In the name of academic freedom, Clare College, Cambridge, should have defended the pupil responsible for printing cartoons depicting Muhammad.
A Cambridge student is in hiding because he dared to print one of those infamous Danish cartoons and have a laugh at Islam's expense. Yet if offended Muslims want people to stop laughing at them, this latest incident will only have backfired.
I bet I'm not the only one whose reaction was to go straight to Google Images and type in "Muhammad". And yes, you find lots of pictures of him who must not be pictured - "about 88,400" to be precise. The top 20 includes some ancient depictions (and I've no idea whether these offended anyone), a selection of Muhammad clipart, and several cartoons. I especially like the first one that Google throws up - Muhammad looking at himself in a mirror and exclaiming "Blasphemy". Ha ha. Then there's one I regularly use in my lectures on memes. It shows some suicide bombers arriving in heaven to be met by the man himself shouting "Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins".
These are just simple jokes, available to all, but when a student at Clare College reprinted one in the college magazine, offended students complained in droves and the college started an investigation. Even worse, senior tutor Patricia Fara said, "The college finds the publication and the views expressed abhorrent." But isn't it the college's reaction that is abhorrent? I think the "offended" students are the real culprits, and the college should have had the guts to stand up to them in the name of academic freedom - and the good old freedom to laugh at ideas we find silly or disagree with.
The whole sad story is told on Cambridge University's "Varsity" site and in the Cambridge Evening News. On February 2 Clare College's prize-winning student paper, Clareification, published a special issue renamed "Crucification" and largely devoted to religious satire (and presumably, from its name, not just Islam). In its regular "lookalikes of the week" the cartoon of Muhammad was set next to a photograph of the president of the union of Clare students, along with a caption suggesting that one was "a violent paedophile" while the other was "a prophet of God, a great leader and an example to us all".
OK it's offensive, and funny, and that's what satire is all about. But the magazine apparently "provoked anger in Cambridge", with enraged students complaining in droves. A second-year student said these were "some of the most offensive things I've ever seen." The president of the university's Islamic society said "I found the magazine hugely offensive ... freedom of expression does not constitute a freedom to offend."
I say to him - oh yes it does, and you should be ashamed of yourself. You didn't have to read the magazine. You didn't have to spread the news about it. And you certainly didn't have to encourage other Muslims to believe that claiming to be offended gives them the right to stop the rest of us having a laugh. Yet you did so.
We are talking here about a student magazine read by a handful of students at one college at one university. Student magazines have always been satirical and satire hurts. The president of Clare students might have been offended too, along with any other students who get picked on by their student mag. I expect the politicians who are regularly lampooned in Private Eye feel offended and upset, but unless they have been libelled they accept it. The freedom to laugh and poke fun at things we disagree with is fundamental to freedom of thought.
And freedom of thought is fundamental to education, scholarship, and learning - all the things that Cambridge University should be standing up for. Great thinkers and scientists are always offending people by overthrowing the dogmas and false beliefs of the past. People were offended at the thought that earth was not the centre of the universe; they were offended at the idea that mountains and rivers were created by natural processes; they were offended at the idea that species were not immutable and they were offended at the suggestion that we humans might be descended from apes. Happily, in the end the evidence overwhelmed them.
I hope the same will happen with these claims, and society as a whole will not let religious believers claim a right not to be offended. When I contacted the college the master told me that the student has not been reprimanded and the disciplinary process will determine whether he has infringed any regulations. I sincerely hope he has not and that the college will offer him and his magazine their support. The freedom to think, to argue, and to laugh at silly ideas must be allowed to flourish.
*****************
Comments
Comment No. 459138
GBRSue
You only have part of the story. The students are now out of hiding.
They have, however, been interviewed by the Cambridgshire police, under caution, in relation to an offence under the Public Order Act 1986. The offence in question is, I understand, either section 4A or section 5: possibly with a religiously aggravated element.
They may still be charged with intentionally causing religiously aggravated harrassment, alarm or distress. The CPS has yet to announce it's decision.
The Cambridge Muslim Welfare Society issued a statement calling for a *full and unconditional apology* from the students, and invoking *its duty before Almighty Allah and before humanity to defend the honour and good name of the Final Prophet*. The reports suggest that such an apology was given.
I am in the fortunate position of having seen a copy of the magazine. It is mostly full of college in jokes, which are completely incomprehensible. The religious theme is largely tied into these college in jokes.
The issue also includes:
- A lengthy article which ridicules the Gospel of St Mark - which was apparently given out to the student body by the Christian Union - and exploring the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Gospel. A certain proportion of the article is in Biblical Greek. The article is closely argued, and cites academic sources. It is pretty hard hitting, and includes the suggestion that the Messianic prophecies have not been fulfilled. It compares Jesus to a *builder who'd fucked off with the deposit and has left a note saying that he'll come back to finish the job*. It also suggests that the early evangalists did not mention Jesus, or the resurrection. I could go into further details: but you get the general idea.
- A picture of the *Behead those who insult Islam/Freedom go to Hell* protestors
* A quiz, in multiple choice form, which purports to help decide whether they are "the Islamic world". Students are asked to decide what their reaction would be to finding a *ginger haired man* kicking a puppy, being called a rapist, or - echoing the recent controversy involving the Pope's speech - being asked to come up with something an unnamed religious figure *brought into the world which was not evil*. The answers range from *ignore it*, *laugh at it* *argue against it* to *blame the puppy* and raping the person who made the accusation.
A short editorial which rambles on about the unedifying content of the Gospels, the provinence of the Christian imagery of the cover, includes a few Clare College in-jokes, and then says *Plus I hate Islam*.
- An unintelligible cartoon about Richard Dawkins, which features a woman in a niqab.
I've covered the issue here.
Follow the links backwards.
Comment No. 459143
Excellent, excellent piece Sue - if the students who are responsible are punished it will be an outrage. I too will be contacting Clare in order to make the same point. If students at a university are punished for promoting offensive ideas then we really have returned to some kind of dark age. A civilized society should be judged on its ability to deal with offensive ideas - does it deal for them through rational debate or does it censor and censure those involved - we seem to be living in the latter type of society.
The Guardian (and the rest of the print/brodacasting media) should hang its head in shame for its role in this fiasco - the Guardian did not publish the pictures and therefore helped to deny adults in a democracy a chance to decide their own views on the situation.
reposted from: CIF
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments
No comments:
Post a Comment