Either way, it’s a conversation for a different story so I would suggest that the local resident gets Nouse, the Yorker, Vision, URY, the Press or whomever to dig up further dirt on it and make it into news, if that is what it is.

Though I do agree with the resident that this debate is kind-of dead now… Or at least I don’t think I can see anyone in the recent past agreeing with Mr. Taylor on very much at all.

This script reminds me of a television program I was watching last night about a vampire who was accused of being a paedophile (he wasn’t) but his protestations came to nothing and there were a lot of angry people out there. Luckily our hero won the day and the child involved became a vampire!

Yes I know it’s improbable but have you ever seen an image in the mirror of the Jsoc Chair? No? Well he must be one of the good guys then.

Seriously this subject has taken up more than enough space, so I give you another subject to discuss….

Deans Acre – the field up the hill past the church was given to the University by a previous Bishop of York, on condition they did not build on it, so that the view of the church from up Field Lane could be preserved. The University in it’s wisdom would now ‘like’ to build a road over it, complete with lights etc, about the size of the new James Street extension down to Morrisons, arguing that a road is not a building! Should this be allowed? Even if the road is not a building, does this go against the spirit of the condition placed on the transfer, or is it just morally wrong? Just to set the scene in the past The University has also sold a house that was given them for student housing!

Discuss please.

From what I have seen of the cartoon, I do see why it might offend. Use of caricatures that carry offensive connotations, even when intended sarcastically, runs the risk of normalising what’s offensive. But I come to that conclusion through thought and interpretation.

What troubles me is the role Andrew Collingwood’s name plays in this story. As far as I can gather, he took part in a demonstration at which the cartoon was on display, photos were taken of the demonstration, this particular picture was amongst them and was uploaded (presumably among others) onto facebook. What was Andrew’s offence? To fail to recognise that the picture might be offensive; more than likely because he just hadn’t considered it that carefully. Surely we can agree, in a list of human failings that is a pretty minor one. When alerted to the offence he removed the picture and expressed regret for any offence caused.

What about this incident deserves the headline above (a headline, let’s not forget, now forever googlable)? It is one thing to state that the image is a cause of offence. But to label someone racist, simply for an initial to failure to recognise that, and to describe the university’s decision not to fire them in response as ‘deplorable’ and ‘inexplicable’, is to assume (and publicly ascribe) the deepest malevolence, without evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary. The philosophical and political arguments above can be had anywhere. They do not require putting someone’s name on trial for a minor oversight. Having read Andrew Collongwood’s response, I fail to see why this debate has any reason to continue. Enough.

I did read my post back to myself, thanks for your concern. I don’t think I made any comments of a dubious factual basis, and kept my remarks relatively cordial.
I’m sorry that your post did not clearly separate the fallout from ‘Satanic Verses’ and the Danish cartoons in a manner that I could understand. Nevertheless, my same point still stands, as Rushdie’s book ‘Satanic Verses’ is available in Arabic, and in fact the translation of the title was one of the many aspects of controversy surrounding the publication.

My reasons for bringing up Israel’s occupations are twofold. Primarily due to the fact that you appear to accept and disregard international law in two lines, first referring to UN decisions then denying any occupation. I am not an anti-Zionist or anti-Semite, but can recognise the clear violations by the Israeli state of internationally legally recognised borders and the rulings of the international community. I feel your insistence to link these extreme positions with a belief in international law may undermine your argument somewhat.
Secondly, because I have an intense dislike for the bullish manner in which you claim to state fact, which more often than not tends towards your own opinion. Looking at a map of the Middle East and North Africa does little to lend itself to an understanding of the Israel/Palestine situation.
I don’t mean to offend you, but feel that it is unfortunate when a strong debater acts in a manner where aggressive off-the-cuff comments are allowed to pass without question.

On another note, I think Collingwood’s recent response is excellent, well-measured and should really lay this argument to rest. Another witch-hunt is the last thing that we need.

I have not called anyone foolish for holding a different view than mine, but rather for interrupting me all the time, not letting me speak and generally being very annoying. I know it’s still bad debating practice and I’ve already apologised about it, but frankly there’s a fundamental difference between making a cheap remark at the heat of the moment and consciously trying to stifle dialogue.

