Muslim boycott of Denmark/The cartoon controversy opinions please

Snickers Man

Muslim countries want to boycott Danish products to express their displeasure at the cartoons of mohammed. Fair enough? A capitalist solution to a Muslim problem.

But what does Denmark produce that Muslims might want?

Well, a neocon blogger, whose reaction to this is to urge Americans to buy Danish at every opportunity has listed some of the exports for which Denmark is famous:

Danish Havarti cheese

OK not sure how big a market for this stuff there is in Muslim countries but let's say they take a hit there.

Carlsberg and Tuborg Beers.
Yep. The cancellation of the contract to replenish Osama's drinks cabinet is really going to hurt!!


Lurpak butter
I'm sure they make their own butter in Muslim countries/

Danish Crown hams and bacon ( DANEPAK etc)
In Muslim countries?? Yeah that one's going to bite!!

Bang&Olufsen TVs

If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it. Not sure there's a local agent for these babies in the Gaza strip/Tora Bora/Beirut refugee camps. Maybe a couple of rich Saudis will switch to Sony but the neocon backlash will take up the slack.

So all in all, I think Denmark's current export levels will hardly be affected at all.

Unless of course Lego is the toy of choice in playrooms east of Suez.

Hobbes

Iran major import from Denmark was Dairy products (eg, cheeses, butter).

But your right its not that big. Something of 0.3% of Denmarks exports go to Iran. $280 Million.

Cronus333

Hobbes wrote:

Iran major import from Denmark was Dairy products (eg, cheeses, butter).

But your right its not that big. Something of 0.3% of Denmarks exports go to Iran. $280 Million.

That much! I thought it would be far less.

mike65

The Danish dairy sector is huge across Europe and the mid east. Poeple are being layed off in certain factories and if supplies come from elsewhere like erm Ireland then the Danes may loose out for good.

Mike.

KerranJast

The people in those countries don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that governments of Western countries cannot censor newspapers and rightly so. Even if the Danish government wanted to stop the publication of these cartoons theres nothing they can do to stop it. The same applies here. I'm pretty sure if an Irish papers was to print the cartoons the Government couldn't stop them.

Hobbes

KerranJast wrote:

Even if the Danish government wanted to stop the publication of these cartoons theres nothing they can do to stop it.

Whatever happend to the EU law on religous intolerance? Did that die or something?

I'm pretty sure if an Irish papers was to print the cartoons the Government couldn't stop them.

I'm pretty sure they do. At least in the case of RTE they can pull stuff under the grounds that the government own the copyright to the article/photo/etc. (excuse used to pull Bushes semi-clothed picture)

seamus

KerranJast wrote:

I'm pretty sure if an Irish papers was to print the cartoons the Government couldn't stop them.

Technically the government can't stop Irish papers printing anything. Since they don't have to consult with the Government before going to press, the paper can be on the streets and the information in the public domain before anyone in Government even sees it.

In reality though, what the papers publish is controlled by their own sense of self-preservation. There are plenty of things which papers can publish, but doing so would result in criminal convictions, and the end of the paper.

phantom_lord

You're forgetting their most famous export......danish pastries....:rolleyes:

Dave!

Apparantly a fair few workers have been, temporarily at least, laid off as a result of this

Boggle

Hobbes wrote:

Whatever happend to the EU law on religous intolerance? Did that die or something?

Would you cop the hell on? This has nothing to do with intolerance and everything to do with perceptions and fear - which, if you bothered to read up on the problem, you may realise.

The real story isn't the cartoons - its the realisation that the Muslim faith is now associated with terrorism in the West.

Hobbes

Boggle wrote:

Would you cop the hell on? This has nothing to do with intolerance

Posting offensive pictures of a religon after being told they were offensive sounds like intolerance to me.

Well Hobbes, its like the old addage about filth on the Telly.
If Mary Whitehouse got her way, we'd all be having tea and scones instead of watching it.

Those that are offended by the cartoons dont have to look at them.They are entitled to protest about them but they are not entitled to have them taken down.
Similarally Mary whitehouse could just have turned the TV off and urged her supporters to do the same.

If a woman visits Iran she may be required to cover her head with a scarf, she wont be allowed to go around in tight shorts and cleavage showing.
http://www.irantravelingcenter.com/women_iran.htm

We dont put any such requirements on Iranian women visiting here, they can wear what they like.

In my home town a few years ago, the cinema across the road from the church was showing "The pope must Die"
Anyone coming out of mass was greeted with a big banner advertisement "The pope must Die" directly in front of them.

