TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Jihad on Denmark - freedom of expression rears its ugly head once again...
Pages (18): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »

So seems like the Danish Muslims are satisified with the half-appologize by Jyllandsposten.

http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2006/01/31/125658.htm

(couldn't find a god damn English site reporting it)

But it seems like the new threat is comming from the middle east, where the apologize seems to be nowhere near enough...

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic

While I share most of your concerns, I still think Jyllandsposten did the right thing to apologize, not because they published the pictures but because they offended ppl. Also I think the EU took a stance against the boycotts? I can't find the article where i read that though...

Anyway, this seems like a great initiative:

quote:

Khader confronts fundamentalists By The Copenhagen Post MP Naser Khader spearheads a network of Muslims trying to create a moderate counterweight to extremist groups Naser Khader's patience with extremist Muslims has expired. The time has come for moderate Muslims to confront extremist groups, the Palesinian-born MP told weekly newspaper S�ndagsavisen. 'To be a practicing Muslim is not the same as being an extremist. I'll fight the people who think they can tell me and others how to be a good Muslim. That is a matter between Allah and individual Muslims,' he said. Together with 120 other Muslims, Khader recently announcd the creation of the Alternative Muslim Network, a group that seeks to provide a voice for moderate Muslims. Khader hoped the group could provide a historic turning point for a tolerant form of Islam that demonstrated that it is possible to be Muslim, democratic, and Danish. As one of the country's most prominent Muslims, Khader has found himself in the line of fire from many sides over the years. He is often asked by journalists to act as a spokesperson for the country's 200,000 Muslims, but fundamentalist Muslims have also turned on Khader for what they consider his secular ways. Despite their criticism, Khader maintains that its possible to be both modern and Muslim. 'The difference between me and the fundamentalists is that I am a Muslim in a dynamic way. Islam should be interpreted based on the contemporary times we live in,' said Khader. 'Fundamentalists say that what is written in the Koran is the truth for all time. That is an opinion we moderate Muslims want to challenge.'

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew While I share most of your concerns, I still think Jyllandsposten did the right thing to apologize, not because they published the pictures but because they offended ppl.

Yes, unfortunately they did it three times, which in my mind is caving in - also because the distinction is not apparent from the headlines (e.g. "Jyllands-posten Apologises" rather than "Jyllands-posten Apologises for Outrage"). Apparently, the move has opened the door to even further demands on behalf of the illiterates. Now they want apologies from the cartoonists, our prime minister, and (yes) even our queen. It looks like a snowballing effect to me, but I might be wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Also I think the EU took a stance against the boycotts? I can't find the article where i read that though...

I saw individual ministers condemn the threats against Scandinavians, and supposedly the EU commisioner for trade has threatened Saudi-Arabia government against officially sanctioning the current boycott.
What I was hoping for was a joint statement from the EU ministers, which condemned the reactions, and in clear language stated that the free press cannot, will not, and must not ever be suppressed in the EU - religious feelings be damned. The EU has been quick to condemn before (Russia and Israel spring to mind), why not now?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Anyway, this seems like a great initiative:

Yes. Khader is a very cool person. I'm not really aligned with him politically, but he's a rational being, with a remarkable love of the principles of Danish governance. (I think a lot of other Danish politicians take these for granted.) Unfortunately, he only represents a very small group of people, compared to the 15000+ people backing the Islamic Faith Community, which is a more radical organization. That being said, the IFC is nothing like the really extreme fundamentalists, which we see in the Middle East. The IFC did instigate the conflict, and did spread misinformation about Denmark, but has denounced the current events, and apparently wants to make amends by trying to correct misinterpretations in the Middle East.
In fact, Danish muslims is one of the few involved groups in which I'm not disappointed right now.

Sorry for the continual spamming - it's just that things keep happening, and the basic premise at stake here is quite important to me.

