TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Europe - Sweden
-- Yttrandefrihet vs. religion
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Aendy Vad�, s� nu skyltar du med dina �sikter till skillnad fr�n tidigare d� du egentligen hade samma �sikter men sm�g med det? Nu n�r det �r mer r�ttf�rdigat att tycka illa om alla andra som inte �r som du s� v�gar du v�dra det. Vilken hj�lte du m�ste k�nna dig som! Dessutom �r det sk�nt att dessutom se att du erk�nner att du �r nazist, vet du ens vad det inneb�r? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ArcticBeach wow, vilken slutlednings f�rm�ga du har, du kanske m�ste l�sa det ett par g�nger f�r att f�rst� va det stod, fr�ga �r vart det st�r att jag �r Nazist ?!??! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Aendy Du sa att vi skulle p�st� att du var nazist och att du sedan skulle st� upp f�r det... Eller? "nu kan ni sp� p� att jag �r rasist. nazist, what ever s�ger jag, jag st�r f�r mina �sikter" |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ArcticBeach jag va sarkastisk, man blir ju kallad rasist eller nazist bara men s�ger n�t nuf�rtiden.. sa aldrig att jag VA det |
Sannerligen sk�ms vissa inte �ppet f�r att visa sina rasistiska v�rderingar.
Quotat fr�n politics forumet:
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ArcticBeach the picture that made the Muslims to berserk wasnt even made by the newspaper, some muslim did it themself to get more muslims on their side, it was a picture of Muhammed with a pignoose Why would the danes apologize to the muslim, never give them ur hand cause they will take ur whole arm. Soon they claims that the danes should start to pray 5 times a day and convert Denmark to a Muslim country the world should make themself a favour and blow up the middle east to the ground. All the problems in the world gots origin from there....people is saying that ppl that doing this is radical, extreme, what ever, is saying that they arent true muslim, but why are there soo godamn many of them then ? fucking twats |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by RebeL9 Sannerligen sk�ms vissa inte �ppet f�r att visa sina rasistiska v�rderingar. |
En bra artikel som f�r ner allt ganska snyggt, publicerad p� the Economist's ledardel:
http://economist.com/opinion/displa...tory_ID=5494602
| quote: |
| The limits to free speech Cartoon wars Feb 9th 2006 From The Economist print edition Free speech should override religious sensitivities. And it is not just the property of the West �I DISAGREE with what you say and even if you are threatened with death I will not defend very strongly your right to say it.� That, with apologies to Voltaire, seems to have been the initial pathetic response of some western governments to the republication by many European newspapers of several cartoons of Muhammad first published in a Danish newspaper in September. When the republished cartoons stirred Muslim violence across the world, Britain and America took fright. It was �unacceptable� to incite religious hatred by publishing such pictures, said America's State Department. Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, called their publication unnecessary, insensitive, disrespectful and wrong. Really? There is no question that these cartoons are offensive to many Muslims (see article). They offend against a convention in Islam that the Prophet should not be depicted. And they offend because they can be read as equating Islam with terrorism: one cartoon has Muhammad with a bomb for his headgear. It is not a good idea for newspapers to insult people's religious or any other beliefs just for the sake of it. But that is and should be their own decision, not a decision for governments, clerics or other self-appointed arbiters of taste and responsibility. In a free country people should be free to publish whatever they want within the limits set by law. No country permits completely free speech. Typically, it is limited by prohibitions against libel, defamation, obscenity, judicial or parliamentary privilege and what have you. In seven European countries it is illegal to say that Hitler did not murder millions of Jews. Britain still has a pretty dormant blasphemy law (the Christian God only) on its statute books. Drawing the line requires fine judgements by both lawmakers and juries. Britain, for example, has just jailed a notorious imam, Abu Hamza of London's Finsbury Park mosque, for using language a jury construed as solicitation to murder (see article). Last week, however, another British jury acquitted Nick Griffin, a notorious bigot who calls Islam �vicious and wicked�, on charges of stirring racial hatred. Drawing the line In this newspaper's view, the fewer constraints that are placed on free speech the better. Limits designed to protect people (from libel and murder, for example) are easier to justify than those that aim in some way to control thinking (such as laws on blasphemy, obscenity and Holocaust-denial). Denying the Holocaust should certainly not be outlawed: far better to let those who deny well-documented facts expose themselves to ridicule than pose as martyrs. But the Muhammad cartoons were lawful