[Before everybody jumps all over me again: Yes, I know that the paper is a progressive one, and that all the people involved are leftists. I knew that from the first article I read, but evidently I didn’t explain myself clearly enough in my previous post.]
The leftist nature of the M&G helps explain why the paper caved in relatively easily — after all, defending freedom of “racist” speech doesn’t come easily to a cultural Marxist.
But the amazing thing is that they evidently hadn’t the faintest idea of what they were setting themselves up for. Did they really think that because they were fervent progressives, they would be spared the wrath of the Universal Muslim Rage Boy? Have they been holed up in a cave these last nine years?
If they have any sense at all, they now understand the rules of the game: Islam trumps Marxism every time, without exception. Any leftist who thinks he can cha-cha with the prophet without assuming the Full Submission Position is sadly mistaken.
When you read the reports below, notice that the author and the paper’s editor sound very, very grateful that South African Muslims showed commendable restraint and did not resort to violence. Note also that South Africa’s population is about 15% Muslim, which tells us that the minimum local density of Islam before it gains full cultural control must be less than 15%. (Correction: I dropped a decimal place when looking at the database figures — only 1.5% of South Africa’s population is Muslim. This makes this surrender even more alarming, because it shows that a mere 1.5% of the population can intimidate the other 98.5%.)
Here’s the first of two articles from M&G:
M&G Meets With Muslim Leaders- - - - - - - - -
A meeting between Muslim leaders and the Mail & Guardian after the publication of a controversial cartoon has left M&G CEO Hoosain Karjieker proud of the community and the process followed to reach a resolution.
The newspaper has undertaken to refrain from publishing any images of the Prophet Muhammad while reviewing their editorial policy in terms of religious matters, after a meeting with Muslim leaders from a cross-section of organisations, and interest groups.
The meeting at Channel Islam in Johannesburg on Wednesday followed a failed court attempt by the Muslim Council of Theologians to stop the newspaper from publishing a Zapiro cartoon on May 21.
The cartoon depicted the Prophet Muhammad reclining on a psychiatrist’s chair bemoaning his followers’ lack of humour. It referenced the uproar in some Muslim communities over the Everyone Draw Muhammad Day campaign.
While interest in the incident has been high, with traffic volumes doubling on the M&G site, there was no violent backlash. Karjieker was particularly impressed with the Muslim Judicial Council (MJC), which called on the community not to boycott the newspaper.
“It’s been very good,” said editor Nic Dawes. “I think a discussion that has been simmering quietly has been brought out into the open. Ultimately we’ve reached a very South African solution.
“I’m delighted actually.”
Cross-section
Represented at the meeting were leaders from the MJC, the Muslim Council of Theologians — or Jamiatul Ulama — and the Somali Association of SA, among others.
“It was a tough meeting but the level of engagement was very mature,” said Karjieker. “It was on a level we haven’t had before as a community or a paper.”
Cartoonist Jonathan Shapiro, or Zapiro, flew from Cape Town to attend the meeting. He refrained from commenting, saying that his follow-up cartoon in the M&G‘s next edition on Friday May 28 would explain his thoughts. Dawes said the cartoonist, who has won awards for his cutting depictions, said his cartoons have angered many — including his own community.
“I think Zapiro made a clear statement of his principles as a cartoonist and satirist,” said Dawes, pointing out that Zapiro’s secular values meant equal treatment of everyone.
But both Zapiro and Dawes were adamant about distancing themselves and condemning the Islamophobia that has characterised some of the Facebook campaign.
Karjieker pointed out that the discussion, while tough, would open the space for further issues that people can talk about “using the paper as a forum”.
A statement was issued however, saying the M&G regretted “the harm caused by the publication of the cartoon and apologises for the effects thereof”.
Friendly terms
Dawes said the meeting ended on “genuinely very friendly terms”.
He said the new policy would be “informed in consultation with religious leaders from all major faith communities,” and ultimately by the constitutional values of freedom of expression and our own values as a newspaper, of social justice.
Present at the meeting were about 21 people, including MJC representative Ahmed Igsaan Sedick, who had previously denounced death threats against Zapiro.
