Brian Gallagher opines:
“The cartoon pictures a skeleton in a Nazi uniform bearing the names of ISIS, Boko Haram and other groups. The message is that those groups pose a genocidal threat akin to the one posed by the Nazis.”
It also bears the names of Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and the ‘politically correct’. To whom do these distinct entities pose a (Nazi like) genocidal holocaust threat, as occurred 70 years ago?
“Criticizing violent Islamists does not tarnish all Muslims any more than criticizing Nazis is an offense to all Germans (though all surely suffer from the association).”
But I wonder if instead, a general critique and association of all of Germany with Nazis would be an offense to Germans, in the same way as this plastering of Iran on a Nazi uniform might be to Iranians?
“The cartoon also shows the skeleton shouting “Allah Akbar.” Yes, this is an expression of faith employed throughout Islam. But one sad consequence of the extremists’ actions is that the term has been hijacked. Much of the non-Muslim public now identifies those words as a defiant declaration of faith uttered by terrorists before blowing themselves up. We’ve seen this over and over again. This may be uncomfortable, and it surely is a perversion, but it is also fact.”
? What is the logic of this justification? That because the term ‘Allah Akbar’ has been ‘hijacked’ by a minority, and misassociated by “much of the non-Muslim public” as just ‘terrorist speak’ — therefore Brian thinks it’s fine to not only continue to perpetuate the “fact” of this misconception, but also bears no media responsibility to his audience for any clarification of the “perversion”?
So is the rule that cartoons which reflect public perceptions are fine, even if those perceptions are a misrepresentation?
“It was a sharply targeted cartoon utterly unlike Charlie Hebdo’s gratuitous attacks on Islam generally.”