In any case I don’t pretend I am perfect, but I am sure you know that I at least try to be balanced and consistent. Which is certainly not what you are doing here by being purposely inflammatory and controversial. And I am not saying that you don’t have the right to, I am just saying that it doesn’t lead us anywhere.

If we are to apply ideas across the board, then surely you can not at the same time lambaste the Arabic world by calling Islam a tyrannical and fascist religion, and then go on to complain about someone being critical of Israeli politics on the (false) grounds of religious and racial intolerance. If that’s not double standards then I don’t know what is.

Sam, might I suggest the same to you. Did you read your own post back to yourself?

Regarding my comment about burning books they are unable to read: I was not saying this is reference to the Danish cartoons. It was in reference to the Salman Rushdie case where without doubt, there would have been many individuals burning his books (similar to the Nazis burning Jewish books in the 1930’s/40’s) who could not understand what the text actually meant, or the fact that it was a fictional work. They were fed their fire by Ayatollahs and the like telling them what was in the text, as well as how to interpret it. It might be “tiresome” for you, but it’s a case I shall continue to make because it is relevant, as well as for that matter, true.

As for the Golan Heights, I’m not getting into a discussion about what land belongs to who. I’m sure we will disagree. The point more relevant to this debate, is that those who tend to term themselves “Anti-Zionists” inadvertently deny Israel’s right to exist on not just post-1967 borders but also pre-1967 borders as well as the land they were given by the UN and international community in 1947. This, and anti-semitism are almost indeterminable.

My comments have been concerning the picture itself; with that view, I am not in a position to say whether Collingwood should or shouldn’t hold the harassment position as he has stated his disagreement with the picture – as he put it up online, it simply puts his legitimacy into question, and thus prevents the role being fulfilled if Jewish students or anyone offended by the would wish to see the harassment officer. However, I haven’t heard the URY interview so perhaps there’s another side to this.

Secondly, your comments on Israeli occupation are baffling. Whilst I would not have referred to Palestinian Territory as “Islamic land” as you have chosen to (needlessly polarizing the issue), there is little debate over the fact that the state of Israel does occupy territory exceeding the various treaty/armistice lines recognised by international law. If by using the term “Islamic land” you also intend to contest Israel’s occupation of Syrian territory in the Golan Heights, then I believe “You’d have to be terrible at Geography to make such an assertion”. Please try as best as possible to make your argument in a coherent and honest manner. (Quotes from Feb 16th, 8.15pm)

Regarding the article more generally, I have to agree with the critics; it does not represent equally the different arguments, or dare to critique outrageous quotes such as the claim that the posted picture depicts “all ethnic stereotypes against Jews” (Winkler). As the full image itself does not feature on the same page as the article, this quotation can mislead the reader. This piece could have been written with a much more objective approach, which would have presented the issue without appearing in a manner more suited to scare-mongering tabloids.
I definitely believe that the poll that the Nouse website is running currently should be withdrawn, as it only serves to add hype to an already exaggerated article.

““‘It is clearly attacking Israel, not Jews’, the imagery has nonetheless clearly offended Jews. My own stance is that the focus of the cartoon is not clear enough making it potentially dangerous.”

The only thing that is potentially dangerous is you. There are so many Jewish students (you can see that even in this thread) that have understood what you are trying to do here. You can’t tolerate criticism of Israel and Zionism and you try to portray it as ‘anti-semitism’ and yourself as ‘offended’. How incredibly incredibly ironic.

I suggest you cut the drama cause you’re really making a fool of yourself and you’re ACTUALLY offending a person’s dignity. If Mr. Collingwood is reading this, I would strongly advise him to take legal action against Nouse for this shameless libel. There’s simply no way he’d lose.”
———————

Irony? If indeed you are directly addressing me for the comments I made on this article, I suggest you read them again, and perhaps you’ll see that YOU’re essentially putting words in my mouth. Isn’t that something like libel? When have I made a political statement? When did I state what my feelings concerning Gaza were? When did I comment on any criticism of Israel on this page? When did I call myself a Zionist? When did I say I agreed with this article? When did I agree or align myself with any of the quoted figures? When did I say I think Collingwood should be sacked? Read again, my comments have been concerning the picture itself.