There were no riots.

These cartoons were not published in islamic countries afaik.Ergo people in those countries have in my opinion the right to express their distaste for them and say we are all going to Hell.
But I for one also have the right in my western civilisation to say "yeah Right!!" to them and feel sorry for what in my opinion would be their misguidance.
I'm glad I live in a democracy where I'm free to do that.

Boggle

Boggle wrote:

Would you cop the hell on? This has nothing to do with intolerance and everything to do with perceptions and fear - which, if you bothered to read up on the problem, you may realise.

The real story isn't the cartoons - its the realisation that the Muslim faith is now associated with terrorism in the West.

Do Not tell posters here with a different opinion to your own to cop on.
The rules around here clearly state that you deal with the post and not the poster.

Boggle

@ Hobbes:

Alot of news can be taken as offensive to either a person or a group. Being offensive is not a reason thus not to print a story - whats important is was the journalist intentionally trying to offend a religion or was there a story being told.

In this case there was a story that needs to be told as the West is running scared of the nutjob elements that associate themselves with the Muslim faith. Can you not see that or are you gonna make me type it again??

Edited the title of this thread so as to let all the discussion go into this relatively newer shorter one.
The other threads were getting numerous ,lengthy and unwieldy and are therefore closed.

Hobbes

You make a good point Earthman, however I don't think equates to this all that much.

One it sets a perception that all Muslims share the same beliefs as the fanatics (and the minority rioting help that perception). As shown from various other posters some don't even bother to read up on what it is they are actually hating.

If they did they would know that drawing pictures of prophets is not done in the religon (even Jesus is not drawn). It is not a case of threats on life (which have happened) or censorship but part of the religon. Now if he had just printed various normal pictures of Mohammad instead of ones that were purposely trying to be offensive it would of been a completely different story to this point.

Which makes me wonder wtf the author of the story was thinking considering it is supposed to be written because he wanted a picture for a childrens book. If he allowed offensive cartoons what does it say about the book he was writing?

Now where I see this blowing up is Danish law. For starters thier blasphemy law is rarely enforced and in this case when the initial paper was brought up on that law they (muslim group) got ignored. Second Denmark has seriously lax freedom of the press laws in comparison to the rest of the world.

Danish law allows you to print anything you want providing you don't mind going to court afterwards. (thats more or less the wording)

So I can understand the Danes in not wanting thier freedom of the press being stifled, at the same time having them reprinted in other publications purposely inflamed the issue and caused the rioting. Not the initial Danish story.

Boggle wrote:

Being offensive is not a reason thus not to print a story - whats important is was the journalist intentionally trying to offend a religion or was there a story being told.

Again, if this is the case why not print offensive pictures of Jesus by the same paper when they were submitted before this?

In this case there was a story that needs to be told as the West is running scared

It is? Wow news to me. Can you show me how it is running scared?

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

You make a good point Earthman, however I don't think equates to this all that much.

One it sets a perception that all Muslims share the same beliefs as the fanatics (and the minority rioting help that perception). As shown from various other posters some don't even bother to read up on what it is they are actually hating.

When entire countries decide to boycott Denmarks goods though, its gone beyond a minority opinion.
When authorities stand idly by, whilst embasies are sacked and their staff have to leave due to safety issues, its gone beyond a minority opinion.

I've no doubt in my mind that this is being fanned by people with some other agenda.

Skitbra

The problem with this is that there is no right side to be on. On one side you have racists and on the other you have fundamenalists.

Denmark is one of the most racist countries in Europe. They have no policies on immigration or asylum seekers apart from one, no one gets in. They are hiding behind the aurgument of "Free Speech". The government is also responsible. They have laws in Denmark, like England, preventing the incitment of hatred. In not doing anything about these cartoons they have allowed this to occur. Muslims are a minority in Denmark so their voice wasn't heard.

The fundamentalists are also wrong. There is no excuse for what is happening over there. Burning embassies in Syria, which is being allowing by the Syrian government, is completely wrong. They have a right to protest but not this way.

So the problem is there is no correct side to be on. They're as bad as each other.

Boggle

Hobbes wrote:

Again, if this is the case why not print offensive pictures of Jesus by the same paper when they were submitted before this?

Why, what was the story attached to this jesus pic? Are you saying that there was not a story being told in the case of the controversy?

Is caricature not a method of story telling used in the West? Are we no longer allowed to discuss anything relating to the Muslim faith incase it offends them?? Answer at least one question directly - please??

