| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
I don't like "art" like this. I don't approve of "art" like this. But do not be deceived: if Sooreh Hera had exhibited a series of photographs of homosexual men wearing masks of Jesus and the Apostle John, no one would be issuing death threats, John Voll, associate director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, would not be pontificating about limits to free speech, and the papers would instead be full of editorials about the dangers of censorship and the growing power of the Christian Right.
John Voll asks: "Can you imagine what would happen if John McCain used the n-word about Obama while campaigning? There are consequences. Free speech is not absolute."
What would happen, Dr. Voll? Would McCain be executed? No. Murdered? Probably not. Threatened with death? Again, probably not. Jailed? No. Vilified in the national press? Certainly. Would he lose the election? Almost certainly.
And that's the key difference. Sooreh Hera is being threatened with death, and the Dutch museum is kowtowing in the face of those threats, bowing to violent intimidation. If they declined to host her work because they found it tasteless and offensive, they would have a case. They have no obligation to host it. But Sooreh Hera should be free to exhibit it wherever she can find a place willing to do so, without having to hide behind a pseudonym and live in constant fear of being murdered. If McCain says something stupid that derails his campaign, Dr. Voll, that's his loss, but it is not illegal to say that word, and should not be, and he should not have to live in fear of being killed if he were to say it.
I say in the article: "The ultimate goal of people making threats is to make it illegal or too dangerous or both for anybody to say anything considered to be insulting to Muhammad or Allah." That is why everyone who does not wish to live under Sharia should stand against violent intimidation from jihadists, wherever and whenever it manifests itself.
"Iranian Artist Fights to Have Muhammad Art Displayed in Dutch Museums," by Jana Winter for FoxNews, May 3 (thanks to James):
For the third time in four months, the controversial work of an Iranian artist has been suddenly yanked from a Dutch museum exhibition.The artist, who goes by the alias Sooreh Hera and who lives in exile in the Netherlands, said she received death threats after attempting to show her series of photographs entitled "Adam & Ewald, Seventh-Day Lovers."
Some of the photographs include depictions of the Prophet Muhammad and his son-in-law Ali in poses that would likely upset any believer in any religion.
That is, for those of you who may still not be Muslim, the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
The most controversial images feature gay men posed in various stages of undress. In one, a man wears leather chaps with his buttocks exposed, wearing a mask of Ali, the son-in law of the prophet Muhammad. In other photo two men are shirtless wearing masks of both Ali (on the left) and Muhammad (on the right).Museum directors initially planned to display the work of the 35-year-old artist. But now, citing fear of reprisals and political pressure, they've changed their mind, much to her dismay.
Hera says she is fighting for freedom of speech and freedom of expression in a nation that once was known for its tolerance and peace, but now is a hotbed of religious and social tension.
"Freedom of expression has become an illusion in Europe," she told FOXNews.com in a phone interview from a home where she is currently in hiding. "We think we have freedom of expression, but in fact we live under a sort of hidden censorship."
But John Voll, associate director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, said Hera's works cross the line and are offensive.
He said freedom of speech does not mean that one has the freedom to be as insulting as possible.
"It isn't as if we have absolute freedom in the United States to be offensive and insulting just to be different," Voll said in an interview.
"Can you imagine what would happen if John McCain used the n-word about Obama while campaigning? There are consequences. Free speech is not absolute," he said.
[...]
Hera said a fatwa, or religious pronouncement, of death has been issued for her as a result of her exhibit. "The fatwa was printed in the Iranian newspapers; they said they would kill me," she told FOXNews.com, and saying she can't go out now in public. She's declined television interviews to answer her critics, and won't even attend her own art exhibition.
"I will not be attending [Art Amsterdam] due to safety reasons," she said. "It's like being forbidden to go to your own wedding."
She said her work is a direct response to the threats made by radical Islamists against her and against the Dutch government.
"I did this to answer the Iranian government," Hera said. "I made some new work. In one of these photos the deceased spiritual leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, is in leather trousers, half naked."
She says the point of this is to expose the hypocrisy in Islam about homosexuality and to get everyone talking about the freedom of expression and speech in the Western world.
"I'm hoping my work will arouse discussion," she said. "The thing that endangers the Netherlands is succumbing to fear and keeping silent about threats and not being alert in regard to freedom of expression," she says.
"The Netherlands is very much a flashpoint right now. It looks as if there is going to have to be some hard choices made about whether we're going to defend our civilization or not," Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch told FOXNews.com.
