As the worldwide furor over the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten’s Muhammad cartoons grows, with Muslims boycotting Danish products and even certain people in Syria torching embassies, many in Canada are probably wondering what the controversy is all about.

Danish writer KÃ¥re Bluitgen complained of the difficulty of finding an illustrator willing to draw Muhammad for a book he was writing on the Qur’an and Muhammad. In September of 2005, as part of a “discussion” on the freedom of speech and self-censorship with regards specifically to depicting Muhammad, Jyllands-Posten commissioned twelve artists to draw Muhammad.

Many strains — and certainly the mainstream strains — of Islam forbid depictions of God, Muhammad, and other prophets. This is, in part, to prevent the worship of images. Most Muslim art from days back that has waded into depicting Muhammad usually obscures his face with light. In 1976, Moustapha Akkad produced and directed a film about the beginnings of Islam — “The Message.” The epic film masterfully portrays the early rise of Islam, all without ever once showing Muhammad on screen. Recently, several Muslims protested Time and Newsweek magazines’ depictions of Muhammad. The magazines subsequently apologized.

Muslims typically do not respond to depictions of Moses, Jesus and other prophets — who are prophets of Islam. Many watch the Ten Commandments, many others have seen the Passion of the Christ. There are also several depictions and representations of Muhammad all over the place, spanning several centuries. Many have been done by Muslims. Sometimes such depictions are very visible, but rarely elicit such a response. Why?

Much of the reporting on the cartoons simplifies the matter — the implication being that hordes of uncivilized and ultra-fundamentalist Muslims are reacting wildly to simple portrayals of Muhammad. However, the images published by Jyllands-Posten go far beyond simply depicting Muhammad — and very little reporting has actually described the pictures themselves. Many of them are disgustingly racist and stereotypical. Some of the artists who submitted cartoons decried the provocative nature of the assignment.

Here is a summary of the twelve drawings:

Kurt Westergaard‘s drawing is perhaps the one that has been seen by most people. It depicts Muhammad with bushy, eyebrows and a bushy but close-cropped beard. His angry eyes have dark circles underneath. His turban, with “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger,” inscribed on it in Arabic calligraphy is actually a bomb ready to explode.

Jens Julius Hansen‘s drawing has an Irani mullah-looking Muhammad standing in heaven in front of a presumably endless line of suicide bombers. “Stop, stop,” he implores, “We have run out of virgins!”

Franz Füchsel depicts Muhammad inside an ornate palace, wearing a green robe and looking at a drawing of himself. He is telling two charging angry Muslims with swords and bombs and guns to “Relax guys, it’s just a drawing made by some infidel from nowhere.”

Arne Sørensen shows a nervous cartoonist leaning over his drawing board and looking over his shoulder. He is drawing Muhammad — wearing a keffiyeh and sporting a hooked nose and almost bulging eyes.

Annette Carlsen‘s drawing featuers a line-up of seven people. All wearing turbans that look more Sikh than middle-eastern. It is hard to tell who is who in the line-up, although a a hippie and a woman (the two on the left) are clearly identifiable, as is KÃ¥re Bluitgen on the right. He is holding a sign that says, “KÃ¥re’s public relations, call and get an offer.” A man assessing the line-up says, “Hmm, I can’t recognize him.”

Erik Abild Sørensen shows five symbols that are presumably burqa-clad women, with Stars of David as eyes and Crescents as mouths. A caption says something like, “Prophet you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke” or “Prophet! Daft and dumb, keeping women under thumb.”

Rasmus Sand Høyer draws Muhammad with a turban, and a tunic with a shawl draped over one shoulder. He is holding a scimitar and has another one hanging off a belt going from shoulder to hip. He’s got a long frazzled beard with similar eyebrows. His eyes are obscured by a black bar. Flanking him on either side are two women in black abayas that obscure everything but the eyes. Their eyes are wide open, as in an expression of surprise.

Claus Seidel shows Muhammad wearing an orange turban, a white tunic, and white pants extending to the shins, as well as slippers. He is holding a stick in one hand, and with the other hand he leads a donkey loaded with stuff.

Poul Erik Poulsen has Muhammad wearing a turban, a tunic and pants that go down to the ankles, as well as slippers. However, his hands are held together and the tunic’s sleeves obscure both his hands. He has a brown beard. Around his head is a supposed halo. It is a yellow crescent going around and behind his head so that it looks like he has two horns coming out.

Peder Bundgaard draws a stylized Muhammad’s face integrated with a green crescent and star. The crescent cradles Muhammad’s face, and the right eye is a star. He has a turban and quite a hooked nose.