Your deliberately avoiding replying to my argument and instead trying to deflect the discussion into a tit-for-tat argument.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Again, if this is the case why not print offensive pictures of Jesus by the same paper when they were submitted before this?

Probably because there are no suicide bombers in the modern world waving the Christian bible as their right to bomb.
I havent read the context that the cartoons were originally printed in-but if it was in the context of ,the Quoran permits this and muslims are to be feared because this is where they are at-then it was and is wrong.

If it was a parody of those who mistakenly think Allah permits london tube bombings, then I see no reason not to print it.

The religion forbids all images of Mohammed afaik but like I said earlier,they dont have the right to to impose that on non islamics as much as they dont have the right to impose sharia law on us.


Storm in a huge growing teapot this with whoevers agenda to the fore.
The people with the agenda are the ones laughing in my opinion.

LORDOFDOOM

Skitbra wrote:

So the problem is there is no correct side to be on. They're as bad as each other.

I'm my quite humble opinion, I believe that the side which ISNT advocating rioting and the beheading of people over a cartoon is slightly* more correct than the one who is.



*of course by slightly I mean obviously.

SeanW

I'm sure some posters from the PC police would love to remind us that this is all the fault of those horrible, evil, racist newspapers that reprinted the cartoons.

Just because "it's offensive" is not a reason to not print something. So you were offended. Big fat hairy deal. People say and print offensive stuff all the time (in the free world) and the offendees just have to grow up and deal with it.

I'm sure, for example, that feminists are offended by The Sun's daily Page 3 pix, some Jews were offended by the recent Passion movie, and the Catholic Church had some unkind words to say about The DaVinci Code.

But there were no authors getting fatwas on their heads, embassies torched people killed mass boycotts or anything like that.

But when it comes to Islam, some in the PC thought police would love to bury the fact that this madness only tends to happen when Islamists are involved ... like Salmon Rushdie, Danish cartoons etc.

Could I ask Hobbes one direct, hypothetical question?

Suppose some feminists decided to take a page out of Ahmedinijad's book and got all worked up about The Sun's Page 3 daily. They said it was "offensive" after which some other papers carried said pictures, which lead to there being mass riots across Europe, British and Irish embassies being burned, offices bombed, mass boycotts of British goods etc death threats against the photographer etc.

Would you still say that "It's all our evil free press, printing offensive material?" Or would you have the common sense to apply the blame soely where it belongs, the people doing the rioting, boycotting, torching etc?

fly_agaric

SeanW wrote:

Could I ask Hobbes one direct, hypothetical question?

LOL.
You are wasting your time there. I've asked what he/she expects Denmark or any other European country where the cartoons were published to do by way of apology or restitution since he/she feels they are primarily to blame for this mess - but no answer. Just more about Danish bigots and their hate-mail to Mosques and *irresponsible* cartoonists and editors.

I made a few suggestions on another thread but maybe he ignored them because they were a little bit silly! But then this whole row is so I don't feel too bad.:)

Hobbes

SeanW wrote:

Could I ask Hobbes one direct, hypothetical question?

Your hypothetical question has no bearing on what is going on at the moment. I suggest you go read up the whole time line of what has happened to date. I posted the link earlier.

LORDOFDOOM wrote:

I'm my quite humble opinion, I believe that the side which ISNT advocating rioting and the beheading of people over a cartoon is slightly* more correct than the one who is.

Which is also the muslim community. Again 5 seconds in google news would point this out too. The problem is that people rarely think there is a difference between them and the fanatical section.

boggle wrote:

Why, what was the story attached to this jesus pic? Are you saying that there was not a story being told in the case of the controversy?

The paper was offered similar cartoons of Jesus well before this and the paper refused to print them on the grounds they were offensive. The paper also knew the other cartoons were offensive otherwise they wouldn't of apologised.

The issue started when the cartoons were reprinted elsewhere.

Is caricature not a method of story telling used in the West? Are we no longer allowed to discuss anything relating to the Muslim faith incase it offends them??

Yes it is and yes you can discuss anything relating to the religon. But as pointed out the drawing of pictures of the prophets is against the Muslim religon. Of course if someone else draws them the majority are going to be upset but aren't going to riot over it. The author of the story could of just gotten normal pictures drawn, but instead got pictures he knew would be extremly offensive.

When entire countries decide to boycott Denmarks goods though, its gone beyond a minority opinion.
When authorities stand idly by, whilst embasies are sacked and their staff have to leave due to safety issues, its gone beyond a minority opinion.