Did I really say "there is going to have to be some hard choices made"? I doubt it, but if I did, I just hope my seventh-grade English teacher doesn't read this.
Spencer says this sort of pressure by Muslim groups "who don't hesitate to traffic in violent intimidation" will continue to undercut freedom of speech until it no longer exists."The ultimate goal of people making threats is to make it illegal or too dangerous or both for anybody to say anything considered to be insulting to Muhammad or Allah, to impose the Islamic code, which is the goal of Usama bin Laden, upon the West," he said.
"It's time to take a stand and say we believe in freedom of speech and that means some people will be offended."...
Posted by Robert at May 4, 2008 7:54 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"That is, for those of you who may still not be Muslim, the Islamic prophet Muhammad."
The Islamic false prophet Muhammed.
John Voll. My God. John Voll. How far the once-illustrious Georgetown has fallen. Are we sure his name isn't John Vole?
Posted by: darcy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 4, 2008 9:30 AM
Oh the pity state of the Dutch. Alas the foolish immigration of Muslims into the Netherlands has a price--a big price. Nothing is above sharia and Islam for the Muslims, not even the Dutch constitution, democracy and laws.
Posted by: savsiv at May 4, 2008 10:26 AM
I don't like, or approve, of so-called "art" like this either, but when a gallery shows it I just either choose not to look at it, or force myself to look at it, preferably not after I've eaten, and then tell the curators exactly what I think of it. Most contemporary art is pure unadulterated garbage. Nonetheless, although Hera may be lacking true artistic talent or vision, you can't fault her bravery. There are better ways to be brave, however. She says, "the point of this is to expose the hypocrisy in Islam about homosexuality." You don't have to produce bad art to make that point. Just tell the truth as you see it. It'll get you the same death sentence from their side, but it'll win you far more friends and supporters from ours.
Posted by: angloirishslav at May 4, 2008 10:27 AM
From the descriptions of her work, I have to ask--how trite can an "artist" get? These photos, intended to titillate some, and offend others are worthy of a grade school child, in his third year of second grade.
The museum must be hard up for exhibits, to mount the same stupid crap not once but several times.
That said, freedom of speech does mean "that one has the freedom to be as insulting as possible." It also means that the "offended" party has the right to be equally insulting, more insulting, or claim the moral high ground and ignore the insult.
And before any of the resident trolls ask me how I would feel if the subject was Jesus and one of his apostles, my answer would be the same.
Sounds to me like everyone has gotten what he or she wanted, from this event. The artist has offended, as she wanted to, and the faction she has offended have issued their fatwa (which she undoubtedly craved). Everyone is happy.
at May 4, 2008 11:13 AM
"Can you imagine what would happen if John McCain used the n-word about Obama while campaigning? There are consequences. Free speech is not absolute,"
Too bad the press can't tell the difference between race and religion. Doesn't that make Atheists racist? I don't blame people for trying to make their point in strong terms so much as I blame a media that refuses to point out the obvious flaw in this logic.
Posted by: kevin at May 4, 2008 11:25 AM
Apparently this picture outraged muslims the most. Still, I think threatening, "We’re going to burn you naked or put a bullet in your mouth" is over the top.
http://bp0.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/R4FKPb4wiHI/AAAAAAAAKUk/DScJBi27KR4/s1600-h/gay+mo2.jpg
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at May 4, 2008 12:00 PM
"Spencer says this sort of pressure by Muslim groups "who don't hesitate to traffic in violent intimidation" will continue to undercut freedom of speech until it no longer exists."
How true. The God I serve gave me a free will, but allah doesn't tolerate such freedom. No way. Freedom of speech is only the beginning. Removing freedom in any form is Islam's ultimate goal.
Choose this day whom you will serve....
Joshua 24:15:
"And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
at May 4, 2008 12:54 PM
But John Voll, associate director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, said Hera's works cross the line and are offensive.He said freedom of speech does not mean that one has the freedom to be as insulting as possible.
Actually it does. There are no civilized nations that guarantee the "right" not to be insulted. Insults do not cause physical harm. Causing physical harm is the line not to be crossed.
This remark by the prince's sycophant (that I'm sure is heartily endorsed by his fellow slave John Esposito) is a self-evident manifestation of his profound ignorance of the democratic principles upon which Western civilization is based.