Bob Katzennelson draws KÃ¥re Bluitgen wearing a turban. An orange falls on his head and on the orange it says “PR-stunt.” Bluitgen is holding a stick figure drawing of Muhammad.

Lars Refn draws a young boy named Mohammed using a pointer to highlight a statement written in Farsi on a blackboard. It translates as something like “Jylland-Posten’s journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs.”

I’m not going to bother, right now, with an actual analysis of the images. I’ll leave that up to you.

Most are presenting this as a bipolar issue. On one side are the defenders of the freedom of speech who argue that anything goes. On the other side are Muslims who argue that any depiction of Muhammad is blasphemy.

Water that polarity down a little and you get one one side people who admit that the images may have been offensive, but nevertheless defend the freedom of expression. On the other side are Muslims and progressives who agree that freedom of expression is very important but has its limits when it is likely to stoke such strong passions.

Free criticism of Muhammad and Islam is very important, just as criticism of Jesus and Christianity is important. If a religion is, indeed, the truth then it should be able to stand up to the criticism and if these men are indeed flawless messengers of God then their behaviour should stand to criticism as well. Muslims should be willing to receive and respond to such criticism, rationally and reasonably. This doesn’t always happen. Very often Muslims simply respond with attempts to shut down public discourse.

What’s also true is that recently there has been a hegemonizing and ossification of Islamic opinion. Whereas in the past depictions or at least modified depictions of Muhammad were permitted, recently the flexibility inherent in Islamic tradition has become rigid and has tilted toward absolute prohibition of such depictions. (However, this prohibition is not without basis in Islamic scripture and history. Muhammad is said to have taken out pictures of Jesus from the Ka’bah and to have destroyed them as well as other idols.)

At the same time, it’s not simply a matter of Muslims silencing any criticism of Muhammad. It has to be accepted that Muslims have a deep reverence and respect for Muhammad, above and beyond all other prophets. Popular depictions of Jesus and Moses don’t arouse Muslim passions. No Muslim burned copies of the Da Vinci Code, despite its tremendously blasphemous depiction of Jesus. Many countries have laws that prohibit the use of freedom of expression in such a way that may incite violence or be construed as a hate crime. The blatant and shameful racism and insensitivity shown in many of the above cartoons was simply a provocative action on the part of Jyllands-Posten. Hiding behind freedom of expression is a convenient defense, but it’s hard to believe that this is really what it was about in the first place.

It’s great to see the Muslim grassroots sticking it to Danish and other corporations by boycotting their products. It’s not that great to see them burning embassies and kidnapping foreigners. Somewhere along the line, though, they have to be able to distinguish between a newspaper in Denmark, its government, and its corporations.

There are plenty of problems in the Muslim world, many of these problems are a consequence of Muslim ignorance coupled with foreign interference. The links are clear. Why not channel such efforts toward ameliorating those conditions? Boycott American products, and maybe they’ll stop propping up the dictators. Stop buying SUVs, start buying Japanese hybrids. Why not use this anger to burn government buildings, where corrupt dictators have been picking off billions and billions that should have been going to the people of those countries? Why not protest racism and blatant xenophobia in the Arab world?

As for the Europeans and North Americans, it’s great to pretend to be defenders of rights and freedoms, while actively and covertly denying the majority of the world their rights and freedoms. That’s all that needs to be said on that matter.

Here’s a transcript of part of an ANA301 lecture, Dr. Wiley is responding to a girl who’s just told him that he forgot to shut off one of the projectors (he uses two):

You need to tell me that if I do that — if I forgot to shut off one or the other projector you’ve got to tell me because I can’t see what’s going on behind me. If you can’t read my writing you’ve got to tell me, if you can’t hear me you’ve got to tell me, if you have a question you have to … ask it. (Laughter.)
And I tell this to all my classes: if you want to get my attention call out, okay, don’t put your hand up because I won’t see you if you put your hand up. I did see her because she’s got a yellow shirt on there (laughter) in the middle.
But it may look like I’m sweeping my head around and engaging the audience and all that kind of trap (laughter) — this is the thousand yard stare. Okay, I’m just as nervous as you would be standing in front of a large group of people and I have all the insecurities that you have (some laughter) in front of a large group of people. And so, you know, I’m not really looking to see if you have your hand up.
Not a long time ago somebody told me keep moving your head around during a lecture and don’t just look in the same direction all the time so that’s all I’m doing. (Great laughter.)….

Wiley isn’t a spectacular lecturer who jumps around and throws his arms in the air. Nothing like that. He’s a solid lecturer, who knows how to engage an audience. If you don’t know what the course is about, or if you’re an arts student, you’d walk in and fall asleep. He peppers his speech with “okays” and “you knows”. But for a science student, Wiley is probably one of the best lecturers they’ll find — even in a huge class like ANA301. Other lecturers should take tips from him.