Today both a French and a German paper ran re-prints of the cartoons. The French paper, France Soir, also added their own cartoon to the front page:

(It's Jesus saying: "Relax Mohammad, we've all been caricaturised")
The German paper, Die Welt, brought one of the original cartoons on its front page, and another four within the paper. I don't know about Die Welt's reasons for doing so, but France Soir has done it as a clear statement in support of freedom of expression.
So, I guess I was too hasty in condemning the foreign press.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Sorry for the continual spamming - it's just that things keep happening, and the basic premise at stake here is quite important to me. Today both a French and a German paper ran re-prints of the cartoons. The French paper, France Soir, also added their own cartoon to the front page: (It's Jesus saying: "Relax Mohammad, we've all been caricaturised") The German paper, Die Welt, brought one of the original cartoons on its front page, and another four within the paper. I don't know about Die Welt's reasons for doing so, but France Soir has done it as a clear statement in support of freedom of expression. So, I guess I was too hasty in condemning the foreign press.

I read that an Italian and a Spanish paper printed them as well

Hmmm this is all so strangely familiar for some reason .... oh yes I remember now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain593870.shtml

I guess the jews don't have as much leverage in europe ... or perhaps they just didn't care as much.

I wonder where this would fall under Britain�s religious "hate" laws.

It's interesting to see that the conflict with fundamentalist Muslims is not just about America anymore! In many ways, America is vindicated.

If a caricature of a Christian God were made like this in America, it probably would have been technically allowed (due to freedom of speech) but the author would have received a lot of death threats and hostile disapproval from 99% of the public ...

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd It's interesting to see that the conflict with fundamentalist Muslims is not just about America anymore! In many ways, America is vindicated.

Yea didn't we have some kind kind of boycott against the french? Hmm I can't really remember so I'll just shut up and resume eating my freedom fries.

I hate stupid boycotts.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew I read that an Italian and a Spanish paper printed them as well

and in Iceland, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Hmmm this is all so strangely familiar for some reason .... oh yes I remember now. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain593870.shtml I guess the jews don't have as much leverage in europe ... or perhaps they just didn't care as much.

Didn't get this: "they=Jews"? That is, your comment is refering to the fact that Israel was far more moderate in its response to provocation?
On that matter, so was Russia, when Denmark "allowed" a private organization to host the "World Chechen Conference" and later refused to extradict Zakayev.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I wonder where this would fall under Britain�s religious "hate" laws.

In
related matters:

quote:

LONDON (Reuters) - The government has suffered a surprise defeat in parliament over a planned law to outlaw religious hatred which critics said would erode the right to free speech. In only its second defeat in parliament since coming to power in 1997, the government failed on Tuesday to overturn changes to the law recommended by the upper house of parliament. Prime Minister Tony Blair sought new powers to ban people suspected of preaching religious hatred after the July 7 attacks when four bombers killed 52 people on London's transport network. Government ministers have said sermons by radical Muslim preachers may have played a part in the attacks, carried out by young British Muslims. The proposals, which formed a key part of Blair's election manifesto last May, will still become law, but with restrictions imposed by the upper house. In one of the key votes on Tuesday, the government lost by a majority of one. The BBC reported that Blair did not cast his vote. "I regret that on the question of the level of the bar at which prosecutions can be brought ... that the government lost tonight," interior minister Charles Clarke said. The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill aims to give followers of all faiths equal protection from incitement and was designed in part to address an anomaly in current laws. Under the existing Public Order Act, Jews and Sikhs have protection but not Christians, Muslims or members of other religions. The new law aims not only to crack down on those who have targeted Muslims since the September 11 attacks on the United States but also to curb extremist Islamic preachers who urge their followers to commit violence. The law's critics, which included comedian Rowan Atkinson, former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, and civil rights groups, said it threatened free speech. Rowan Atkinson, creator of the "Mr Bean" character, has said some of his sketches -- and others such as Monty Python's 1979 film "Life of Brian" -- could face prosecution if the original proposals had been passed.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd If a caricature of a Christian God were made like this in America, it probably would have been technically allowed (due to freedom of speech) but the author would have received a lot of death threats and hostile disapproval from 99% of the public ...

Oh good. You can continue hating the French then.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Didn't get this: "they=Jews"? That is, your comment is refering to the fact that Israel was far more moderate in its response to provocation? On that matter, so was Russia, when Denmark "allowed" a private organization to host the "World Chechen Conference" and later refused to extradict Zakayev.

Jews, Israel, everyone pissed off about the incident. I don't think it lasted more than a day or two. I think it's funny how France Soir is owned by an Egyptian. Glad to see the European press has some balls.