He is either stupid or willfully participating in the total war being waged by Islam against the non-Muslim world.
Posted by: SaracensAtTheGates at May 4, 2008 1:06 PM
"used the n-word..."
- quoting John Voll, one of the well-paid henchmen of John Esposito, who shares a little of what he gets from Arab financial backers with Voll, Haddad, and a few others
What is this "n-word" stuff? When did American political life begin to resemble four-year-olds at nursery school, one of them reporting to the teacher that "Josh said the f-word."
How did this nonsense start, and what permits it to continue unembarrassedly?
Posted by: Hugh at May 4, 2008 1:11 PM
Is it wrong to issue death threats back at the ones who have issued death threats to the artist? Isn't there a western law that makes it a crime to conspire to murder someone? If these people are not denouced by our governments and leaders have we not rationalized their claim that they have a provocation to kill the artist. I may not like your art, but I will fight to the death to protect your freedom to make art, and denounce anyone who claims a right to stop you from exercising your artistic freedom. Give me impressionism or give me death.
Posted by: David England at May 4, 2008 2:45 PM
Although the principle involved, of freedom of speech/expression is crystal clear, the expatriate Iranian artist who dabbles in producing such execrable "art" is just as contemptible as the artists who dabble in urine-soaked crucifixes. This is not a case of skewering religious dogma with words, or drawing a mildly offensive cartoon, or abstract discussions over unitarianism vs trinitarianism, this is an in-your-face provocation that would insult the sense of decency of any civilized human being. Although Muslims need to learn to find other ways of dealing with offenses to their religion besides threatening to kill the offender, and authorities should come down hard on anyone making such threats, this is one of those cases where I think you will find it hard to muster much sympathy for the artist. And although I do my share of ripping Muslims for their antiquarian views and propensity for violence, on this one I've decided that since I don't have a dog in this fight I'm going simply sit back and watch.
Posted by: Eastview at May 4, 2008 3:55 PM
THe Islamic bullies flex their thuggish ways yet again..sad.
Posted by: pulsar182 at May 4, 2008 5:39 PM
Eastview,
I agree with your assessment of the aforementioned "art" in question, but surely you must also realize that the dog ALL JWs have in this fight is the dog of liberty, freedom of expression, and democracy. I find this woman's so-called art, tasteless, lazy, uninspired, silly, unoriginal, and dull, but in this case, precisely because she is an Iranian ex-patriate, a woman sans hijab, and perhaps even a homosexual (who knows? who cares?) the gist of her "expression" is one of rebellion against the mores of her repressive former homeland. The question of whether or not the art world should take notice is perhaps best left to the art world itself.
But what a refreshing idea—to foster artists who dare criticize "actual oppressive regimes" rather than those who are always screeching to high heaven against their own democratic countries and core values in the West, nations who actually allow them the freedom to be tasteless, lazy, uninspired, silly, unoriginal, and dull.
Posted by: DunawayKa at May 4, 2008 6:07 PM
"Some of the photographs include depictions of the Prophet Muhammad and his son-in-law Ali in poses that would likely upset any believer in any religion".
== == == == == ==
OK, I'll bite - who knows what Ali (or Mohammed, for that matter) looked like? The masks all look the same to me: a bearded man. There's a photograph of a painting showing two men, one bearded, one clean-shaven; I assume one is Mohammed and one is Ali? All the masks show men with beards. Guess all I can say is: her "art" didn't move me. Then again, I'm not her target demographic.
John Voll says "Can you imagine what would happen if John McCain used the n-word about Obama while campaigning? There are consequences. Free speech is not absolute..."
Well, I imagine there would be outraged cries of "racism!" for weeks; but I'll assume the NAACP would NOT authorize his murder. John Voll must be getting paid SCADS of money by the Saudi-scum prince in order to sell out Western Civ like that...
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at May 4, 2008 6:25 PM
Sooreh Hera could do more good with the unvarnished truth.
If some artist REALLY wants to set the fur flying, then they could produce a 'bedroom scene' - an exquisitely painted or sculpted, photo-realistic representation of 50+ Mohammed preparing to consummate his marriage with nine-year-old Aisha - with the relevant texts, verbatim, in beautiful calligraphy, presented alongside for all to read. And, perhaps, a couple of modern news stories - that 8 year old girl in Yemen talking about her 'marriage' (of being hunted down, and raped, by her pedophile husband); and the Ayatollah Khomeini's notorious remarks about child marriage, and his revision of the age of marriage for girls in Iran, from 18 to 9.