This is part of the reason why the Anti-Calendar keeps returning rave retake values (over 90% everytime) for Wiley’s two courses, ANA300 and ANA301.

Hamas believes that the land of the state of Israel is really just Palestinian territory that eventually needs to be repatriated.
Many Israelis, including Likud and Sharon, believe that the land of the Palestinian territories is really Israeli territory that eventually needs to be repatriated.

Hamas kills civilians, arguing that since all Israelis are required to serve in the armed forces at some point in their lives, they are valid military targets.
The Israeli Defence Forces kill civilians. No justifications, just obscenely massive collateral damage.

Hamas is a lot of things, but at least it’s honest. It uses terrorism and admits it. Israel uses terrorism but doesn’t admit it.

If Hamas only targeted Israeli military targets, and not civilians, would it be welcomed as a “partner for peace”?

What peace is there in the Middle East that is apparently now being put at risk? The unilateral declaration of cease-fire by Hamas?

For the majority of the world, the IDF is no less terroristic (and perhaps moreso) than Hamas. That’s not a justification for anything, it’s simply a fact of public opinion. In Africa, in Latin America, in Asia, the CIA is no less terroristic, and definitely more terroristic, than Hamas.

If Palestinians are expected to negotiate with Israel, then I don’t see why Israel can’t negotiate with Hamas. Maybe something good will come out of it. Hamas is willing to repudiate violence for one, ten, a hundred years if Israel is willing to do the same. Why not?

Give peace a chance.

Back from Windsor.

More on that later, perhaps.

The editor of the Varsity got back to me and said he’d like to publish the comic strip. It’ll appear in the Varsity beginning Monday, I think.

Recently, I’ve been watching some good Hindi films, and have been listening to some good Hindi songs. To the extent that that’s all I’m listening to (to the exclusion of the English, etc. songs) and I’m annoyed that all the CDs I’ve burned for my car are full of English songs (with the exception of Ande Ka Funda and Kajra Re which, despite their merits, aren’t exactly the cream of the crop) and that those are all that are on my iPod.

I want to get these Hindi songs on my iPod, but I’m kind of lazy and don’t entirely have the time. Besides, I’m paranoid about using my iPod with the buds because of ear damage (and I’ve used buds for a hell lot of time). I’m thinking of getting some noise-cancelling headphones from ebay, or worst come to worst, just the normal types of headphones.

The film Main Meri Patni Aur Woh has some excellent songs, as does Hungama, but the former is actually a pretty solid film as well.

A footnote, so to speak:

Being an idealist doesn’t mean ignoring pragmatic concerns.

Having ideal goals is important, and it may take two, twenty, two hundred, or even two thousand years to get the pendulum swinging back the other way (by which time it might be too late anyway, but what the hell). Revolution is probably impractical if the masses are not ready for it and it doesn’t matter how enlightened any vanguard party is. If the masses are taught, gradually (because that’s typically the only way it can be done), to reflect upon their condition and take action, then the need for immediate revolutions is largely eradicated. (My problem is that right now, things aren’t even going in that direction — they seem to be moving largely toward apathy and the endless cycle of the rat race.)

I’m an idealist, but I’m also a realist. I have my long-term goals and principles in mind but I also acknowledge the lack of fit or feasibility and am routinely ready, willing and able to work within pragmatic parameters to nevertheless try and reach the end goal — which I do not give up sight of, bhale kitnee bhi der lagay.

I think it would be useful for me to make some clarifications on my post down there.

I don’t think I’m capable of “giving up” — but I am capable of becoming lethargic from disillusionment, taking forever to get things done. That’s already happened as I haven’t taken concrete action on some issues pertaining to ASSU this winter, which (though I didn’t really have much time this winter pursuing other goals, such as comics, and dealing with family issues, like visiting New Jersey) I could have focused on.

Ultimately, I am a romantic — a hopeless romantic. Idealism is sometimes impractical, and to be idealistic is often to wish impossible things.

One of my goals has been to see a significant portion of the student body to move around a significant issue.

But it seems to me that the vast majority of students are either too apathetic or too passive or too disenchanted or too disillusioned to attempt to affect any kind of change.