While rejecting the cartoon, the MJC called death threats against the cartoonist “un-Islamic”, saying such threats had no place in the religion or society, the Cape Argus reported.
“It only implies that Muslims lack the intellect to resolve disagreements through proper dialogue and communication, which is far from the truth.”
The statement was in keeping with Dawes’ own view that “no cartoon is as insulting as the assumption Muslims will react with violence”.
Invitation
The newspaper invited community leaders and ordinary readers to continue communicating their devotion both online and to the newspaper.
“We have learnt an enormous amount since the publication of the cartoon about the depth of reverence in which Muslims hold the Prophet.”
Muslim leaders were compiling a combined statement at the time of publication and were unable to comment immediately.
The second article is the formal paper’s formal abasement and acknowledgement of dhimmitude:
Mail & Guardian Regrets Muhammad Cartoon
The Mail & Guardian (M&G) newspaper regrets the offence caused by a cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad published on Friday, editor Nic Dawes said.
Dawes said the newspaper, along with cartoonist Jonathan Shapiro, better known as Zapiro, met with Muslim community representatives and business leaders in Johannesburg on Wednesday to discuss their concerns.
“We explained to them that we did not intend to cause any harm and we distanced ourselves from the islamophobic imagery depicted on a Facebook group,” Dawes told Sapa in a telephonic interview.
The cartoon, published on Friday, depicts Muhammad lying on a couch complaining to a psychiatrist: “Other prophets have followers with a sense of humour!”
Dawes said publishing the cartoon did not mean the newspaper supported the Facebook group “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” that sparked outrage in Pakistan and other Muslim countries.
In distancing itself from the group, the M&G explained on its website the group claimed to be a protest against restrictions on freedom of speech and religious fanaticism, but had seemingly become a forum for venting islamophobic sentiment.
“We certainly didn’t intend the cartoon to be an endorsement of those kinds of sentiments, which we repudiate,” Dawes wrote on the site.
“We regret the offence caused by the cartoon and the pain experienced by many Muslims around the country.”
On Wednesday Dawes said in light of what the paper had learned since publishing the cartoon on Friday, it decided to review its editorial policy on religion, especially where it concerned the Prophet Muhammad.
The review would be informed by consultation with a variety of parties within the country and based on “the constitutional values of freedom of expression and the M&G‘s own values of social justice”.
“We have committed to not reproduce depictions of the Prophet during the review period.”
Dawes could not give a time frame on how long the review process would take, but said it may be a couple of months. The review did not mean the M&G was going to relinquish its editorial independence.
“I cannot commit myself to any religious rules in editorial considerations,” he said, but consideration would be given to respect all communities.
“We parted very amicably with the community and I am very pleased that we can come out of it with one of those very special South African solutions where dialogue managed to resolve a very difficult situation,” Dawes said about the meeting.
If you can stomach any more, see the full statement from Nic Dawes (pdf).
Hat tip: TB.
16 comments:
The Muslim population of South Africa is, thankfully, less than 2% Baron.
They are traditionally quite moderate but now getting more uppity by the day, and radicalism is spreading.
Tim --
You're right; I dropped a decimal place when looking at the figures from the database. My bad!
But if that's the case, the situation is even more alarming: a 1.5% tail manages to wag a really big dog.
I liked this 'friendly' bit: “It only implies that Muslims lack the intellect to resolve disagreements through proper dialogue and communication, which is far from the truth.”
I didn't take the cartoon as implying anything about the intellectual ability of Muslims but about their emotional resilience, i.e. they can't take a joke. This statement itself implies the very same thing, i.e. that they cannot take a joke as can be inferred from the implication that the disagreement will be resolved and we know what that means, that the joker will withdraw the joke and apologise. Muslims cannot agree to disagree. If Mohammed were as Muslims like to imagine, i.e. the perfect man, he would have had a sense of humour surely. Why can't they?
what a non-surprise from a dhimmi paper that doesn't get it and never will.