Hey there, it looks like the organizers of this protest have a nice propoganda campaign going on to embellish on the truthiness of their protest:

quote:

When the organisation Islamic Society in Denmark toured the Middle-East to create awareness about the cartoons, they also brought 3 additional images. The first of the three additional pictures, which are of dismal quality, shows Muhammad as a pedophile demon, the second shows Muhammed with a pig snout and the third depicts a praying Muslim being raped by a dog. Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the 21 Danish Muslim organizations which organized the tour, explained that the three drawings had been added to "give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims." Akkari claimed he does not know the origin of the three pictures. He said they had been sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. However, when Ekstra Bladet asked if it could talk to these Muslims, Akkari refused to reveal their identity. These images had however never been published in Jyllands-Posten. The society also allegedly exaggerated its membership and the hardships of Muslims in Denmark, for instance claiming to represent 200,000 angry Muslims, when the actual number was in fact fewer than 15,000. [24]. BBC World also aired a story showing one of the three non-published images, on 2006-01-30, and wrongly claimed it had been published in Jyllands-Posten[25]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllan..._misinformation

Wiki has them on their site ... they really are of dismal quality.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I'm also somewhat disappointed in Bill Clinton, for seemingly getting on the Arab fundamentalist side in this.

I don't understand why you'd be surprised. Like I always write, religion has a completely different meaning to Americans than it does to Europeans. It's personal. Bill Clinton is an American and he takes it personally...

See, one of the biggest ironies is that the New World is supposed to be more dynamic and progressive than the Old World, when in fact it's actually more religious.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd I don't understand why you'd be surprised. Like I always write, religion has a completely different meaning to Americans than it does to Europeans. It's personal. Bill Clinton is an American and he takes it personally... See, one of the biggest ironies is that the New World is supposed to be more dynamic and progressive than the Old World, when in fact it's actually more religious.

He denounced them just like all the European heads of state did and like every other good politician would. That doesn't mean that he would censor the press if he were President of Denmark. No need to start generalizations.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider He denounced them just like all the European heads of state did and like every other good politician would. That doesn't mean that he would censor the press if he were President of Denmark. No need to start generalizations.

you have a point... sorry

First. There's a petition in support of freedom of expression. It's probably not going to help much, but it's one way to protest the happenings:
http://www.petitiononline.com/danmark/petition.html

quote:

Originally posted by occrider He denounced them just like all the European heads of state did and like every other good politician would. That doesn't mean that he would censor the press if he were President of Denmark. No need to start generalizations.

While I see your point about being a good politician, and agree with you that generalizations are unnecessary, I disagree with "all the European heads of state" have denounced the drawings. Our own PM, for instance, has kept insisting that his own views on the matter are irrelevant, until earlier this week where he said that "I would never personally have published drawings mocking Muhammad, Jesus or any other religious figure". To me, that's a statement of neutrality. The other denouncements I have heard about have all been general statements of the "we condemn any incitement of hatred towards specific groups"-sort, rather than direct commentary on the act of publishing the cartoons. Clinton on the other hand was very direct comparing the cartoons with prior anti-semitism in Europe! My problem with it is pretty well formulated in this bit I took from a chronicle in the Salt Lake Tribune:

quote:

And people like former President Bill Clinton, who essentially sided with jihadists with his recent comments on the cartoon controversy, have done much to exacerbate it. Is it possible that Clinton doesn't get it either? In a confusion of moral equivalency, Clinton compared the cartoons to anti-Semitism and condemned them as "appalling." "So now what are we going to do? ... Replace the anti-Semitic prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?" he said Monday at an economic conference in the Qatari capital of Doha. No, what is appalling is that a Western leader who still wields enormous power would sacrifice an opportunity to explain big ideas and big principles to a part of the world that clearly doesn't understand them. Instead, he finessed the moment and caved to the kind of virtue that feels good in the present but that gets people killed in the future.

In essence, my disappointment is linked to the fact that I used to think of Clinton in terms of a stateman, or even a visionary. I don't feel that way any more.

Btw. the editor of the French news paper that ran the re-prints has been sacked.