Perhaps it’s an issue of leadership. I remember at a meeting of the Council of Student Unions (where I typically represent ASSU), voting on endorsing a tuition freeze movement. I wanted to amend the statement to read something like endorsing the tuition freeze as a “positive step toward the eventual elimination of tuition fees.” This didn’t seem to go well with anyone else there (two Vice-Presidents of SAC, the President of VUSAC, and a representative from St. Mike’s whose name I’ve managed to forget, as well as a representative from the Faculty of Music — although Paul, President of SAC, was there and maybe would’ve supported the principle of elimination, he was quite literally checking up on the pizza while this particular discussion came to take place). It really struck me that student leaders were unwilling to pass a resolution endoring the tuition freeze as a positive step toward the eventual elimination of tuition — this being a resolution that no one will give a damn about anyway (not the Varsity, not the university, no one but perhaps overzealous conservatives and right-leaning Liberals trying to discredit leftists as impractical).

Perhaps it’s because of the issues on hand. Most of them are long-term, it takes a while to get things implemented. Something immediate like tuition, while many students do feel strongly about it (but not strongly enough to take action it because they can get by), seems to be unstoppable — hence, any resistance would be stereotypically futile.

There also seems to be a general sense of malaise as far as activism is concerned. We’re at university to get an education, but that’s all it’s about now. Getting the marks and getting the extracurriculars on our resumes, and spending the rest of the time doing inane and random things. The focus has been shifted from getting the government to get things done, to doing things by one’s self. Hence, rather than kicking the government for not moving on social housing, one may join Habitat for Humanity. I’m not criticizing the latter, not in the least, I have a great deal of admiration for folks involved in that, and reference my several posts criticizing myself instead for my lack of action as far as that is concerned. But kicking at the government is an important part of this, and while the leadership of organizations does seem to focus toward this, the rank and file don’t seem to digest it.

Many other students don’t seem to care even about that. It’s more about the iPod and the boots, or something. The focus has been shifted from being a nonconformist for the sake of getting things done to becoming a nonconformist to conform to popular notions of nonconformism, hence really becoming a conformist anyway. Conformity or lack thereof should be a matter of ideas and action, not just clothing and accessories. (The only reason I have a Che t-shirt is because someone gave it to me as a gift, not because I actively seeked one.)

Lobbying has taken precedence over direct activism, and while lobbying may make some difference it should be conceded that our lobby is nowhere near as effective as, say, the auto insurance or oil industries’ because we don’t have money. (One of my gimmicks as I campaigned for SAC to get students to vote in the tution referendum was to tell people that there are only two things politicians listen to: money, and votes — putting up my index and middle finger respectively — and that since we don’t have the money, we should give them the votes — putting down my index finger and leaving my middle finger up.) But we do have numbers, if we choose to mobilize those numbers. Like the students in Quebec did last year.

It was remarkable, I wanted to move to Quebec at that stage. It was inspiring. I wrote an article on it, that was published in the Varsity in a hastily-edited (not by me) format, and rather than responding to the substance of what I wrote, people largely criticized my style (because the opinions editor managed to leave out some integral parts of my article, like the thesis). The mainstream media largely ignored the Quebec student strikes and pretended they didn’t exist or barely mattered, but this was the largest mobilization of students and unions since the sixties.

Many of the students who are involved politically are partisan hacks (including several student leaders). Whether this hackery be for the Liberals (who seem to have the largest hack to member ratio I’ve ever empirically experienced), the NDP or the Conservatives. Being a party ideologue may be fine as long as that party conforms to your ideology, but once it shifts, or manages to deviate remarkably from your vision, means that you should try to change it while voting for someone else. Being a member of a party isn’t the problem, having blind faith in its ultimate righteousness despite its failings is. If the coat doesn’t fit or is falling apart, you have it repaired and wear another coat for a while.

I don’t usually bother with Conservative hacks because, well, they’re on the other side anyway (that doesn’t mean that they have nothing meaningful to contribute to discussions and debates, or even that their motivation is in the wrong place). But Liberal and NDP hacks really get me ticking. The Liberal party has become something that is anything but liberal, and is in fact difficult to distinguish from the Conservative party (except on certain human rights issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion). Nevertheless people refuse to see this.

In looking at all of these things, I’ve also seen my role in not doing much about it. For instance, I don’t call my MPP and MP every week (not that it would make much a difference, living in Markham) to complain about poverty or education, although I’ll join the occasional protest and wear buttons to improve the lot of Sodexho workers. But I really don’t do much beyond that.

I haven’t tried to reach out to others to build the kind of consensus needed to get the ball rolling on a mass movement (I wouldn’t know how to begin). And getting a massive student movement going, even a year from now, is most probably something impossible. El pueblo unido jamas sera vencido is simply my mythology. “To wish impossible things,” as the Cure once sang.

More on this later, maybe.