in all the European countries where they were published. And when western newspapers lawfully publish words or pictures that cause offence�be they ever so unnecessary, insensitive or disrespectful�western governments should think very carefully before denouncing them. Freedom of expression, including the freedom to poke fun at religion, is not just a hard-won human right but the defining freedom of liberal societies. When such a freedom comes under threat of violence, the job of governments should be to defend it without reservation. To their credit, many politicians in continental Europe have done just that. France's interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said rather magnificently that he preferred �an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship��though President Jacques Chirac later spoiled the effect by condemning the cartoons as a �manifest provocation�. Shouldn't the right to free speech be tempered by a sense of responsibility? Of course. Most people do not go about insulting their fellows just because they have a right to. The media ought to show special sensitivity when the things they say might stir up hatred or hurt the feelings of vulnerable minorities. But sensitivity cannot always ordain silence. Protecting free expression will often require hurting the feelings of individuals or groups, even if this damages social harmony. The Muhammad cartoons may be such a case. In Britain and America, few newspapers feel that their freedoms are at risk. But on the European mainland, some of the papers that published the cartoons say they did so precisely because their right to publish was being called into question. In the Netherlands two years ago a film maker was murdered for daring to criticise Islam. Danish journalists have received death threats. In a climate in which political correctness has morphed into fear of physical attack, showing solidarity may well be the responsible thing for a free press to do. And the decision, of course, must lie with the press, not governments. It's good to talk It is no coincidence that the feeblest response to the outpouring of Muslim rage has come from Britain and America. Having sent their armies rampaging into the Muslim heartland, planting their flags in Afghanistan and Iraq and putting Saddam Hussein on trial, George Bush and Tony Blair have some making up to do with Muslims. Long before making a drama out of the Danish cartoons, a great many Muslims had come to equate the war on terrorism with a war against Islam. This is an equation Osama bin Laden and other enemies of the West would like very much to encourage and exploit. In circumstances in which embassies are being torched, isn't denouncing the cartoons the least the West can do to show its respect for Islam, and to stave off a much-feared clash of civilisations? No. There are many things western countries could usefully say and do to ease relations with Islam, but shutting up their own newspapers is not one of them. People who feel that they are not free to give voice to their worries about terrorism, globalisation or the encroachment of new cultures or religions will not love their neighbours any better. If anything, the opposite is the case: people need to let off steam. And freedom of expression, remember, is not just a pillar of western democracy, as sacred in its own way as Muhammad is to pious Muslims. It is also a freedom that millions of Muslims have come to enjoy or to aspire to themselves. Ultimately, spreading and strengthening it may be one of the best hopes for avoiding the incomprehension that can lead civilisations into conflict. |
S�ga vad man vill om Aftonbladet men de hade idag ett debattinl�gg signerat Mattias Gardell, i mitt tycke en av de duktigaste islam och mellan�sternexperterna (han �r f�r �vrigt storebror till Jonas Gardell 
)
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/debat...,776478,00.html
�r det n�gon som vet vad han s�ger �r det han d� han bott i Egypten de senaste �ren och p� n�ra h�ll analyserat det politisk-islamiska klimatet i trakten.
Finns det n�t som kommer att f�rst�ra denna v�rld vi lever i s� �r det religion. Det finns inget som folk f�rsvarar mer �n religion. D�rf�r �r det ett �ppet m�l mellan de olika parterna.
Sen finns det nog inget annat folk �n muslimer som �r s� k�nsliga mot symboliskt f�rtryck. Skulle n�n rita Jesus i n�n f�nig situation s� skulle vi kunna skratta �t det och tycka att det var skoj, f�r vi - i den moderna v�rlden- har distans nog f�r det. Muslimer d�remot klarar inte av att hantera s�dant. De biter direkt. De br�nner v�ra flaggor och tror att det ska f� oss arga. Jag skrattar �t det. Det �r s� j�kla f�nigt att se dem tempa p� flaggor och andra symboler. De trampar o stampar p� det, och beter sig som om jorden g�r under.
N�, vissa religioner tar sig sj�lv p� f�r stort allvar tror jag. Det finns nog inom alla religioner.
Sj�lv tror jag att det finns en annan historia bakom alla religi�sa texter, samt att de blivit omskrivna s� m�nga g�nger att det blivit n�n slags visklek av det hela. Grundbudkspet har blivit s� skevt att det inte g�r att k�nna igen l�ngre. Det �r d�rf�r denna v�rlden har blivit s� f�rgiftad.
