Culture – Page 13

Offensive? You Decide, Not Some Tight-Arsed Dutch Lawyer

Published on May 18, 20082 Comments

Whatever your political, aesthetic or other views on his work cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot, like the rest of us, supposedly has the right to free expression of them, even anonymously – or at least the Dutch constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights say he does. Not so, say the Dutch government who arrested him with great fanfare this week even though he’s been publishing for years:

Insulting’ cartoons under investigation

By Philip Smet*

16-05-2008

The Dutch Public Prosecutor’s Office has announced that the cartoonist who works under the pseudonym Gregorius Nekschot was arrested for publishing ‘insulting cartoons’.

The cartoonist will not reveal his real name out of fear that Islamic extremists will seek revenge for the cartoons, many of which make fun of the Muslim religion.

It is extremely unusual for a Dutch artist to be arrested for his works. Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin says he does not believe the case has anything to do with suppressing free expression.

On Tuesday, Gregorius Nekschot was arrested at his Amsterdam home. The arresting force was made up of the magistrate, five police officers and three members of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. His home was searched and he was taken to a police station, where he refused to answer questions. That night he had to remain in the cell; he was released the next day.

Investigation
The complaint which Public Prosecutor’s Office is handling was made in 2005. The Public Prosecutor’s Office’s issued a press release saying:

“The investigation has revealed that a number of cartoons published on the internet were, according to our office, insulting to Muslims and to people of colour. Moreover, the Public Prosecutor’s Office believes the cartoons could inspire hatred.”

Gregorius Nekschot published his cartoons on his own website. Film producer and columnist Theo van Gogh, who was killed in 2004 by a Muslim extremist, also used to publish Gregorius Nekschot’s cartoons on his website. The cartoonist is known for his extremely insulting caricatures of religion and left-wing politicians. One of the reasons he was not arrested earlier is because he works anonymously – the Public Prosecutor’s Office says they simply couldn’t find him.

Personally I find his cartoons tasteless, vaguely insulting and not really that funny, but so is Viz and each to their own. Plus he was a friend of Theo Van Gogh that posthumously sainted arsehole, and therefore he partakes of at least some of that arseholery by association. But none of that negates his right to free expression, anonymously or otherwise. So why is Nekschot being prosecuted, except for political reasons? The Netherlands’ right wing Christian-led government wants insulting religion (theirs) to remain an offence. Therefore they feel compelled to conduct this show trial so as to not look partial.

I fail to see how these cartoons could be construed as fanning the flames of racial or religious hatred even if they do intend to offend and indeed do offend. It’s not as though they’re plastered on the sides of buses – you have to make an effort to go look at them, either on his website or in a book.

Polder Pundit has more on the legal arguments surrounding the arrest: I am, I think, theoretically breaking Dutch law even by linking to his website. [But the site is unavailable from this Dutch IP and I haven’t tried a proxy, can’t be arsed. Maybe someone can tell me whether it’s reachable from elsewhere?] Which is pretty ridiculous when a google image search gets you as many offensive Nekschot cartoons as you like.

But do I care if it’s illegal? Do I fuckery. As Polder Pundit puts it:

Seeing a cartoon where Mohammed sodomizes Anne Frank makes us wish we hadn’t, but it doesn’t change our feelings about either. The only thing it incites us to do is, again, to abstain from buying Nekschot’s books.

If something’s offensive let the public decide, not some up-themselves Dutch prosecutor with a name to make.

No Thanks For Sharing

Published on May 14, 2008

The typical political marriage

Politicians are increasingly seving up their most intimate relationships for public inspection, either for money or the spin value: the ins and outs, so to speak, of the Sarkozy-Brunis’ married lubriciousness are regular fare in the print media, David Cameron is laying his family life bare-ish in online video (did those poor bloody kids get any say in the matter?) and this week, noted Catholic hypocrite Cherie Blair has been rubbing her contraceptive arrangements in our faces. Enough.

I really don’t need to think about those those two rictus-grinned hypocrites copulating in the dark or even in the feeble light of a thrifty royal 40 watt bulb. I really don’t need to think about it at all. No.

