Easy peasy.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Now the context: South Park’s been at the centre of numerous controversies over the years and they’ve not taken any prisoners. Various religions and races are regularly parodied and insulted, Hollywood actors of every stripe are ridiculed, disabilities, homosexuality etc etc are thoroughly target for jokes, sometimes even abuse. Just before the 200th episode, Eric Cartman verbally crucifies the Pope over the Catholic child-molestation controversy. This was not the first time they’ve had to censor a depiction of Muhammed – their episode featuring a Family Guy piss-take was censored. They have, however, previously been free to poke fun at Islam/Muslims (along with the other myriad targets). Take for example Mr. Garrison’s song ‘Merry Fucking Christmas’:

‘I heard there is no Christmas in the silly Middle East
No trees, no snow, no Santa Claus, they have different religious beliefs.
They believe in Muhammed, and not in our holiday,
And so every December I go to the Middle East and say:
Hey there Mr Muslim, Merry fucking Christmas,
Put down your book the Quran and hear some holy wishes.
In case you hadn’t noticed it’s Jesus’ birthday,
So get off your heathen Muslim ass and fucking celebrate’

They’ve had other moments – Mr Garrison talking about Muslims being pissed off because they can’t have sex or the Prophet Muhammed being part of the ‘Super best friends’ where he has the power of fire. Then the Jyllands Posten controversy happened and since that point the networks have censored themselves fairly vigorously.

The show should have been aired completely uncensored. There’s a time for self-censorship and a time to avoid it and this was the latter.

Firstly, the depictions of Muhammed have been pretty benign and saccharine. Compared to virtually any other group, Muslims have been getting off light on South Park.

Secondly, if you’re a serious Muslim, why care about some silly jokes Kafirun will make? Why care so much? There are many, many worse problems Muslims face in the US than a depiction of a Prophet in a bear suit. The attitude of Fox News where their ‘guests’ routinely talk about Islam being ‘evil’ or Muslims deserving ’special treatment’ at airports etc. These are the real problems in American media. Let people joke as much as they like! It’s when a joke becomes a mean-spirited attack on all Muslims that a Muslim should worry and even then the best response is to ignore it or fight back with your own humour.

Thirdly, if you find others depicting the prophet to be insulting then you should find pretty much anything on television insulting: the depictions of sex and violence routine in American dramas, men and women playing on their sexual tension, Christian evangelism etc. etc. If you do find these offensive, the solution is simple: do not watch American television. You have the choice not to watch what you find offensive and you should exercise it. Let others think and feel what they like, so long as they aren’t directly hurting you or others, it should be none of your concern.

Fourthly, in countries like the US, Muslims live under a secular rule and we generally live pretty well. I hate hearing arguments like “there’s no freedom in Islamic countries, therefore Muslims should shut the hell up when in our country”. It’s a stupid logical fallacy based on a small kernel of truth: if we do not enjoy the freedoms in the US or the UK, we should try our best to change it legally or move abroad to somewhere where it is more to your liking. Having sampled the freedoms available in the UK, Europe, China and the Middle East, I still find the UK the best of all. As unpleasant as it may be to hear ignorant folks on the news saying outrageous things about Muslims (e.g. the horrendous toad, Melanie Phillips), it is infinitely more unpleasant to be worried about the Mukhaberat listening in on you in Jordan (or any other Arabic country) , or that the page you’re visiting on the internet will get you thrown out of your Chinese educational institution.

Lastly, there’s an element of this being a self-created drama. Censorship would have likely happened even if that “Revolution Muslim” group hadn’t made the implied threat. By responding in such a heavy handed manner, Comedy Central has created a fuss that I, like many other Muslims, would have liked nothing to do with beyond enjoying another humorous episode of South Park.  It highlights Muslims as crazed, radical, insane, manipulative and ready to kill at the drop of a hat. Note that other death threats are not treated in the same vein – writers like Norman Finkelstein, Robert Fisk et all have routinely received death threats from various groups (among other unpleasant writings). The fact is it is easy to write and to threaten, especially when it is apparently so easy to leverage quick results. It is much harder to commit the deed – and if we look at examples where it has happened it is after some really vigorous, hateful and disgusting attacks.