Det var ett j�vla snack om att sverige och danmark �r smygrassar, t�nk igen... Vilka �r dom st�rsta rasisterna egentligen? Det �r knappast VI. Kan inte fatta att bl�cket fr�n rasistst�mpeln bara f�ster p� oss skandinavier.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by BFS Det var ett j�vla snack om att sverige och danmark �r smygrassar, t�nk igen... Vilka �r dom st�rsta rasisterna egentligen? Det �r knappast VI. Kan inte fatta att bl�cket fr�n rasistst�mpeln bara f�ster p� oss skandinavier. |
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/comics/20060204.gif
^^ d�m sj�lva men denna teckning tycker jag �r klockren
| quote: |
| N�r jag varit utomlands, till och med i Asien, och man ber�ttar att man bor i Sverige s� h�r man inget annat �n goda kommentarer om Sverige och svenskar. Hur �ppet sinnade svenskar �r och hj�lpsamma etc. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CJ InterCity http://www.filibustercartoons.com/comics/20060204.gif ^^ d�m sj�lva men denna teckning tycker jag �r klockren |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by BFS Det var ett j�vla snack om att sverige och danmark �r smygrassar, t�nk igen... Vilka �r dom st�rsta rasisterna egentligen? Det �r knappast VI. Kan inte fatta att bl�cket fr�n rasistst�mpeln bara f�ster p� oss skandinavier. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ArcticBeach s�ger det samma ! istort sett bara invandrare som s�ger s�nt iof, de som sj�lva �r s� anti mot allt...om de nu tycker svenskarna och Sverige �r s� d�ligt och jobbigt, �k tillbaks d� om det �r b�ttre d�r ni kommer ifr�n, �r ju inte s� att n�n h�r bry sig speciellt... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by benni t�nk dig om du hade en handikappad pappa och dom skulle sk�mta med handikappade m�nniskor i tidningen.. |
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=26014
Det d�r �r helt sjukt!!! Dr�jer nog inte l�nge innan v�r idiotiska regering utf�r n�got liknande 
Fattar dock inte varf�r inga svenska tidningar tagit upp detta!
den d�r lagen �r ju inte ny. Norge har ju haft blasfemilagen sedan n�gra �r.
Det var en svensk pr�st som skrev ett f�rslag 1999 om att inf�ra lagen i Sverige ocks� efter Ecce Homoutst�llningen.
Fast han fick inget geh�r d�.
Och det �r flera tidningar som tagit upp det. Du kanske inte l�st pappersupplagorna? Har l�st om det i b�de GP, SvD och DN.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by RebeL9 den d�r lagen �r ju inte ny. Norge har ju haft blasfemilagen sedan n�gra �r. |
| quote: |
| Det var en svensk pr�st som skrev ett f�rslag 1999 om att inf�ra lagen i Sverige ocks� efter Ecce Homoutst�llningen. Fast han fick inget geh�r d�. Och det �r flera tidningar som tagit upp det. Du kanske inte l�st pappersupplagorna? Har l�st om det i b�de GP, SvD och DN. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew Hmm, varf�r st�mde ingen tidningen d�? Eller e det gjort? �r filmer som Life of Brian lagliga i norge? Hmm, har DN fast l�ste inte ig�r, var det d� det stod? F�r annars s� l�ser jag pappersupplagan n�stan varje dag s� tycker jag borde sett det. Aja bra om det st�tt iaf |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by RebeL9 Life of Brian gick p� norska biografer fast med undertiteln "Den h�r filmen bygger inte p� Jesus liv". |
| quote: |
| Nej det stod i DN och �vriga tidningar f�r en vecka sedan eller mer. |
En intresant artikel av Flemming Rose (kulturredakt�ren p� jyllandsposten som f�rst publicera artiklarna) i Washington post (tack f�r tipset Trancaholic).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...9_2.html?sub=AR
| quote: |
| Why I Published Those Cartoons By Flemming Rose Sunday, February 19, 2006; Page B01 Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A PR stunt. Critics of 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad I decided to publish in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have not minced their words. They say that freedom of expression does not imply an endorsement of insulting people's religious feelings, and besides, they add, the media censor themselves every day. So, please do not teach us a lesson about limitless freedom of speech. I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies; swear words rarely make it into our pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our support for freedom of expression. But the cartoon story is different. Those examples have to do with exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste; call it editing. By contrast, I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter. At the end of September, a Danish standup comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing with the Koran. This was the culmination of a series of disturbing instances of self-censorship. Last September, a Danish children's writer had trouble finding an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three people turned down the job for fear of consequences. The person who finally accepted insisted on anonymity, which in my book is a form of self-censorship. European translators of a critical book about Islam also did not want their names to appear on the book cover beside the name of the author, a Somalia-born Dutch politician who has herself been in hiding. Around the same time, the Tate gallery in London withdrew an installation by the avant-garde artist John Latham depicting the Koran, Bible and Talmud torn to pieces. The museum explained that it did not want to stir things up after the London bombings. (A few months earlier, to avoid offending Muslims, a museum in Goteborg, Sweden, had removed a painting with a sexual motif and a quotation from the Koran.) Finally, at the end of September, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with a group of imams, one of whom called on the prime minister to interfere with the press in order to get more positive coverage of Islam. So, over two weeks we witnessed a half-dozen cases