Dymphna and Baron, your responses to me on the other Zapiro Mohammed cartoon thread do not address the points I raise about Zapiro and the M&G. Dymphna makes a big deal of the links I put up not being in google blogger code, endlessly going on about it and how difficult and arduous it is for people to copy and paste a link from one window and then open up another one, rather than just click on a link. Are you serious? Yeah I know it's such a major effort, it takes like five seconds longer.
btw I didn't know I was only supposed to fawn all over you guys, and not call you out when you overlook something important.
Baron writes:
"As Dymphna has already pointed out, you seem to be entirely unable to read. What part of "crusader for social justice and other progressive causes" didn't you understand?"
I understood and read all of it. What did that have to do with the points I was making? Namely Zapiro and the M&G are useful idiot propagandists for the Muslim Jihad in the arena of international conflict, and that Zapiro is a Jew of the Chomsky and Richard Goldstone variety, as his political cartoons prove. There was no recognition by GoV of the exact nature of some of his cartoons and how "progressive" they actually are, eg the one of Ariel Sharon dressed as a Nazi, based on the non-existent Jenin "massacre", a cartoon which may well have featured in the Iranian regime's 'Holocaust cartoon' contest organised in response to the Danish Mohammed cartoon controversy some years ago. An irony I remarked upon in that comment that you deleted.
Don't see how the Baron writing about Zapiro and the M&G's "crusade for social justice and progessive causes" tells us SPECIFICALLY that Zapiro is one of the most consistently dishonest and useful idiot political cartoonists for the Jihad in the Western world, he is as bad as any. The M&G just doesn't have the reach and influence of the NY Times and the Guardian (being in SA), that's all. Zapiro is one of the most well-known dhimmi propagandists for Islam in South Africa. Hence his hypocrisy, his double-standards and double-think which you did not call him and the M&G out on. Or is that just somehow implied by speaking of Zapiro's and the M&G's "progressiveness" and crusade for social justice?
But the amazing thing is that they evidently hadn’t the faintest idea of what they were setting themselves up for.
'Progressives', right?
Those are the people who routinely believe Conservatives are wrong - based on their own ignorance & prejudice...
Something we all need to recognise and it's important to emphasise that the cartoon Zapiro drew of Mohammed is of course a dhimmi cartoon itself. It shows Mohammed as tolerant, enlightened, unlike his rabid prone-to-violence followers. It is therefore a pro-Mohammed cartoon, a pro-Islam cartoon therefore - something we would expect from dhimmis like Zapiro and the M&G. In other words the cartoon itself shows Zapiro misses the whole real meaning of the Danish cartoon controvesy and its fall-out, and the why of it. Of course GoV points this out, but its important to emphasise the cartoon Zapiro drew is in fact sinister, since it sells the lie that Mohammed was a good decent fella and that the radicals just hijack the RoP and misrepresent Islam. All this is implied in the cartoon of Mo as a good tolerant guy unlike many of his violent followers.
Hence Zapiro's and the M&G's obtuseness and their failure to understand what this is all about, as their capitulation reveals. But then they are progressive Leftists, so that's to be expected. My point is their dhimmi capitulation is consistent with Zapiro's dhimmi cartoon itself. The dishonest and utterly clueless dhimmi nature of the Mo cartoon of Zapiro's was entirely missed at JihadWatch and elsewhere though. There was a failure to recognise that drawing Mo as a good, tolerant enlightened man is as bad as giving in to the threats from Muslims and resorting to self-censorship - either way Islam gets its way and the West is hoodwinked as to what is going on. In other words Zapiro's cartoon is part of the problem and is entirely consistent with his overall dhimmi philosophy. Anti-dhimmis were so happy to see some cartoonist and paper in the West have the courage to publish a cartoon of Mo, that the dhimmi pro-Islam nature of the cartoon passed them by or is seen as a non-issue!
Of course the Muslims that responded with anger and threats are too obtuse to recognise this. They just get upset and knee-jerk react like Pavlov's dogs to any image of Mo, even one that dishonestly portrays him as good and wise. There is a failure on their part to realise that Zapiro and the M&G were selling propaganda on Islam's behalf and thus furthering the goals of Islam in the West.