It is also, apparently, now, much harder to press forward against censorship, and that’s a problem for all of us.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Look at what happens (the bit at the end is especially indicative):

Click here to view the embedded video.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Reagan’s crimes include:

• Perpetuating the Iran-Iraq war while selling weapons to both sides (about a million dead as a result);
• secretly selling biological and chemical materials (for weapons) to Iraq;
• laying the groundwork for the modern era in Afghanistan by funding extremists to subvert the Soviets;
• US involvement in Nicaragua, claiming tens of thousands of lives; and
• support for murderers in Guatemala, Honduras and El-Salvador.

I don’t want to see him honoured in our great city.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It’s clear Hannan’s an intelligent fellow. I think it’s easy to assume that when he goes on US TV, he’s not being ambushed, but he knows exactly what sort of environment he is getting into and exactly what sort of effect his comments may have. I am sure he is well aware of the current political circumstances in America. He seems to be a politican 2.0 sort, so no doubt he’s crawled through youtube looking at the same sort of videos anyone who’s interested in American politics will have seen.

So he does the rounds on Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and is praised by the likes of cretinous Cavuto. His words are being used right now in the US to support the idea that the NHS is evil and Orwellian. They are being used to directly influence American domestic opinion and policy.

Meanwhile, the examples he provides are terrible. For example, from the Glenn Beck clip I posted in a previous blog post:

And he said, “Look, I’m in real pain, can I have some painkillers while I’m waiting.” And they said, “No, get to the back of the line.” He said, “Look, I’d buy them.” And they said, I think they became very aggressive, “What do you mean you’re going to buy them. This is the National Health Service, so we don’t have any provision for independent purchase of medicine.”

So, that’s the — that’s the mentality.

Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt over the phrasing. There is a very good reason as to why receptionists don’t have the power to immediately hand out painkillers or any medicine. Firstly, they are not doctors and may not know what is appropraite. Secondly, they do not know if this person is some kind of drug addict. Thirdly, they don’t know if this guy is going to have an allergic reaction to painkillers or if he’s already taken the accepted dose. It isn’t their job to do it. If the pain was pretty bad, he should already have bought and taken over-the-counter drugs. If the pain was extremely bad, he should have emphasised its urgency (the example doesn’t sound too urgent). I’m sure that when you go to A&E in the US, you get instant treatment and the receptionists hand out painkillers like candy (or maybe not).

We have 1.4 million people employed by the National Health Service. It is the third biggest employer in the world after the Red Army in China and the Indian National Railways. Most of those 1.4 million people are administrators, that the managers outnumber the doctors and nurses. And that is the electoral bloc that makes it almost impossible to get rid of.

This is a mix of a massive fallacy and an outright lie. Firstly, about 3% of the NHS workforce is managerial and about 40% are doctors and nurses, while a further 40%-odd are directly involved in patient care. Secondly, Wal-Mart employs about 1.8 million. Thirdly, the fact that it is ‘one of the biggest employers in the world’ really isn’t relevant. It is here considered a single, massive organisation, that is not broken down into chunks. If private healthcare in this country had the capabilities of the NHS, it would need similar staff levels. Places like Germany do not have a single health employment umbrella and so several organisations involved in patient care. So, for example, in the US, about 12 million people are involved in healthcare. Yes that’s right. To cater for a population about 5 times the size of the UK’s, the US has 10 times the number of people involved. This does not indicate that the NHS is bloated. In comparison to the US it is positively anaemic.  Even if you accept that this workforce shouldn’t be employed by the state, the workforce involved would probably need to be at least at the level it is at the moment. Oh-oh.

So what’s the problem with Hannan again? His erroneous consideration of the NHS is being used as an example to manipulate American domestic opinion and block what might be one of the biggest and best changes to hit America in the last few decades. It is horrific and I hope his political career suffers as a result.

Related posts:

1. South Park Censorship Speaking as a Muslim living in the UK, the Comedy...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.