Monkey Images, Prophet Cartoons and the Right to Offend

Much has been made about the racist image of Michelle Obama which depicts her with monkey features. Despite the fact that the picture – which was the top search result for ‘Michelle Obama’ on Google Images – is blatantly racist and offensive, Google refused to take it down. Search today and there’s many more ‘Michelle Obama as monkey’ images available. As a statement from Google read:

Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it.

And quite right too. Had Google removed the image on the basis that it was offensive, then surely it would have been the start of a very subjective and slippery slope. Had Google removed the image, then it would have been swamped with individuals and groups claiming that one image after another was offensive to them. Cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad and various types of pornography would have been the first of many, many millions of requests.

Whilst we may not agree with some images and indeed ideas – they may sicken, horrify, anger, upset and more – we must maintain the right to the freedom of expression which also must include the right to offend as well as the right to be offended. That is, as long as it remains within the boundaries of the law.

For all our sakes, we must defend the decision of those like Google even when it goes against all the things that we would normally stand for.

Everything on this site by Chris Allen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. www.chris-allen.co.uk.

 

The Blair Presidency Facade

Much has been made in recent days about the ’snubbing’ of Tony Blair as European President in favour of the relatively unknown Belgian, Herman Van Rompuy. The reasons for the apparent snub depend largely on the newspaper of preference with the Guardian this morning favouring the story that as Blair had apparently recommended Gordon Brown ‘drop’ the campaign weeks ago, it once again highlighted Brown’s incompetence and lack of political judgment.

For the Times, the story was possibly a little more straightforward:

Gordon Brown joined the seven other European socialist group leaders in backing Mr Van Rompuy and Lady Ashton after accepting that there was too little support for Mr Blair to be president.

Downing Street’s U-turn was a humiliating snub to Mr Blair, Mr Brown’s predecessor, who had hoped to take the plum role, but was opposed by key EU leaders who feared he would be too presidential.

For the Times then, it was a Euro-fear of Blair’s ego rather than anything else.

Having just returned from Brussels and the European Parliament, the story and reporting on the other side of the Channel is much different. Having spoken to a number of informed individuals, they stated that the only place in Europe where the Blair ’story’ is still news is in the UK. The rest of Europe had rarely – if ever – considered Blair a viable option for the Presidency. As ever, the European view was that this was another example of Britain’s own sense of self-importance. As one person suggested, it’s a construction of the British media: if they hadn’t constructed this story, who in Britain would care about the European presidency?

Fair point, but for me it reminded me of the World Cup. As with every other World Cup in living memory, so next year’s finals in South Africa will be no different. In Britain, the media and the general public will whip themselves up into a hysteria about how we are capable of winning the competition. Elsewhere, England will be given as much hope as indeed South Korea or Egypt (i.e. none).

The view from inside is always different from the view from the outside. I just think that sometimes Britain forgets – or even doesn’t care – about the outside view.

Everything on this site by Chris Allen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. www.chris-allen.co.uk.

Why oh why…? “Muslims must combat hate speech” take two

Further to yesterday’s post and my observation that “Since 9/11, Muslim after Muslim after Muslim organisation have fell over themselves to apologise and distance themselves from a whole raft of incidents that have been perpetrated by other Muslims with whom they have no association with whatsoever except that they hold the same yet differently interpreted set of beliefs”, I opened my inbox this morning to find that the Quilliam Foundation – the world’s first self-proclaimed counter-extremism think tank – had decided to go one further.

Instead of disassociating themselves from the events in Texas – something that they clearly have no association with – they have named and shamed a handful of Muslim organisations that have failed to disassociate themselves from either the actions of Major Nidal Hassan or “the engineer-cum-cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki” who has apparently been outspoken in his support of Hassan.

Whilst Quilliam begrudgingly praises the disassociation offered by Jamiat Ihya Minhaj al-Sunnah (JIMAS) and the Islamic Society of Britain (ISB) from al-Awlaki, they declare that the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE), the London Muslim Centre, the Islam Channel, the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS), the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and the Cordoba Foundation through their lack of vocal disassociation from al-Awlaki are sending “a message of hostility towards our country, armed forces and American allies”.

Really?

“Muslims must combat hate speech”: Why…?

It is sometimes far more interesting to read the comments posted in response to articles on the Guardian’s, Comment is Free than it is reading the articles themselves. This is not to say that the articles are poor, but rarely do they pose really challenging questions. Instead, they typically say what might be expected and ‘fit’ the generic message of particular writer (as indeed this blog does of me).

This is true of Inayat Bunglawala’s latest post on Comment is Free, ‘Muslims Must Combat Hate Speech’. Well written? Yes. Challenging? Not really.

In fact after every ‘Muslim’ incident since 9/11, one or more Muslim organisation, spokesman (rather than spokeswoman), scholar and/ or commentator has written something similar, stressing the need for ‘true’ scholars to preach ‘true’ Islam. Indeed, many have themselves reinforced the notion that only ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Muslims exist – and never the twain shall meet.

In response to Inayat’s article – which draws a little to heavily on the opinion of his ‘friends’ for my liking – 1830 responded:

The idea that Muslim associations should be praised for dissociating themselves from the actions of the lunatic at Fort Worth is utter nonsense. Its what any decent, rational person would do.

This dissociation in itself no more deserves praise than the man who never beats women deserves praise for never beating women, or footballers deserve praise for not cheating. Not beating women and not cheating are (or should be) the norm – we do not praise people for not doing them any more than we praise people for not robbing banks.

And they have a point don’t they…???

Meet the Grewals: a great British family

Channel 4 tonight aired the first episode of ‘The Family’, introducing the British public to the Grewals. It is the first time that a British Indian family has undergone the rigours – and scrutiny – of reality tv.

The first episode introduced us to the three generations of Grewals who all live in their five-bedroom pebble-dashed house directly under the Heathrow flight path in Windsor. There’s Sarbjit and Arvinder (mum and dad) who have been together for 35 years; eldest son Sunny together with his fiance Shay; pregnant daughter Kaki and her husband Jeet; and youngest son Tindy.

The series begun with the Grewals planning a traditional Indian wedding for Sunny and Shay. But rather than take a fetishistic view that accentuated the family’s otherness, the show focused on the fact that the Grewals are like so many other ‘normal’ families in today’s Britain. And with this, viewers were introduced to the fact that there was a dark cloud hanging over the wedding preparations because of the breakdown in the relationship between Shay and her own mother. It’s strong and emotional but essentially normal: something that everyone that has had family problems or tensions will identify with.

At the same time though, and as with most families, the stress and strains of everyday life are lightened by the banter between Sarbjit and Arvinder, the self-proclaimed “man-of-the-house”. One particularly wonderful image was of Sarbjit playing shoot’em up games on a laptop whilst she and her husband were having their heair dyed.

As The Guide in Saturday’s Guardian put it, the show is filmed with a lot of love. And no doubt as the series unfolds, so a lot of love will be shown to the Grewals, the latest in a long line of great British families.

Everything on this site by Chris Allen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. www.chris-allen.co.uk.