of self-censorship, pitting freedom of speech against the fear of confronting issues about Islam. This was a legitimate news story to cover, and Jyllands-Posten decided to do it by adopting the well-known journalistic principle: Show, don't tell. I wrote to members of the association of Danish cartoonists asking them "to draw Muhammad as you see him." We certainly did not ask them to make fun of the prophet. Twelve out of 25 active members responded. We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims. The cartoons do not in any way demonize or stereotype Muslims. In fact, they differ from one another both in the way they depict the prophet and in whom they target. One cartoon makes fun of Jyllands-Posten, portraying its cultural editors as a bunch of reactionary provocateurs. Another suggests that the children's writer who could not find an illustrator for his book went public just to get cheap publicity. A third puts the head of the anti-immigration Danish People's Party in a lineup, as if she is a suspected criminal. One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet. On occasion, Jyllands-Posten has refused to print satirical cartoons of Jesus, but not because it applies a double standard. In fact, the same cartoonist who drew the image of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross having dollar notes in his eyes and another with the star of David attached to a bomb fuse. There were, however, no embassy burnings or death threats when we published those. Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work "The Open Society and Its Enemies," insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations. I acknowledge that some people have been offended by the publication of the cartoons, and Jyllands-Posten has apologized for that. But we cannot apologize for our right to publish material, even offensive material. You cannot edit a newspaper if you are paralyzed by worries about every possible insult. I am offended by things in the paper every day: transcripts of speeches by Osama bin Laden, photos from Abu Ghraib, people insisting that Israel should be erased from the face of the Earth, people saying the Holocaust never happened. But that does not mean that I would refrain from printing them as long as they fell within the limits of the law and of the newspaper's ethical code. That other editors would make different choices is the essence of pluralism. As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak. The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic. The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants. Since the Sept. 30 publication of the cartoons, we have had a constructive debate in Denmark and Europe about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and people's beliefs. Never before have so many Danish Muslims participated in a public dialogue -- in town hall meetings, letters to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV. We have had no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in Denmark have been marginalized. They no longer speak for the Muslim community in Denmark because moderate Muslims have had the courage to speak out against them. In January, Jyllands-Posten ran three full pages of interviews and photos of moderate Muslims saying no to being represented by the imams. They insist that their faith is compatible with a modern secular democracy. A network of moderate Muslims committed to the constitution has been established, and the anti-immigration People's Party called on its members to differentiate between radical and moderate Muslims, i.e. between Muslims propagating sharia law and Muslims accepting the rule of secular law. The Muslim face of Denmark has changed, and it is becoming clear that this is not a debate between "them" and "us," but between those committed to democracy in Denmark and those who are not. This is the sort of debate that Jyllands-Posten had hoped to generate when it chose to test the limits of self-censorship by calling on cartoonists to challenge a Muslim taboo. Did we achieve our purpose? Yes and no. Some of the spirited defenses of our freedom of expression have been inspiring. But tragic demonstrations throughout the Middle East and Asia were not what we anticipated, much less desired. Moreover, the newspaper has received 104 registered threats, 10 people have been arrested, cartoonists have been forced into hiding because of threats against their lives and Jyllands-Posten's headquarters have been evacuated several times due to bomb threats. This is hardly a climate for easing self-censorship. Still, I think the cartoons now have a place in two separate narratives, one in Europe and one in the Middle East. In the words of the Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the integration of Muslims into European societies has been sped up by 300 years due to the cartoons; perhaps we do not need to fight the battle for the Enlightenment all over again in Europe. The narrative in the Middle East is more complex, but that has very little to do with the cartoons. |
L�ste i Stockholm City idag att en indisk domstol d�dsd�mt de danska tecknarna med en dom till d�den. Enligt dom har nu varje muslim, oavsett var de bor, r�tten att d�da de som tecknade karikatyrerna p� Mohammed. I bel�ning kunde de f� 90 miljoner kronor.
En annan liknande tjosan i indien (tror jag) har ocks� utlovat en bel�ning p� en miljon dollar + en bil f�r varje tecknare som b�ev d�dad.
Min f�rsta tanke var s�klart: "Vad i h-vete!?"
Borde inte detta kunna klassas som d�dshot? Och ge f�ngelse f�r dom ocks�?
F�rst�r mig inte p� den d�r religionen eller deras tankes�tt �ver huvud taget. I'm sorry... N�got mer rubbat f�r man leta efter.
PS. Nej, jag �r inte rasist eller s�, men jag tycker fortfarande att hela religionen och tankes�ttet �r rent av rubbat med tanke p� vad de g�r "i Guds namn".
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.