From the Guardian Patricia Fara said
senior college officials were locked in urgent talks about how the material came to be published and what action to take against the student.
In a statement issued by Clare College, a senior tutor, Patricia Fara, said: "Clare is an open and inclusive college. A student-produced satirical publication has caused widespread distress throughout the Clare community.
"The college finds the publication and the views expressed abhorrent. Reflecting the gravity of the situation, the college immediately began an investigation and disciplinary procedures are in train."
Stupid fucking cow. What views were they? Let's go to the press release from the National Secular Society
“Satire aimed at religion is no different to satire aimed at any other ideas and should not be punished or restrained. The freedom to poke fun at those who take themselves too seriously is a time-honoured tradition in this country. Regrettably, it is rapidly being eroded by cases like this. We urge you to think again and stand four-square behind the satirists, instead of disciplining them.Hear, hear.
We would like to remind all concerned that satirising religion – even if that religion is Islam – is not racism, as this episode has been dubbed. Religion and race have very different characteristics. We would have heartily joined the condemnation if the satire had been racially motivated, but according to the reports we have read, the issue of Clareification in question was devoted to religious satire.
“We would like to draw your attention to a case that is pending in France at the moment, in which a satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, has been brought to court by an Islamic organisation for re-publishing the Danish cartoons that are at the centre of so much controversy. In the French case, academics, artists and politicians of all hues have rushed to the defence of the magazine. Letters of support and statements defending free speech have been issued by some of the most influential people in the country – including Mr Sarkozy, who is potentially the next President of France.
“Your own reaction – as reported – does not bear comparison with the principled French reactions. It sides with the oppressors and censors who are doing so much to retard open debate in academe and elsewhere.
“We call on you to support the publishers of the magazine and to tell the would-be censors that their protests have been heard but that they will not prevail. Without the freedom to debate, discuss and, yes, mock, ideas and ideologies, there can be no informed political discourse. Satire is an indispensable tool in the operating of a truly free society.”
From the Independent
In a rare move, Clare College fellows have called a Court of Discipline, which will sit in judgment on the student. An insider at the college said: "It's the first time in living memory a Court of Discipline has been set up."
The college chaplain has also been involved in talks aimed at trying to ease racial tension and is known to have met members of the Islamic Society and a local imam to discuss how best to quell fears over potential racial clashes.
Major cultural cringe. Euch. I have an inkling the local Imam and the Islamic society would be opposed to satirising Mohammed. Just a an inkling. Mohammed, according to "authentic" sources did say on the subject of free-thought.
Our values aren't all the same. Values such as equality, freedom of expression trump totalitarian quasi-facist ideals, for fucksake.
Thanks to Religion of Pieces and Steve at Pub Philosopher, who has several excellent posts up.
Also Granny Wetherwax at New English Review and Brownie at Harrys Place in the comments sums up the outrage quite succcintly when addressing another commentor
Indeed.I'll tell you what's "offensive". What's "offensive" is that some 19-year old student has had to be whisked off to a secret location because there are now very real concerns for his safety, and all because he printed a cartoon some other people find "offensive".
If you want to get angry about something, fucking get angry about that.
5 comments:
If he had published a cartoon of Jesus with a bunch of students throwing turds at him, no problem. But Mo is special. Such is the dhimmitude that our universities have submitted willingly, even eagerly.
Even the collaborationist surrender-monkeys have got more guts than the Tooniversity authorities:
http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=662
At the same site...
http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=663
... one of the Muslims goes into a self-parodying rant:
Asim Mumtaz, president of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association:
"I’m horrified and shocked. In such a seat of learning, I am horrified that things could stoop to this level.
I’m actually shocked that intelligent people know how offensive this cartoon is and that they have decided to reprint it in such a horrible manner. It’s disgusting.
I hope the magazine and the JCR apologise for what they have done. We thought we had gone past this and that people realised there is a difference between freedom of speech and outright insult.
I am very shocked, I would not imagine this in Cambridge, maybe some other university, city or country. We have such intelligent people and they understand the consequences of their actions. "
Has anyone got his/her paws on a copy of Crucification yet? The original report at Harry's Place generated close to 500 comments.
The follow-up report says there is something extra in there that is "the most vile and unambiguous Islamophobia". Wow! Now, that really piqued my interest.
Here's an update on this story.
Source: http://pommygranate.blogspot.com/2007/02/clareification-update.html
I received this email from a student at Clare College. Very interesting perspective.
Hello,
I noticed you said on your blog that you wanted a Clare student's
perspective on the Mohammed cartoons thing. I'm a second year student
at Clare and I know the guest editor well. I'm not going to give his
name, as he has asked personally that no one does and I see no need to
violate that request. A few points, though, that might not be
apparent to the outsider. Lots of the blogosphere seems to be
perplexed that no Clare students are making comment. I think there are
three main reasons for this, none of which are that Clare students are
timid in the face of religion. First, the publication actually
happened quite a while ago (nearly 3 weeks) so lots of people just
don't think it's that exciting any more. Most don't read blogs and the
press have dropped it, so it seems to most people that the story has
petered out.
Second, there has been a huge, even unprecedented perhaps, amount of
discussion about this on the Union of Clare Students (UCS) internal
forum (only accessible with a Cambridge IP address). I mean 25 full
pages of discussion, around 10,000 page views. I can assure you that
almost all the posts are in support of the guest editor (even those
that express disgust with the content) and there are people who are
preparing action in the event that the guest editor is punished.
Third, what the blogosphere doesn't seem to realise/know is that lots
of the British press (especially on the left) love nothing better than
to get a good anti-elitism anti-Cambridge story. It's been great to
see so many pro-freedom of speech blogs shout out support for
Clareification, but this time last week it looked like the opposite
would be the case: lots of anti-elite press coverage making us out to
be institutionally racist. Everyone agreed that could only be a bad
thing for us (especially with regard to admissions and donations) so
most people thought it was better to shut up and let the left-wing
press get over the story as quickly as possible. If you could see the
UCS forum, you'd know what I mean. There's been lots and lots of
internal pressure on the college authorities to support the guest
editor in private, but most of us realise that when it comes to
Cambridge and things the liberal media disapprove of, no publicity is
good publicity. The silence in general, insofar as it really exists,
is much more the result of a sense of solidarity as Cambridge students
than timidity in the face of outrage.
Some other brief points: it's been reported that the college has cut
the magazine's funding. This is bollocks – the college doesn't fund it
to begin with, the UCS does. Second, the big issue for college is the
use of communal money to call Mohammed a "violent paedophile", not the
fact that those words were printed. No one seems to have a problem
with the guest editor doing that with his own money, but more people
were concerned that – though they supported the editor's right to say
it in principle – they didn't want to be subsidising it.
I hope this helps answer some of your questions.
A Clare Student
Sarcastic commentary on the double standards:
http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/cambridge-student-hiding-posted-mohammad-cartoon
Post a Comment