And another btw: Currently a proposal to build a Mosque in Copenhagen, as a gift from Danes to muslims, is gaining support in Denmark. WTF is happening?

quote:

Muslims deserve mosque, says editor Danes should offer to build a proper mosque for the country's Muslims, says the former editor of a national daily Building a mosque in Copenhagen would help to relieve tensions between Denmark and the Muslim world, says Herbert Pundik, a former editor of daily newspaper Politiken. The country's 200,000 Muslims currently are relegated to some 50 makeshift mosques throughout the country. Pundik suggested that construction of a permanent mosque could serve as an olive branch to Muslims angered by drawings of the prophet Mohammed printed in daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten. 'It should be dramatic and have the purpose of taking the brunt of the current anti-Denmark sentiments. It could illustrate that another Denmark exists than the anti-Muslim society that dominates in the Arabic world right now,' he wrote in Politiken on Wednesday. Private donors could contribute the DKK 50 million needed for construction. Prominent Muslims questioned whether deciding to build a mosque under the current situation would help the situation. Nhaser Khader, a Syrian born MP, acknowledged that Muslims needed a proper place of worship, but building one now could send the wrong signal. 'It's a strange time to propose it. It could be seen as a form of payback,' Khader said. Zubair Butt Hussain of Muslims in Dialogue offered a similar point of view. 'A mosque in Copenhagen really is a must, so Danish Muslims also feel welcome here,' said Hussain. 'But it could be perceived by some Muslims as a kind of penance. And certain political parties would consider it submission to Muslims. None of these points of view are beneficial in any way.'

Personaly I found the cartoons not so bad. I think that the muslims just need to bring thier religion out of the dark ages. but then again, I think that all religions are stupid and only used to keep the masses stupid and under the control of a few people.

Opiate for the masses....

*Jordanian* paper runs re-prints:

quote:

Jordan makes the leap Meanwhile, a Jordanian gossip tabloid on defiantly published three of the cartoons that have triggered outrage in the Arab and Muslim world. "Muslims of the world, be reasonable," said the editor-in-chief of the weekly independent newspaper Al-Shihan in an editorial alongside the cartoons, including the one showing the Muslim religion's founder wearing a bomb-shaped turban. "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?" wrote Jihad Momani. He told the AFP news service he decided to publish the offending cartoons "so people know what they are protesting about... People are attacking drawings that they have not even seen."

Really impressive show of reason. And courage.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic *Jordanian* paper runs re-prints: Really impressive show of reason. And courage.

Wow, that is really great

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic *Jordanian* paper runs re-prints: Really impressive show of reason. And courage.

Yeah, heh, funny they've got more guts and reason there than the danish government..

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic While I see your point about being a good politician, and agree with you that generalizations are unnecessary, I disagree with "all the European heads of state" have denounced the drawings. Our own PM, for instance, has kept insisting that his own views on the matter are irrelevant, until earlier this week where he said that "I would never personally have published drawings mocking Muhammad, Jesus or any other religious figure". To me, that's a statement of neutrality. The other denouncements I have heard about have all been general statements of the "we condemn any incitement of hatred towards specific groups"-sort, rather than direct commentary on the act of publishing the cartoons. Clinton on the other hand was very direct comparing the cartoons with prior anti-semitism in Europe! My problem with it is pretty well formulated in this bit I took from a chronicle in the Salt Lake Tribune: In essence, my disappointment is linked to the fact that I used to think of Clinton in terms of a stateman, or even a visionary. I don't feel that way any more.

Ok I suppose Clinton is two or three shades of gray from what the official government response has been from most countries (Bush hasn't said anything at all as of yet so perhaps he's the hero in all of this ). I mean no offense, but if you thought that Clinton was a "visionary" or a "statesman" in the past, but his personal remarks condemning a cartoon (not the right to publish them) is the deal breaker, than perhaps you might be taking this issue a little personally? As I would say to any offended Muslim ... it's a freaking cartoon for Mohammad's sake.

Let me ask you something ... could these cartoons possibly result in the proliferation of anti-islamic prejudice? Perhaps not in you or I, prejudice usually prefers easy targets, but how about any individual? Could that pro-Palestinian suicide bomber Swedish art exhibit last year encourage anti-semitic attitudes? If you ask me yes. This is what happens when you resort to broad generalizations of entire groups of people. Regardless of whether it's true or not, it usually appeals to someone. That said, I really don't care what anybody thinks about the cartoons so long as they aren't infringing upon free speech which should be the issue. Muslims can react however they would like to the stupid cartoons. Plan their retarded boycotts, howl at the moon, whatever. That's all fine by me, they have a right to react by not purchasing danish products, protesting, etc., it's retarded but it's within their rights ... but when they demand censorship, threaten people's lives, etc., that to me crosses the line.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok I suppose Clinton is two or three shades of gray from what the official government response has been from most countries (Bush hasn't said anything at all as of yet so perhaps he's the hero in all of this ). I mean no offense, but if you thought that Clinton was a "visionary" or a "statesman" in the past, but his personal remarks condemning a cartoon (not the right to publish them) is the deal breaker, than perhaps you might be taking this issue a little personally? As I would say to any offended Muslim ... it's a freaking cartoon for Mohammad's sake.