In other words, angered Muslims are not as cunning or clever as they think in furthering the ambitions of their religion in the West and in SA. If they were clever they would have patted Zapiro on the back for selling Islam as a RoP which Zapiro did do. It doesn't ultimately matter too much though since the Left are wedded to Islam no matter what and will continue their marriage made in Hell. Islam can do what it likes - the Left in SA (and those watching on) has learned its lesson and will not upset its domineering Muslim partner again quite so easily, if at all.
Given what a total train wreck South Africa already is, permit me to be the first to dub this:
"A tempest in a piss pot."
Actually I see the value in Islam's absolute forbiddance of the depiction of Mohamad .
Given the rapacity of this cult and modern technology can you imagine every square inch of public space splattered with the image of that freak !
They are traditionally quite moderate but now getting more uppity by the day, and radicalism is spreading.
The ANC government has encouraged Al Qaeda to operate among them. It also cultivates strong ties with Hamas.
Lawrence, you basically point out why Zapiro is being featured here - he drew a cartoon that was criticising Muslims (through the voice of Mohammed, who, as you rightly point out, is shown as a fairly resonable chap, contrary to the truth). But the entire point of EDMD (which I did not participate in, for reasons of time and chivalry; I'll not stoop to the level of the left to win the fight against Islam - I'll do it properly. Just the facts) was to give Muslims the chance not to get offended. And you say they did, and they shot themselves in the foot.
Point and counterpoint.
Also, Zapiro is acknowledged as a lefty in the Baron's post when he describes Zapiro as "crusader for social justice and other progressive causes" (as you have quoted). Part and parcel with such a crusade is the crusade against Zionism, racism, Islamophobia, etc, etc, etc. His progressivism is recognised in its entirety in that one statement. It is enough to know that he is not one of us and that he would despise and condescend towards us. Specifics become honestly meaningless and of superfluous relevance to the discussion at hand.
It's there in the subtext, and sometimes subtext can be just as effective, if not more so, than an anvil-dropping rant.
“We have committed to not reproduce depictions of the Prophet during the review period.”
"A meeting between Muslim leaders and the Mail & Guardian after the publication of a controversial cartoon has left M&G CEO Hoosain Karjieker proud of the community and the process followed to reach a resolution."
"I’m delighted actually."
You can say many nasty things about Maréchal Pétain, but I do not think any historian ever suggested that he was "proud" and "delighted" to have collaborated with the Nazis during WW II.
"While interest in the incident has been high, with traffic volumes doubling on the M&G site, there was no violent backlash."
They are being grateful to Muslims because there was no violence. We are supposed to understand that violence is the normal reaction when Muslims are offended. Violence is legitimate and is to be expected. Lack of it is a favor you should be grateful for.
"While rejecting the cartoon, the MJC called death threats against the cartoonist “un-Islamic”, saying such threats had no place in the religion or society, the Cape Argus reported."
They have no place in a society where Muslims are only 1.5 %. Wait till they grow to 8 % (as in France, say).
That is so beautifully and hilariously put:"If they have any sense at all, they now understand the rules of the game: Islam trumps Marxism every time, without exception. Any leftist who thinks he can cha-cha with the prophet without assuming the Full Submission Position is sadly mistaken." In fact it is the perfect quote. I will request permission and credit you when I do quote it!Thank you!
Lawrence --
I can see that I need to be more explicit.
You’re right that Zapiro is a progressive Jew of that modern type we know so well — a “suicide Jew” who will gladly see his own people destroyed if it advances the worldwide Socialist cause. That was quite clear from looking at his other cartoons.
I could have chosen to write about that, but I didn’t.
You’re right that the cartoon of Mohammed implied that he was an urbane civilized modern person, and that this depiction helped airbrush out the facts about Islam and its prophet. This is true. At least one of the Danish cartoonists did the same thing, portraying Mohammed as just another guy.
I could have chosen to point this out, but I didn’t.
I could have also connected all the brouhaha over Zapiro’s cartoon to the much greater crisis in South Africa: the accelerating genocide against white people. When the time comes, the kids with machetes will probably disagree with Storm Front and classify Zapiro as “white”. He’ll be consigned to the same internment camp and mass grave as the Boers and the British. No special exemption for Zionist apes and pigs!
I could have chosen to write about that, but I didn’t.