Companion pieces: three paintings on an epic scale, depicting Mohammed's rapes of the young Jewesses Safiyya, Juwariyya, and Rayhana, while the decapitated and mutilated bodies of their husbands or fiances and all their male relatives are depicted lying about on the battleground, stage left, and the smoke rising from the ruins of their communities, and the Muslim bandits gloatingly divvy up the loot.
The truth - or what all pious Mohammedans zealously believe to be the truth, what they really believe their 'perfect man' did, actions which they regard as admirable, where all decent humans would recoil in horror - is ghastly enough, to not require embellishment.
at May 4, 2008 7:00 PM
If these silly people want something artsy to get the froth at the mouth going, why not choose some real art?
The painting on the Sistine Chapel, "The Creation of Adam and Eve" might do, for an appetizer. Not only is Adam naked, but God is frankly portrayed--face and all! But, the pesky Michelangelo didn't stop there. Michelangelo, it seems, was a sculptor, as well as a painter. His "David" is guaranteed to displease. Not only is David naked, but he's three dimensional!
Say--how about that "Pieta"? Michelangelo strikes again! Though Jesus is wearing a loincloth, his navel is showing, and though Mary is wearing loose robes, it's plain for all to see that she has boobs!
Tired of Michelangelo? Try Botticelli on, for size. Start with "La Primavera", which features scantily clad women dancing, of all things! Ah, but worse, far worse is the horrid painting entitled "Birth of Venus"! Venus has boobs, too, and one of them is showing! Included in this work are depictions of a Nymph (who is, to her credit, trying to cover Venus, before she can catch a cold) and Hades with Persephone.
It's all very scandalous, and more than worthy of a protest or two. How I wish! It might open some eyes if these morons protested real art.
Posted by: Abscedere at May 4, 2008 7:34 PM
DunawayKa, A_Nonny_Mouse, dumbledoresarmy, Abscedere,
I am aware of the issues. I just find it difficult to work up and expend the energy needed to defend the patently offensive. Call me old fashioned. I'll save my energy for other areas I do feel passionate about.
Posted by: Eastview at May 4, 2008 8:03 PM
Eastview,
In re-reading my own posts, I don't see anything that suggests that I'm "defending the patently offensive".
Posted by: Abscedere at May 4, 2008 8:55 PM
Abscedere, In rereading your posts neither do I, and I will be more careful in cutting and pasting names in the future. Your comments were, in fact, most insightful. This whole thread is most distasteful because it tends toward forcing us to choose sides about whose disgusting behavior is the most disgusting based solely on who carries it out.
Posted by: Eastview at May 4, 2008 9:35 PM
Is freedom of speech/expression absolute? I'm not sure if this question can ever be resolved. But there are some things that can be agreed upon.
When one sets out to intentionally offend and/or provoke, one should not be surprised, or even expect a lot of sympathy, when there are negative repercussions. If I went out and directed a nasty racial or ethnic slur at a person of that group, I should not be surprised or outraged if I got my face punched in, nor should I expect much sympathy for my punched-in face. In fact, most right-thinking people would say I got exactly what I deserved. Could I then argue that my right to "freedom of speech" was violated? All I did was say something, after all. I didn't hurt or threaten this person physically. Does he/she have the RIGHT to punch my face in just because of a word? Well, no...again, I would like to think those same right-thinking people would say he/she doesn't have that right, and will not support the right of anyone to repond to racial/ethnic slurs with physical violence, no matter how provoking it might be. The right-thinking person, in other words, tries to take a sensible view of all this. To deliberately provoke just for the sake of provoking is stupid and childish, but to repond with physical violence to verbal provocation is also stupid and childish. And at this point, of course, one is inclined to reach the "plague on both your houses!" conclusion...or in other words, "grow up and get a life."
Posted by: angloirishslav at May 4, 2008 11:36 PM
If intolerant fools are not offended by what you say, you are not being clear enough.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."- George Orwell.
Hear hear?
Islam: a lobotomy posing as a religion.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 5, 2008 12:43 AM
"To deliberately provoke just for the sake of provoking is stupid and childish, but to repond with physical violence to verbal provocation is also stupid and childish. And at this point, of course, one is inclined to reach the "plague on both your houses!" conclusion...or in other words, "grow up and get a life."