Boycotting and removing diplomats/closing embassys (by not destroying them) is not rioting. Don't confuse the two. However both previous are certainly allowed.

Hobbes

fly_agaric wrote:

LOL.
You are wasting your time there. I've asked what he/she expects Denmark or any other European country where the cartoons were published to do by way of apology or restitution since he/she feels they are primarily to blame for this mess.

TBH I didn't even see it. Despite what you may think I am not actively scanning your every word you post. If you want direct answers to questions in a thread and you think I am ignoring you then please just in future PM me a link to the question and I'll reply in said thread.

What can they do as restitution? It is a good question and probably one beyond my scope. If I was you I'd actually put that up as a seperate discussion in Humanities. Word it as you said, and not to have it discuss the issue at hand but rather how to dissolve the confrontation.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Boycotting and removing diplomats/closing embassys (by not destroying them) is not rioting. Don't confuse the two. However both previous are certainly allowed.

I wasnt confusing anything.
I was refering to what was going on outside the Danish and Norwegian embasies in syria and elsewhere which was rioting.
To be fair I was wrong about standing idly by though, the police did fire tear gas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm

And the group outside the embasy in Tehran was small

http://norwaypost.imaker.no/cgi-bin/norwaypost/imaker?id=21781

Boggle

Hobbes wrote:

The paper was offered similar cartoons of Jesus well before this and the paper refused to print them on the grounds they were offensive. The paper also knew the other cartoons were offensive otherwise they wouldn't of apologised.

Was there a story to go with the pictures of jesus or were they just pictures. Do you have a link to them so I can see? - Basically, I ask you to prove a similarity. Just because they involved deity's does not mean they were comparable situations.

The issue started when the cartoons were reprinted elsewhere.

The issue started when the pictures were taken out of context and paraded around the middle east.

And as for being printed elsewhere - the minute there was debate about the pictures they became newsworthy and people wanted to see them. Hence they were newsworthy and it wasn't a conspiracy against muslims as you seem to think.

Yes it is and yes you can discuss anything relating to the religon. But as pointed out the drawing of pictures of the prophets is against the Muslim religon. Of course if someone else draws them the majority are going to be upset but aren't going to riot over it. The author of the story could of just gotten normal pictures drawn, but instead got pictures he knew would be extremly offensive.

I suggest you look at where the drawings came from. They were 12 artists impressions of Mohammed. You may have noticed that because of the actions of suicide bombers and murderers, mohammed is now associated with bombings and murder - Is that not worth discussing??

Boycotting and removing diplomats/closing embassys (by not destroying them) is not rioting. Don't confuse the two. However both previous are certainly allowed.

But they are not protesting at the papers who published the reports - they are protesting at the countries who refuse to sanction their free press. Do you not see this??

Which is also the muslim community. Again 5 seconds in google news would point this out too. The problem is that people rarely think there is a difference between them and the fanatical section.

Nobody said they didn't. What has been said is that they do not do enough to disassociate themselves from atrocities carried out in their name.

fly_agaric

Hobbes wrote:

TBH I didn't even see it. Despite what you may think I am not actively scanning your every word you post. If you want direct answers to questions in a thread and you think I am ignoring you then please just in future PM me a link to the question and I'll reply in said thread.

Well that put me in my place!:v:
I have been spending more time than is healthy on this bbs.

Hobbes wrote:

What can they do as restitution? It is a good question and probably one beyond my scope. If I was you I'd actually put that up as a seperate discussion in Humanities. Word it as you said, and not to have it discuss the issue at hand but rather how to dissolve the confrontation.

Think I'll pass on that. There are just way too many threads on this nonsense already. Don't think it would stay on topic for long enough anyway.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

The author of the story could of just gotten normal pictures drawn, but instead got pictures he knew would be extremly offensive.

Small correction. Not all of the cartoons could be construed as offensive, beyond the ban on representation of mohammed itself(which I go along with). Four out of the twelve don't show him at all(one of those does however insult the Prophet). One is a straightforward no caricature full length portrait in the desert with the sun behind him. Another has the crescent moon merged with his face. Your contention that the artists in question all wanted to be extremely offensive, regardless of what's happened since may not be the entire of the case. The one with cartoonist huddled in fear, in the dark while drawing him is probably the most pertinent to the whole debate. Luckily even if it is a self portrait, he'd be hard to identify.:)

SeanW

SeanW wrote:

Could I ask Hobbes one direct, hypothetical question?