I was coming home today from UofT, and some time after 10 pm I reached the Scarborough Centre Station bus terminal, to be met by a massive police presence there, with several police officers, some speaking with a few people.

There were several police cars, at least five — some parked where the taxis usually stand. There was a dog squad van (and you could hear the dogs barking inside the van) parked at the McCowan 129 bus stop as well.

On the opposite side of the terminal (south-bound buses), a couple of police officers (white) had a young male (black) in custody, handcuffed. It seemed like they were patting him down. I was considering standing around to make sure he wasn’t mistreated (not sure why I thought he would be mistreated in the first place). But then the 129 bus got there, and of course catching the bus is more important than documenting potential police mistreatment, or anything else for that matter. As we exited the bus terminal two police cars were exiting ahead of us.

I was intimidated more by the large police presence than any perceived threat. I’m not sure what occurred there though I’m sure it’ll come up on the news (or maybe not). Seemed like some kind of (drugs/gun?) bust. No ambulances, no fire trucks — so it wasn’t a regular 911 call where someone was injured (or perhaps they had long since left), and the dog squad usually doesn’t show up for those kinds of problems either.

It’s kind of odd when you’re stuck in that place where your spirit is thoroughly broken but your mind refuses to stop thinking about things. Where you’re entirely disillusioned but refuse to acquiesce. I guess one could call it a no man’s land.

I find myself going through this kind of thinking quite often — nearly a year ago I made this post.

A commenter named patlajica left this message:

because you have no other choice! people like you, who refuse to be swallowed by ignorance, have no other choice but to think and fight. you are cursed with a brain that will not shut down, a mind that will not stop asking questions and eyes that will not look away when wrong-doings or abuse happen. your very existence is tormenting but there is nothing more beautiful than your cause.

She summed it up quite well, and in fact that reflects my first paragraph.

I’ve done a lot of thinking this winter, perhaps one of the worst I’ve had (and conversely perhaps also one of the best I’ve had). I’ve seriously considered resigning from ASSU to take a break from it, even as I’ve seriously considered running for a seat on Governing Council — all the while I’ve also come up with some thoughts and ideas to do something about both.

In one capacity or another I’ve been involved in just about every level of student government on campus, from course unions (HBSU and APSS) to a faculty student union (ASSU) to the university student union (SAC). The one that I haven’t stuck my nose in is the Governing Council.

One issue that really bothers me is the fact that there is no public accountability of the University of Toronto (or indeed, at an Ontario university). The results of its internal audit are never made public, the Audit Committee of the Governing Council has no student members (for what reason, I do not know) — it reports back to the Business Board (which has two student members, and the reports are publicly viewable) but many of its items are confidental and undisclosed. The web site for the internal audit serves as a “resource” for members of the “University community” — of course student societies don’t get audited by this ‘Internal Audit’ (so are we members of this “University community”?) and we aren’t given the most important resource of all: the results of the audit.

The very structure of the Governing Council also bothers me. 8 students out of 50 members. That’s one less than the number of alumni (eight plus the Chancellor), four less than the teaching staff (12), eight less than the provincial appointees (16). At the very least, I feel there should be more students on the Governing Council — substantially more — than there are alumni. Sure, they contribute to the “University community,” but really, we’re the ones who go through the crap here on the ground. To change this, one would have to go to the provincial government, because apparently the Governing Council is rooted in Ontario law (hence the 16 provincial appointees).

And that just brings it round full circle. The University of Toronto is established in the law, by the province, and yet it has no public accountability.

Many of the committees on the Governing Council co-opt unelected students. This is a route to get “in” — so to speak — but not being elected isn’t my thing. I used two negatives. I would rather be elected than be co-opted or appointed. (During ASSU’s March 2005 elections, I was acclaimed an Executive Member rather than being elected because not enough people ran for anything. Had I not stood against Yaser for the presidency, he too would have been acclaimed. At that point I didn’t want to become President, but I wasn’t happy at all about the lack of choice and the automatic acclamations.)

I’ve also noticed that no full-time undergraduate student representative on the Governing Council has reached out to faculty student unions — at least not to ASSU. If they had I probably would’ve known about it by now. Of course, I and ASSU have certainly not reached out to them either, despite their contacts being public information. Neither of us initiated anything.

I’ve been thinking a lot more about a lot more (more on that, hopefully, later). And although sometimes I feel like walking away, I think Shawn summarized it best when, in March responding to my post, he said “keep fighting b/c you probably won’t give up either way..”.

Sometimes, though, it just gets awful lonely when yours is the only voice you hear, regardless of how much you like listening to the sound of your own voice. Perhaps you’re not listening, or you’re not listening in the right places. But that just makes you feel even lonelier.