Posted by: angloirishslav
Exactly. A dispiriting aspect of cases like this is that when they occur, their exchanges of "Is too's", "Is not's" and accompanying releases of negative energy into the void (meaning forcing the rest of us into having to watch), one gets the feeling that civilization has just imperceptibly slid still further away from enlightenment (this meant in its most positive sense).
Posted by: Eastview at May 5, 2008 1:04 AM
"Useful idiot" was coined for the likes of John Voll, John Esposito, et al
Posted by: CasparTheFriendlyGhost at May 5, 2008 2:16 AM
This to me is NO art, better put it under PORN.
I wonder what this "art" will do for the homo's who are still in Iranian prisons.
at May 5, 2008 2:20 AM
This whole thread is most distasteful because it tends toward forcing us to choose sides about whose disgusting behavior is the most disgusting based solely on who carries it out.
I've gladly chosen a side. Personally I find beheadings, stonings, FGM etc. etc. ad nauseum, far more offensive than a couple of men getting it on.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at May 5, 2008 7:47 AM
Free speech is not absolute," he said.
Did someone yell "Fire!" in a crowded art gallery? Just some "disturbing" word by an Iranian artist?
Sorry, but it doesn't pass the "smell" test.
Freedom of expression trumps censorship. Always has, always will.
Posted by: tanstaafl at May 5, 2008 9:19 AM
It is becoming Dutch tradition. A few years ago, in Eindhoven, supporters of soccer club Feyenoord protested, with threats, a movie about the other soccer club, Ajax. The mayor of the city decided to not show the movie. There are more examples of cowardly behavior in the Dutch world of art. I am deeply ashamed by that.
femi
at May 5, 2008 9:54 AM
> John Voll asks: "Can you imagine what would
> happen if John McCain used the n-word
> about Obama while campaigning?
This is what is so frustrating about dealing with Muslems and their western apologists. They are totally out of touch with reality.
They try to come up with these "equivalent" scenarios using western political figures, such as McCain, or (even more frequently) interchanging Mohammed with Jesus.
The fact is, we know what would happen if McCain used the "n-word." He would be rightfully denounced throughout the media, as well as by politicians on both sides of the aisle.
He would no longer be a presidential candidate, and in all likelihood, he would not have a political career anywhere other than some very tiny town in the deep south.
And we regularly see Jesus and the symbols of the Christian faith mocked and humiliated in western societies without any fallout whatsoever.
Yet Islamic apologists continue to make these absurb moral equivalency statements questioning "what would happen if..."
Only someone brainwashed into a cult would be so out of touch with reality.
And no, this does not sound like true art to me... any more than "Piss Christ" is any form of true art. But that is the downside of living in a free society. You don't threaten to kill someone just because they offend you.
Posted by: StephenDvd at May 5, 2008 11:32 AM
"Say--how about that "Pieta"? Michelangelo strikes again! Though Jesus is wearing a loincloth, his navel is showing, and though Mary is wearing loose robes, it's plain for all to see that she has boobs!"
..and it is plain to see that you, like most Muslims, are offended by the truth...
at May 5, 2008 4:37 PM
"There are better ways to be brave" - angloirishslav
"Sooreh Hera could do more good with the unvarnished truth" - dumbledoresarmy
I agree.
If she wants to invite death, then she should do so with art that says something worth dying for, and not with some wannabe Damien Hirst/ Gilbert and George space-wasting nonsense.
at May 5, 2008 5:48 PM
..and it is plain to see that you, like most Muslims, are offended by the truth...
Posted by: pulsar182 at May 5, 2008 4:37 PM
What the heck is that supposed to mean? My post was an attempt at irony.
Please don't compare me to Muslims.
Posted by: Abscedere at May 6, 2008 10:37 AM
@pulsar182:
Okay, I think I see where my communication broke down.
What I meant to say (sarcastically), is that all of the masterpieces I mentioned, and so many others, are "indecent", by Islamic standards.
The works I picked out are some of my favorites from the Renaissance period.
When I remarked that I wish these would be protested as well, it was because these pieces of art are well known for the masterpieces they are.
A gaggle of protesters going ballistic over the Pieta, would certainly rate attention, as well as awaken others to one of the dangers of Islam; Namely, that if such protesters had their way, these treasures would not exist, and their loss to civilization would be a tragedy.
Posted by: Abscedere at May 6, 2008 11:13 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)