Hobbes wrote:

Your hypothetical question has no bearing on what is going on at the moment. I suggest you go read up the whole time line of what has happened to date. I posted the link earlier.

I take it the answer is no?

It is entirely relevant. The whole plank of your arguments are that a group found these cartoons offensive. This logically leads to the conclusion that anything that might offend anyone should be censored.

I'm sure plently of women esp. feminists find the publication of pictures of topless women in national newspapers (Ok, tabloid) offensive. By your logic, these should be censored, or The Sun, and any supportive publications, would have to bear responsibility for any consequences.

Or is it just different becuase it's Muslims?

Skitbra

Taking a stance either way is wrong. We may understand the Danish point of view but not the Muslims. There are other factors involved than just cartoons. Having a signature supporting Denmark is just immature and jumping on the bandwagon. That's exactly what's happening over there. People see other people protesting these cartoons and are just joining in. By the way, a couple of hundred people is not representitive of a total of 1.2bn. So grow up and see it from both sides.

Dave!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054887599

Zombrex

SeanW wrote:

The whole plank of your arguments are that a group found these cartoons offensive. This logically leads to the conclusion that anything that might offend anyone should be censored.

No it doesn't, not in the slightest.

But it is nonsense to ignore that fact that these cartoons are very very offensive to some peoplem and to ignore the fact that they were printed for the only reason to offend Muslims, to prove a point ("Behead anyone who says Islam is violent")

You also cannot view these cartoons in complete isolation, tensions between the Muslim world and the west have been high for years. It seems rather idiotic that newspaper editors would go out of there way to offend Muslims at a time like this. It might have been their right to do so, but there is a difference between something being allowed and something be justified.

To the Muslims rioting these is just one more example of the west sh*tting all over the Muslim world, everything from support of Israel, the Iraq wars, western corporate influense in the region etc etc

It doesn't justify the rioting, or the violence, not in the slightest But to pretend that these are just harmless cartoons and the crazy Islamists are just nuts is a gross ignorance of the situations around these events.

It would be very dangerous dimiss with some kind of Bush-esque "Good vs Evil, Them vs Us" mentality the problems we are seeing unfold.

You can attempt to understand without having to approve. Ignorance is the greatest enemy

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

But it is nonsense to ignore that fact that these cartoons are very very offensive to some peoplem and to ignore the fact that they were printed for the only reason to offend Muslims, to prove a point ("Behead anyone who says Islam is violent")

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Wicknight, but none of the cartoons says that and as I pointed out before not all of the cartoons would be thought of as deliberately offensive by the original artists. Ignorant of the ban on images of the Prophet, certainly, but deliberately offensive?. One in particular just shows an Arab bloke in a desert. No text, no jokes, no judgements. Nothing. If the intention was to riducule Muslims all of them would have been along the lines of "bomb in turban guy". They're not. One of them is even ridiculing the author who was looking for illustrators in the first place and calling him a publicity junky, He's not attacking Mohammed or Muslims at all. Quite the opposite. In fact that one is supporting many of the Muslims viewpoint in that it was all a shallow PR stunt in the first place. While the rest have varying degrees of insult, depending on viewpoint, I think we have to get the facts straight. Saying that all of the artists intended insult is not correct IMHO, regardless of perception.

You also cannot view these cartoons in complete isolation, tensions between the Muslim world and the west have been high for years.

True enough.

It seems rather idiotic that newspaper editors would go out of there way to offend Muslims at a time like this.

Maybe I'm naive, but I honestly don't think they intended nor expected anything like this sh1tstorm.

It might have been their right to do so, but there is a difference between something being allowed and something be justified.

Depends on viewpoint, but I take your point yes.

To the Muslims rioting these is just one more example of the west sh*tting all over the Muslim world, everything from support of Israel, the Iraq wars, western corporate influense in the region etc etc

True and the Mad Mullahs and Dodgy Despots are fanning the flames. The fact that now there's anything up to 16 cartoons out there kinda proves that point.

It would be very dangerous dimiss with some kind of Bush-esque "Good vs Evil, Them vs Us" mentality the problems we are seeing unfold.

Agree again. Jeez, I must be coming down with something.