But exposing all to the media is a growing trend and now a Minnesota governor has joined the throng by using his his marriage to a sports-fan as radio comedy material:

“I have a wife who genuinely loves to fish. I mean, she will take the lead and ask me to go out fishing, and joyfully comes here,” he told radio station WCCO. “She loves football, she’ll go to hockey games and, I jokingly say, ‘Now, if I could only get her to have sex with me.’”

Cue mortified dead air. I wouldn’t want to have been him when he finally summoned up the courage to go home.

But really, how far are politicians willing to go with this? How much further can you go than into your contraceptive arrangements? When we will see the first webcam over the marital bed?

It’s one thing having your private life exposed by a prying media, but what if you invite them in for the purposes of advancing your own career? The Blairs and Sarkozys I submit are special cases, being as both halves of each couple are equally voraciously publicicity-hungry, so no harm done there except to themselves.

I suppose too there’s something to be said for the argument that a public person should be completely public and their life an open book. But there are other people in these relationships besides politicians – and I should think that they may feel somewhat less positive about the exposure of the inner workings of their marriages.

Remind You of Anyone?

Published on May 6, 2008

Tacitus on The Emperor Galba: “Omnium consensu capax imperii nisi imperasset.” “All pronounced him worthy of the empire, until he became emperor”.

omnium consensu capax imperii nisi imperasset

I’d like to be erudite enough to be able to claim that as an original observation, but it was actually suggested in an otherwise dull comment to Phillip Hensher’s exceedingly suckyuppy Independent column praising the newly-powerful Boris for his use of classical allusions.

The Real Nuclear Menace

Published on May 5, 2008

The demon drink

We Brits can take any amount of radioactive fallout – just as long as we’ve still got the cup that cheers but does not inebriate:

Nuclear threat sparked tea worry

The threat of a nuclear attack on the UK in the 1950s caused concern over the supply of tea, top-secret documents which have now been released reveal.

Government officials planning food supplies said the tea situation would be “very serious” after a nuclear war.

Indeed it would be serious. All that heat’d sour the milk.

If You Book It, They Will Come. (Arrive, Attend)

Published on May 5, 2008

Craig Brown in the Telegraph on what horrors might emerge from a conference of pedants :

… A cry of horror erupted in the hall. “I must ask the gentleman in the beige cardigan to leave the hall,” said the Chairman. “We cannot sanction a split infinitive.”

“I refute your suggestion that this is a cardigan,” retorted the offending gentleman. “A cardigan buttons, or, if you will, unbuttons, to the waist. This garment buttons only a quarter of the way down, to just above the chest. So it is not a cardigan in the strict sense of the word, but a jersey, even though that aforementioned island is not, strictly speaking, its country of origin.”

There followed a heated discussion over the speaker’s use of the word refute: some thought he meant deny, while others believed he would have been better off employing – or at least using – confute.

“On a point of information, Chairman.” The speaker was a woman with a bun in her hair, by which I mean not a woman with a small, sweetened bread roll or cake (often with dried fruit) in her hair, but a woman whose hair was drawn into a tight coil at the back of her head. “On a point of information, I must point out that, in the original novel, Frankenstein was not, as is commonly supposed, the monster, but rather the inventor of that monster.”

A murmur of approval swept – metaphorically – around the room. We pedants always appreciate being reminded of the F-point, even if it hasn’t been raised. “May I also add,” continued the woman with the bun, “that, contrary to popular misconception, King Canute was only too well aware that he could not hold back the tide.”

“Your statement did not require that superfluous ‘also’,” interjected the Chairman, “for it means ‘in addition’: if you say ‘May I also add’ you are, in effect, saying ‘May I add add’. I’m not sure that this was what you meant to infer.”

“Imply! Imply! Imply!” The entire hall – or, at least, all those contained within it – chanted at the Chairman. He left in tears, knowing as well as anyone that the incorrect use of the word “infer” has always been a resigning matter.

More…

PedantCon sounds like something SF fandom would turn out in force for, if they could ever agree on whether it were a con, a symposium or an AGM.