I cannot express in words my utter disgust that Cardiff University – an institution of learning – could consider it acceptable to do recall the entire print run of its student newspaper for printing an ‘anti-Islamic’ cartoon in the context of what the university itself admits was a balanced article:
A press release from the Student Union confirmed that the edition had been pulled and that the editor, Tom Wellingham, and three journalists had been suspended from the newspaper pending a university investigation. A spokesperson said the newspaper was recalled after a member of the Student Union noticed the article whilst delivering the paper on Saturday morning. “The edition featured a short piece about the controversy surrounding the Danish satirical cartoons,” she said.
“The article was entirely balanced but included a picture of one of the cartoons. We recalled the issues straight away. We do a print run of 10,000 copies and all but 200 have been accounted for.
If we cannot express ideas and debate freely even in a university, where can we do so? We might as well all just pack up and go home now.
(Thanks to the Pub Philosopher for pointing out this story).
What would be achieved by publishing the pictures in the university’s newspaper?
What is the reasoning to do that?
Hasn’t there been enought turmoil due to the cartoons – or claimed to be due to the cartoons?
Take into consideration that Muslims are also going to the Cardiff University..
Considering the feelings of others is important, but I think it is more important to consider freedom of speech here. Why should the university newspaper not be able to include a picture of a cartoon (deemed offensive by others or not) in amongst an article of words about those very cartoons, which is – by the admission of the university – a balanced article?
And, equally, how many people at Cardiff University will have seen the cartoons? Not a lot, I’d imagine. Particularly, how many of the Muslim population of Cardiff University have seen those cartoons? Again, not that many, I’d guess. Perhaps if they saw them, they could decide for themselves just how offensive these cartoons are.
I believe that everybody have heard about cartoons at this point and anybody who has even little interest of seeing them have seen them in internet (obviously not speaking of the population in Middle East, but the European population with access to many news outlets). However, by publishing the cartoons (even as a part of an article) the newspaper and so the University itself takes a stand on the issue. After all, it is their paper and it is their reputation that we are talking about.
As many of the larger newspaper, NY Times, BBC, Helsingin Sanomat, Der Spiegel, decided not to publish the cartoons, but just referred to them, I think that is quite good decision from the University paper too. Also good to consider the consequences that might come into reality in quite closed “society”, which is the university and its campus.
I do understand you point of view too, though. Why should we restrict our fundamental freedoms, just because it causes some unrest and anger in other cultures, or causes unrest in generally? Aren’t our liberties and freedoms just reasons to fight for? I believe so, however, I would add more respect to the mix, during the times those liberties and freedoms are not in danger to cease to exist.
Freedoms are always followed by responsibilities.
I absolutely agree with you that freedoms carry responsibilities, although we clearly disagree on whether in this case it is responsible or not to publish these cartoons.
To my mind, publishing something that will be considered by many to be offensive for no good reason, or purely to offend, is irresponsible. If these cartoons had been very widely published, I would agree that it is irresponsible to re-publish them in a student newspaper.
But the problem is that they weren’t widely published in the UK. Yes, some newspapers did publish some of the cartoons – but not in any of the papers I generally read. And (as far as I recall) they weren’t shown at all on television. Had I not been specifically interested in the story, I probably wouldn’t have seen the cartoons. And, on the same reasoning, I think it is fair to assume that the majority of people who are peripherally interested in the issue haven’t seen them either.
Which is why – in the interests of informed debate – I think it is appropriate to publish the cartoons in an otherwise balanced article.
(Which – just to be clear – isn’t to say that I think they must be published – just that I defend the decision of these editors to do so).
All the talk of responsibilty and consideration for others feelings is complete rubbish. Its about FEAR.
Intimidation has suppressed these cartoons simple as that.
Andy,
There seems to be a cleavage in generally about the responsibilities on freedom of expression; and who should carry them in the liberal democracy. Government? The independent press? The chief editor?
It would take us page after page to tackle down deeper analysis to the whole saga. However, I believe that with confidence we can say that only winners in this whole issue are the extreme Islamists and the European Right Wing..
i find muslims calling english kafirs, treating their women as animals etc offensive, but i have to put up with muslims every day.
their false prophet muhamed married a six year old girl and had sex with her from nine. that makes him a sex offending nonce.
if all uk people boycotted their shops and businesses , the uk would not be such a nice place for the sandjigs to move to.
if you spend money in muslim shops you are SUPPORTING TERRORISM
Publishing a cartoon for the amusement of readers (or in the case of Jyllands-posten, as a political statement) is different from publishing them becuase they’re the subject of an article. The latter is appropriate even if the cartoon is islamophobic.
It’s like the use/mention distinction, I suppose, only w visual communication.
Huh, I didn’t notice this was an old post, I had folowed an referral. Silly me.