You can attempt to understand without having to approve. Ignorance is the greatest enemy

Good line and applicable to both sides in an ideal world.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Wicknight, but none of the cartoons says that

No, that quote was from a photograph doing the rounds on the internet. I used it to try to show how this has turned into an exercise in show the contractions of the Muslim world, that the fundamentalists are getting mad at Islam being protrayed as violent

The inital point i was making was that as far as I can see the sole reason for printing (or re-printing) these cartoons across Europe was to provoke a response from Muslims. It was an act of defience against Islam, or what people in the Europe see as too much hand holding of Muslims. Kinda like trying to show the Last Temptation of Christ in the Vatican.

Now people might say that acceptable and they have a right to do that (and I believe they should have the right, in law to do exactly what they did). But lets not kid ourselves here. If you take a hammer to a bee hive you are going to piss off a lot of bees. You might have the right to do it, but thats not going to stop you getting stung

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

No, that quote was from a photograph doing the rounds on the internet. I used it to try to show how this has turned into an exercise in show the contractions of the Muslim world, that the fundamentalists are getting mad at Islam being protrayed as violent

Getting mad is right. Luckily I've far more faith in people than their religion and as Hobbes has pointed out it's only the fundamentalists that are getting violent.

The inital point i was making was that as far as I can see the sole reason for printing (or re-printing) these cartoons across Europe was to provoke a response from Muslims.

Agreed. They were pushing what they saw as the right to lampoon anything or anybody. Personally I think they were misguided in their methods. To be fair to the western press, the ones that did print it were in the minority. Hobbes linked to a wiki article(in another thread) that quantifies the amount of papers that did go ahead and print all or some of the cartoons and I'm surprised how few actually did, given the uproar. I was quite surprised how few US papers printed them(none all 12) and in the UK, it was down to a welsh newspaper that printed only one. That some only printed one or two also puts a slant on it, because as I've pointed out, not all of the cartoons could be seen as intentionally offensive

It was an act of defience against Islam, or what people in the Europe see as too much hand holding of Muslims.

It's been coming for a while as well. The French riots and the situation in Holland and others didn't help. This thing seems to be coming to a head.

Now people might say that acceptable and they have a right to do that (and I believe they should have the right, in law to do exactly what they did).

Agreed. It does come with responsiblity, but I don't think there should be any sacred cows. Good manners should come into it though. Beyond that I say sue.

But lets not kid ourselves here. If you take a hammer to a bee hive you are going to piss off a lot of bees. You might have the right to do it, but thats not going to stop you getting stung

Which is basically saying that certain sections of Islam are violent and reactionary and that the non Islamic world should be cautious in their dealings with "them". Which is what some of the cartoons were trying to say in the first place. I mean if the pope/jesus was portrayed protecting paedephile priests(dunno how, but you get the gist), it would have a somewhat dodgy point to make. Mohammed portrayed similarly wouldn't have any connection at all(Islam to be fair has nothing like that, that I know off). If you drew Buddha with a fuse coming out of his bald head it would equally have no impact. Beyond the religious ban on images of Allah/Mohammed a nerve was struck and a point about the perception of a violent mysoginist Islam was made, however irresponsibly. It's how we deal with the fallout from that will be the judgement of history

adonis

The whole plank of your arguments are that a group found these cartoons offensive.

They arent really just a group. I dont think u can equate feminism to islam really.
Its like comparing farmers to catholics, eh actually....

With freedom of speech there is a responsibility to be fair and respectful. Especially now, and drawing pictures of a mohammed as a suicide bomber isn't really constructive, nor for that matter, does it further any kind of debate on the collision of two cultures.
I think the line was crossed -what seems unintentionally- here. And rightfully the danish newspaper has apologised for what, in hindsight, was a mistake.

Peanut

adonis wrote:

...With freedom of speech there is a responsibility to be fair and respectful...

To quote Moz...
"Love, peace & harmony... oh very nice very nice very nice.. but maybe in the next world.."

astrofool

just as an aside (not sure if its been mentioned already), the South Park episode "Super best Friends" had an animated cartoon of Mohammed in it (referred to by name).

magick

just as an aside (not sure if its been mentioned already), the South Park episode "Super best Friends" had an animated cartoon of Mohammed on it (referred to by name).

Yup ur right ! Mohammed had the power of fire ! V apt if u ask me!

SeanW

Wicknight wrote:

If you take a hammer to a bee hive you are going to piss off a lot of bees. You might have the right to do it, but thats not going to stop you getting stung

Ah, so finally we get to the crux of the PC Police's approach to the problem.

What you are in effect saying, is that anyone who has questions about Islam and Violence/Extremeism should just shut the hell up and run away with their heads between their legs in terror, lest they be responsible for a wave of embassy burnings, or in some cases, their own murders.