Well, three things: First, my interest in politics kinda matured while Clinton was president, and at that time he was much revered in Denmark, just as the US was a role model to many of us. Seeing him unnecessarily criticise a basic tenet of the free world, just felt like finding out that Santa used to fart on your presents.
I guess your roots in the republican party, and life in the US and diplomatic circles, have made it a lot easier for you to see him as a flawed individual. Or maybe I'm just blind. Whatever.
Second, I do not care much about the cartoons, per se, but undisputed right of publication of them is very important to me. I consider freedom of speech as one of only a handful of base values in life, and am aware of the fact that it took intellectuals at least 2500 years of hard struggle to fully obtain that privilege. Seeing people willing to sell it short for the sake of the export of some dairy products, or for the ability to lie peacefully at a beach in Egypt, pulls at the very roots of my value system. So, yes, I do take it personally when seeing Clinton comparing this exercise in free speech to genocide is.
Third, if Bush ends up being the hero in this matter, it will put a lot of Europeans in an akward position: What prevails? The love of freedom, or the urge to disagree with Bush? Interesting situation.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Let me ask you something ... could these cartoons possibly result in the proliferation of anti-islamic prejudice? Perhaps not in you or I, prejudice usually prefers easy targets, but how about any individual? Could that pro-Palestinian suicide bomber Swedish art exhibit last year encourage anti-semitic attitudes? If you ask me yes. This is what happens when you resort to broad generalizations of entire groups of people. Regardless of whether it's true or not, it usually appeals to someone.

The cartoons (the piece of art) could convert some people from non-judgmental into anti-muslims (anti-semites), I agree. But those people would definitely be in my Sheep-category of people. These are hopeless cases, and I would suspect them to already have jumped onto a hatred wagon considering the plentiful reportings of "islamic" terrorists (IDF aggression against Palestinians/Israeli wall-building) etc.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider That said, I really don't care what anybody thinks about the cartoons so long as they aren't infringing upon free speech which should be the issue. Muslims can react however they would like to the stupid cartoons. Plan their retarded boycotts, howl at the moon, whatever. That's all fine by me, they have a right to react by not purchasing danish products, protesting, etc., it's retarded but it's within their rights ... but when they demand censorship, threaten people's lives, etc., that to me crosses the line.

I do support Arabs' rights to boycott products and burn flags. I also support Danish muslims rights to fabricate evidence and lie to other muslims.

Btw. Le Monde and the BBC have jumped onto the re-print wagon. Now we just need Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Afrika, and the US.
Oh yeah, predictably the Swedish PM has started criticizing the Danish government for mishandling the case. He campaigned for the opposition during the last election, and has been ever critical of the immigration policies in Denmark, so this comes as no surprise. However, one could have hoped that he had held back his desire for internal EU struggle till the furor had died down. What do you think St_Andrew?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Oh yeah, predictably the Swedish PM has started criticizing the Danish government for mishandling the case. He campaigned for the opposition during the last election, and has been ever critical of the immigration policies in Denmark, so this comes as no surprise. However, one could have hoped that he had held back his desire for internal EU struggle till the furor had died down. What do you think St_Andrew?

Hmm can you give me a source? I tried looking at websites of like 5-6 newspapers plus the goverments offical website but without any success

Anyway, I want to know what he said, but it really doesn't suprise me at all, and hopefully the Swedish media will pick up on it and it will be just another reason to kick him out of office this fall

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Hmm can you give me a source?

In Danish, I'm afraid:
http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.sasp?PageID=435510

This will bring up another slew of editorials in the American press where Americans can't understand the Europeans

Recall that this happened a while back with the French headscarf-ban issue... And now, again, many American op-ed columnists will roll their eyes and wonder what's wrong with the "godless Europeans."

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.