There are lots of other things I could have written about, but didn’t. My posts are essays of limited scope, and I have very limited time. Hence I am terse rather than prolix when I write most of my pieces.
Neither you nor anyone else may tell me what to put in a post and what to leave out. If these issues are important to you, and you feel they are crying out for discussion, that’s why God gave you a blog. Use it.
You are free to cover South Africa thoroughly, and everyone can read about it on your blog. You can send me URLs and excerpts. If you write clearly and effectively, you may even want to submit one of your efforts as a possible guest-post here at GoV.
But I’m not obliged to cover everything that you think I should cover. I can’t be expected to regard as crucial everything that strikes you as crucial.
And don’t presume to tell me what I know about, and what I have “missed entirely”. I don’t write about everything I’m aware of.
In return, I won’t ask you to cover (or be aware of) the electoral politics of the congressional midterms in Central Virginia, nor do I expect you to report the latest on the Jamaat ul-Fuqra terrorist compounds in Charlotte County and Prince Edward County. Those are on my patch, and you cover what happens on your patch.
It’s a fair trade, wouldn’t you say?
Baron Bodissey
RE:
"But the amazing thing is that they evidently hadn’t the faintest idea of what they were setting themselves up for. Did they really think that because they were fervent progressives, they would be spared the wrath of the Universal Muslim Rage Boy? "
It is baffling---> It just does not compute!
This is a great book:
The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America
by Andrew C. McCarthy
http://www.amazon.com/Andrew-C-McCarthy/e/B001JP7YVI/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1
The anarcho-socialistic Left thinks it can use Islamic Terror as a tool for its own ends.
Forgetting that Islamic Terror has it own end: Islam.
Where all infidel dogs get kicked.
Or killed.
Rope to their hangmen is all these dupes are selling.
“We parted very amicably with the community and I am very pleased that we can come out of it with one of those very special South African solutions where dialogue managed to resolve a very difficult situation,” Dawes said about the meeting.
Even more difficult to resolve is the towering ignorance demonstrated by Mail & Guardian editor, Nic Dawes. His stunning degree of self-delusion borders on suicidal if he imagines that he "parted very amicably" with Muslims who now hate him even more than ever because of the weakness he showed by caving into their hypersensitive demands. As Pat Condell is so fond of pointing out:
"… every concession to Islam is the thin end of an even bigger wedge."
What Dawes really achieved was enabling his Muslim enemies to an even greater degree. He has given them tacit permission to take offense and agitate further when presented with something less offensive than a cartoon.
Nothing, repeat nothing was resolved in anyone’s favor, save that of the South African ummah. After all, since when has "dialogue" ever resolved anything with Muslims save their determination to be even more demanding and intractable on all future occasions?
Furthermore, the entire notion that there was anything to apologize for in the first place only serves to further entrench the entire Stigmatization Fallacy that permits Muslims to continue being crybaby, tantrum-throwing schoolyard bullies.
gama: Given the rapacity of this cult and modern technology can you imagine every square inch of public space splattered with the image of that freak !
This almost makes the Islamic prohibition of depicting Mohammad something to be thankful for! Now, if only they had a similar ban on whining, pissing and moaning.
Robert Marchenoir: They are being grateful to Muslims because there was no violence. We are supposed to understand that violence is the normal reaction when Muslims are offended. Violence is legitimate and is to be expected. Lack of it is a favor you should be grateful for.
Le bingo! Much like the rapist who says that you should be glad he’s not going to murder you.
Any leftist who thinks he can cha-cha with the prophet without assuming the Full Submission Position is sadly mistaken.
As Juniper in the Desert noted, this is the real issue at hand, despite Liberalism’s abject refusal to admit or understand the incredibly dangerous game it is playing. Many Conservatives and Muslims know damn well what will be the upshot of Liberalism’s dalliance with Islam. Only those on the Left are capable of deluding themselves − in the same manner as Nic Dawes − that they can let these barbarians in the gate yet magically yank the reins from their hands once the existing power structure has been deconstructed.
To parallel Profitsbeard’s line of thought, with Communism on the wane, suicidal Western rope merchants now hawk their wares to Islam.
Post a Comment