After all, Theo Van Gogh took a pretty big hammer to very sore beehive. Who is responsible for his death?

Salmon Rushdie? Why does he STILL have a fatwah (basically a religious hit contract) on his head? For something he wrote? Oh dear. Religion of Peace? Is Mr. Rushdie himself to blame for the danger his life has been in? Or are the commissioners of the hit to blame?

It's this kind of piss-in-my-pants terrorised "surrender monkey" approach that makes me sick.

BTW just bought a bunch of Carlesburg cans yesterday, enjoying one right now ... Mmmm ... Danish ... Alcahol ... which (like Muhammed cartoons) is forbidden in Islamic law. Maybe I should now get a bodyguard?

Zombrex

SeanW wrote:

What you are in effect saying, is that anyone who has questions about Islam and Violence/Extremeism should just shut the hell up

*sigh*

No, not in the slightest, and I really wish you would stop telling people what you seem to think they are "effectively" saying

Wibbs

Just for reference a Fatwah is a religious edict. No more, no less. It could be about the precise start of ramadan, or if it's ok to eat a certain food, or anything at all religion based. It's similar to a papal bull for Catholics. In Rushdies case it called for his death for blasphemy. One Imam in the UK IIRC(brave soul he at the time) issued a fatwa against calling for Rushdies death. Wasn't too popular with some, but fair play to him.

Freddie59

SeanW wrote:

Ah, so finally we get to the crux of the PC Police's approach to the problem.

What you are in effect saying, is that anyone who has questions about Islam and Violence/Extremeism should just shut the hell up and run away with their heads between their legs in terror, lest they be responsible for a wave of embassy burnings, or in some cases, their own murders.

After all, Theo Van Gogh took a pretty big hammer to very sore beehive. Who is responsible for his death?

Salmon Rushdie? Why does he STILL have a fatwah (basically a religious hit contract) on his head? For something he wrote? Oh dear. Religion of Peace? Is Mr. Rushdie himself to blame for the danger his life has been in? Or are the commissioners of the hit to blame?

It's this kind of piss-in-my-pants terrorised "surrender monkey" approach that makes me sick.

BTW just bought a bunch of Carlesburg cans yesterday, enjoying one right now ... Mmmm ... Danish ... Alcahol ... which (like Muhammed cartoons) is forbidden in Islamic law. Maybe I should now get a bodyguard?

Well said. As a journalist from the Irish Ino said on last night's Late Late Show: "There is a sickness at the heart of Islam". I think that adequately covers it.

Ray777

Freddie59 wrote:

Well said. As a journalist from the Irish Ino said on last night's Late Late Show: "There is a sickness at the heart of Islam". I think that adequately covers it.

Ian O'Doherty? Does that cretin write for the Indo? Jesus, my opinion of that rag just gets lower and lower by the minute. Yeah, if you're into vapid, tabloidy soundbites, that does adequately cover it, I suppose.

Zombrex

Freddie59 wrote:

Well said. As a journalist from the Irish Ino said on last night's Late Late Show: "There is a sickness at the heart of Islam". I think that adequately covers it.

There is a sickness at the heart of all religous fundamentalism, be it catholic, protestant, jewish or islamic ... that hardly needs pointing out ...

Of course the route cause of fundamentalism isn't the religious texts it is based on, it is far more complex than that, be it poverty, lack of education, isolation, abuse etc etc

Mjollnir

Wicknight wrote:

There is a sickness at the heart of all religous fundamentalism, be it catholic, protestant, jewish or islamic ... that hardly needs pointing out ...

Of course the route cause of fundamentalism isn't the religious texts it is based on, it is far more complex than that, be it poverty, lack of education, isolation, abuse etc etc

There is also a distinct tribalism at the core of much of Islamic culture that stems directly from its early days that effectively has shut out any real progress towards modernity.

grubber

Hobbes wrote:

Posting offensive pictures of a religon after being told they were offensive sounds like intolerance to me.

Migrating, a large, culturally homogenous community to a prosperous and peace loving western country with guaranteed freedoms, and then telling that country what cartoons they will allow in their newspapers, sounds like intolerance to me.

Gangsta

grubber wrote:

Migrating, a large, culturally homogenous community to a prosperous and peace loving western country with guaranteed freedoms, and then telling that country what cartoons they will allow in their newspapers, sounds like intolerance to me.

would you prefer Muslims only in their own countries to say they're offended then?

Sand

would you prefer Muslims only in their own countries to say they're offended then?