There’s plenty that could be interestingly discussed here. It might well be that this image unintentionally involves itself in a repressive discourse of race stereotypes – it certainly does so with gender (the image of a woman with power as a witch is not exactly new – and would we be so quick to make the association with ‘evil’ if this were Lieberman depicted as Dumbledore?)

What’s fairly clear, however, is that there’s no credible argument for calling for Collingwood’s resignation, though I spose these kind of calls were always going to be made since ‘untenable’ first appeared on Dan’s ‘word of the day’ toilet paper over a year ago..

Furthermore, the sentiment that this cartoon is simply “political”, would not explain why members of my jsoc who disagree with Israel, felt equally insulted. This matter is not about poltics, it is just a garb for a deeper sentiment.

P.S I still want to keep my comments short.

there is a huge difference between offending peopl by accident and posting something you know will offend some people.

Offence is part of every-day life. We get offended all the time, some more than others; it is a very subjective idea. I get offended when I read parts of the Guardian, or turn on BBC news to see their coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict (and indeed, Fox news). It doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to do it because quite simply, it’s the secondary effect of having different opinions to another. I happen to think it’s quite healthy for debate and fundamental freedoms.

I posted the cartoons because I think it’s important people have the opportunity of seeing what, in the circumstances I described in my previous wall-post, provoked such outrage and criticism from the Islamic global community. For these to be placed alongside the cartoon in question here is also important.

George, I appreciate your point about debate stifling, but in a similar vein, you have hardly been Mr. Excusable in debates when you have gone around calling people “foolish” for holding views that you don’t subscribe to. It does reek ever so slightly of hypocrisy. It’s like the whole multiculturalism/immigration/Islam debate. People who don’t like questioning these factors immediately bring up the term “racist” or “bigot” as a real debate-stopper. If you subscribe to this ‘idea’ then you must apply it across the board.

This is not a debate on religious criticism, as this picture does not constitute religious criticism; it is simply a political comment. One could perhaps call it distasteful or inaccurate, but nobody can argue that it was promoting religious intolerance or racism.

It was explicitly directed against Israeli politics, not against Judaism or the Jewish people. At no point does this picture imply that Judaism is an ‘evil’ or ‘fundamentally violent’ religion.

Yet, ironically enough, this was precisely what Dan was saying about Islam only a few days ago. So, according to Dan, accusing the majority of Muslims as followers of a “tyrannical and fascist” religion is perfectly reasonable commentary, but criticising Israeli politics is a taboo and anyone who does it is flirting dangerously with racism. I must say that something about this doesn’t really feel right.

“[The picture] makes a huge statement about anti-semitism almost being a myth.”

It makes a statement about how the label ‘anti-semitism’ has been used (and is clearly still used) to prevent thinking about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, stifle dialogue and preclude criticism of Israeli policies.

This is not a debate on whether some anti-semites masquerade as anti-Zionists, and it’s not a debate on whether Jews are more tolerant than Muslims or vice-versa; it’s a question of whether someone has the right to make political comments and to openly disagree with a government’s policies.

Keeping all that in mind, the analogy here would not be a picture criticizing Islam; it would be a picture criticizing Hamas. In my opinion both such pictures would be perfectly legitimate, but that’s hardly the main point here.

The real question here is whether a political comment is acceptable or not, and by extension whether a university official should be punished for publishing it online. A picture which he removed when he realised that it was causing offense, having stated that “it was never my intention to cause any distress or incite race hatred. I do not personally share the views expressed in the picture.”

I think it’s important that we clarify these things and not just play around with a person’s career, reputation and dignity.

As for my view as the other ISA welfare officer: the belief that Andrew Collingwood should be punished deeply offends and concerns me, like every other person who “adheres strongly to the principle of freedom of speech”.

Mr Collingwood posted some pictures that maybe he should have thought a little more about, but he removed them as soon as he was informed that they may cause offense. You on the otherhand decided to provide a link to some cartoons that you KNOW will offend and upset people.

You make some good points (even if I don’t always agree) on here and the Yorker, but this is a bit cheap in my opinion and I think you should seriously consider whether you have gone too far.

http://musing-minds.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/jyllands-posten-mohammed.jpg