally torturing it until it gives up and waves a white flag, then someday we may have to read a script that looks like this:

'Nglsh C'nvrsat'n

A: 'Sup?
B: Nutch. Bor' t' deth.
A: W'nna go t' d' park 's arvo?
B: Nn. T' cold 'ut.
A: 'T'nt.
B: 'T's. Neway 's rain'n.
A: H' 'bt Tate Mod?
B: Nn. Mod art's t' werd.
A: Sh'dwe go t'd S'uth Bnk? 'Sa free gig 'n.
B: C'nna b' both'rd.
A: S'ya j's g'nna s't 'ere wotch'n d' t'lly.
B: 'Sright.
A: B't 'er's nut'n on.
B: Wyja th'nk 'm bor' t' deth?

It is in English, really. I didn't make up any words. However, a translation will be provided on request.

The other language issue that causes me to wince is the careless use of punctuation, particularly when the writer isn't really sure of the difference between 'your' and 'you're', and 'its' and 'it's'. Oh, and the film 'Two Weeks Notice' is missing an apostrophe... I suppose I'm getting a tad pedantic, but you'll find that punctuation can be quite handy if you check out the following short letters, which I read in the book, 'Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation', by Lynne Truss:

****************************************

Dear Jack,

I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can be forever happy - will you let me be yours?

Jill.

****************************************

Dear Jack,

I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men I yearn! For you I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart, I can be forever happy. Will you let me be?

Yours, Jill.

****************************************

You'll have noticed that although the words of the two letters are exactly the same, their meanings are about as different from each other as they can possibly be! So you can never be too careful...

Anyway, I shall leave you now with a couple of poems. The first is by Lewis Carroll, who did indeed make up his words, though not without good effect. You really have to read 'Jabberwocky' out loud to appreciate the sound of it. After having written about a bunch of Jabberwocks a couple of weeks ago, I thought it only fair that I include it.

The other is a short poem by yours truly, vaguely in the style of Ogden Nash. Enjoy!

****************************************

Jabberwocky
(1872)

By Lewis Carroll, from 'Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There'

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought -
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

Picture taken from http://www.jabberwocky.com

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

****************************************

Into the Mind of a Poet
(2004)

By Aureala

Reflecting on my work as a poet -
I hint at the truth but rarely show it.
When I say, 'The sun shone like diamonds on the water,'
I meant the water shone like diamonds really oughter.
After all, the only thing that can sparkle like the sun on the sea is sunlight
But if there's a fine chance for a simile to be made, then someone might.
Poets can weave metaphors just as politicians can weave lies,
Or spiders can weave spider-webs to catch tasty flies.
I suppose metaphors and lies really have the same ring,
But I can't be a politician because of my fear-of-making-public-speeches thing,
So I shall settle for being a poet,
And don't I know it.