This argument goes round and round and round.

At the end of the day, Islam gets the more respect any other relgion in the west gets. Primarily because people are terrified theyll be suicide bombed, whereas the fear of being suicide bombed by Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Agnostic or whoever is not so great - rightly or wrongly. Yes, everyone know about Christian abortion shootings/bombings. They are rare and motivated by a feeling that abortion is murder of the most innocent, Islamic suicide bombings are daily events and can be apparently sparked by something like a fricking cartoon. Hence the greater fear.

Now, ideally Islam should get the same as say Christianity does - i.e. have the complete and utter piss taken out of it, have its institutions and representives demeaned and its adherents pitied. If peoples faith is strong and their beliefs well founded, then it will bother them of course, but it cannot be viewed as a threat to their faith itself. The right to free expression is not limited by offence - on any issue, people can be offended by criticism of their views on religious, political, social, economical or cultural matters... People are expected to develop either skin thick enough to put up with even offensive opinions, or a sense of humour. If they cant, then thats really their own problem. The Israelis complain about the anti-semetic cartoons and articles in the Arab press, but again the Arabs have the right to publish those images so long as they are not incitement to hate or violence. The fact that the Iranians are trying to run this cartoon competition about the Holocaust shows that they really dont get the point. No one could give a damn about that. Theyll be offended sure, but it wont be the end of the world. Islam needs to learn the same, because they are not going to get through life in the West without criticism or some tenet of the faith being offended. If people are unwilling, or unable to deal with criticism - then theres a serious problem.

Incitement to hate, or violence *are* limiting factors. These cartoons were not incitement to hate or violence, they were a decision to facedown the fear I mentioned above. Publish and be dammed as it were. They are entitled to do that, muslims are entitled to be offended and criticise. If anyone is to blame for the widespread deaths and violence it is the Danish muslim group who incited it using a grossly expanded dossier of images that were nothing to do with JP. And people are being tricky on the violent protests issues. On the one hand they hold them up as avatars of the 1.2 billion muslims, whilst on the other hand the dissasociate the violence from those muslims claiming Islam is equivalent to Christianity when it comes to violence.

Weve just managed to prise the hands of the Catholic Church from around our throats, telling us what is and isnt acceptable. We neednt rush to doff our caps to some other group issuing religous dictates. Whether JP was offensive, or inoffensive to some group is beside the point. The issue is that they have the right to be offensive if they so wish to be.

Of course the route cause of fundamentalism isn't the religious texts it is based on, it is far more complex than that, be it poverty, lack of education, isolation, abuse etc etc

So you cant be rich, educated, living in a modern democracy with strong civil rights and fundamentalist? A large wing of the US Republican Party would disagree. So would an unknown proportion of European muslims who are radicalised.

samb

Sand wrote:

Now, ideally Islam should get the same as say Christianity does - i.e. have the complete and utter piss taken out of it, have its institutions and representives demeaned and its adherents pitied. If peoples faith is strong and their beliefs well founded, then it will bother them of course, but it cannot be viewed as a threat to their faith itself. The right to free expression is not limited by offence - on any issue, people can be offended by criticism of their views on religious, political, social, economical or cultural matters... People are expected to develop either skin thick enough to put up with even offensive opinions, or a sense of humour. If they cant, then thats really their own problem. The Israelis complain about the anti-semetic cartoons and articles in the Arab press, but again the Arabs have the right to publish those images so long as they are not incitement to hate or violence. The fact that the Iranians are trying to run this cartoon competition about the Holocaust shows that they really dont get the point. No one could give a damn about that. Theyll be offended sure, but it wont be the end of the world. Islam needs to learn the same, because they are not going to get through life in the West without criticism or some tenet of the faith being offended. If people are unwilling, or unable to deal with criticism - then theres a serious problem.
.

I agree with you on all of this, Islam in general does need to learn and accept that everyone will not respect their faith (or any belief) just as everyone must in an open democracy. We are too often told that we must repect everyones beliefs when we clearly cant. Most religions believe that I am doomed, so why should I respect that belief. All religions must learn that everything is debatable.

My problem with how many on this thread are reacting is that it is not productive in terms of teaching muslims this valuable lesson discussed above. They must learn it, but ramming it down their throats and waving danish flags is not going to work. We must explain and convince them about the benefits of an open society. Benefits that they can enjoy as muslims. Saying things like ''sickness at heart of Islam, or whatever'' means nothing. It seems like many are driving more muslims towards fundamentalism.