|
Jihad on Denmark - freedom of expression rears its ugly head once again... (pg. 34)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
^^^ Is she the one that Persson wants to take over from him when he retires? |
Never mind, she just resigned, I understand. The Danish media reports it as though it was over the Tsunami effort. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
^^^ Is she the one that Persson wants to take over from him when he retires? |
Don't think so, she was the successor to Anna Lindh, but she hasn't done much good at all (if anything?). Actually the social democrates have quite a big problem there, cause they don't really have anyone who can take over after Persson, and he has said this is his last election (this fall).
Anyhow, she resigned today, which is the ing best thing that happend to this country in a long time :) |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Never mind, she just resigned, I understand. The Danish media reports it as though it was over the Tsunami effort. |
Woops, didn't see that one. Yeah, partly, and partly for this. In her motivation for why she resigned she said it was for this though, but I guess it was for both, and as far as I understand it the investigation about how the Tsunami effort was done will soon come with its conclusions so I guess she expected A LOT more criticism so she figured it was just easier to resign now. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Anyhow, she resigned today, which is the ing best thing that happend to this country in a long time :) |
Man, I wish Australian politicians had that degree of accountability. :(
This was in the paper yesterday. I don't think you'll agree with it's contention, trancaholic (to be honest, I'm not sure I do either), but it's still when of the better op-eds I've read on the subject:
| quote: | Contesting what is sacred
The conflict between Islamic and Western values need not become a war of civilisations, writes Karen Armstrong.
The CRISIS occasioned by the Danish cartoons, which depicted the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist, has become a microcosm of the wider conflict between Islam and the Western world. It also represents a clash between two competing conceptions of the sacred. The sacred, of course, does not necessarily imply an external deity. The sacred symbolises that which is inviolable, non-negotiable, and so central to our identity that, when it is injured in any way, it seems to vitiate the deepest self. For the Muslim protesters, the figure of the prophet is sacred in this way; for the supporters of the cartoons, free speech is the sacred value.
Freedom of expression is both a product and a prerequisite of modernity. In the pre-modern world, social order was regarded as more important than freedom of thought. It was not feasible to encourage people to have original ideas or to criticise established institutions in the hope of improving them, because agrarian-based society lacked the resources to implement many new notions. But independent thinking became essential to the modern economy; society could only become fully productive if inventors and scientists were able to pursue their ideas without the supervision of a controlling hierarchy. Our right to free speech and free thought has been hard won, and Western civilisation could not function without it. It has become a sacred value, symbolising the inviolable sovereignty of the individual.
Nevertheless, we should not be surprised and affronted if people challenge it. Culture is always contested. Today all over the world religious conservatives and secularists feel deeply threatened by one another; they all fear the destruction of sacred, fundamental values. As a result, the modernisation process has been punctuated by such conflicts as the Scopes trial of 1925, when Christian fundamentalists in the US tried to ban the teaching of evolution in state schools, and the Salman Rushdie affair, when Muslims felt mortally wounded by Rushdie's portrayal of their prophet.
These conflicts both began with what was perceived as an aggressive assault on religion by the proponents of free speech. But they ended by making the religious contenders more extreme. In other traditions too, the militant piety that we call "fundamentalism" has developed in a similarly symbiotic relationship with a liberalism or secularism that is experienced as hostile and invasive.
The cartoon crisis is simply the latest of these disputes, and as such could be seen as part of the bumpy process whereby societies at different stages of modernisation gradually learn to accommodate one another. But in the present political climate, we can ill afford this increase in tension. On both sides, the conflict has been fuelled and exploited by radicals, who do not represent the majority.
At the meeting of the Alliance of Civilisations, a UN initiative with the mandate of drawing up a list of practical guidelines for member states to prevent the acceleration of hatred and misunderstanding, we were given the result of a recent poll of Muslim youth. This showed that 97 per cent of the young people surveyed deplored the violence and rhetoric of the Muslim protesters, even though they had been offended by the cartoons. A delegate reported that while most Danish people defended free speech, they were distressed that the cartoons had so heedlessly trampled on Muslim sensibilities.
On both sides, the radicals have tried to eliminate the middle ground, and this is extremely dangerous. The Muslims who damaged embassies and brandished placards vowing to execute the cartoonists have fulfilled the stereotypical view of "Islam" in the West: a religion seen as violent, fanatical, self-destructive and atavistically opposed to freedom. At the same time, those who aggressively support the repeated publication of the cartoons embody the view many Muslims have of "the West": as arrogant, disdainful of religion, chronically Islamophobic, and guilty of double standards - proudly boasting of its tolerance, but not applying it to anything Islamic. When the dust has settled after the crisis, these negative stereotypes will be more entrenched, to the detriment of a final reconciliation.
Many have been alarmed by the increase of the Muslim population in Europe, which seems inimical to Western values. They are naturally defensive and apprehensive; the cartoons can be seen as an expression of this anxiety and as a blow for freedom. But they also revealed the darker side of the culture they purported to defend, and have a grim precedent. Historically, Europe has found it extremely difficult to tolerate minorities.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, an indispensable member of our alliance group, spoke from personal experience of the abiding pain felt by people who see their traditions consistently scorned and ridiculed by an imperialist power. When people hurt in this way, he said, it only takes a little thing to push them over the edge.
When Islam was a major world power and Muslims were confident, they could take insults about their religion in their stride. But today, fearful of the hostility in Europe and bombarded with images from Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, many experienced the gratuitous vilification of their prophet by the Danish cartoonists as the last straw.
Hatred of the West is a relatively recent prejudice in the Islamic world. A hundred years ago, every single leading Muslim intellectual, with the exception of the proto-fundamentalist al-Afghani, saw Western modernity as deeply congenial and, even though they hated European colonialism, many wanted their countries to look just like Britain and France. Relations soured not because of an inherent "clash of civilisations", but because of Western foreign policy, which continues to fuel the crisis.
How do we move forward? Washington's threatening posture towards Iran can only lead to an increase in hostility between Islam and the West, and we must expect more conflicts like the cartoon crisis. Instead of allowing extremists on both sides to set the agenda, we should learn to see these disputes in historical perspective, recalling that in the past, aggressive cultural chauvinism proved to be dangerously counterproductive. The emotions engendered by these crises are a gift to those, in both the Western and the Islamic worlds, who, for their own nefarious reasons, want the tension to escalate; we should not allow ourselves to play into their hands.
Karen Armstrong is author of 19 books on religion. Her latest is The Great Transformation: The World in the Time of Buddha, Socrates, Confucius and Jeremiah. |
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...l?page=fullpage |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
This was in the paper yesterday. I don't think you'll agree with it's contention, trancaholic (to be honest, I'm not sure I do either), but it's still when of the better op-eds I've read on the subject:
|
Yes, that was an interesting read, and of course I don't agree with it. I am a secularist at heart and so would probably be labelled an extremist by the author of this article. However, (even though I know that by me being "extreme", my views, arguments, and opinions about the other side must a priori be dismissed) I still think that I want to point out that this author is not sitting comfortably in the middle of the conflict, as she seems to think, but is quite biased. First, she starts her piece by talking about "cartoons depicting Mohammed as a terrorist", when in fact it was only one out of twelve cartoons, which could be categorized as such. Further, she likes to portray the conflict as being symmetrical - i.e. that both sides is basically just attacking a sacred value of the other - but her arguments are very thin. For instance, she equates banning teachings on evolution with Salman Rushdie writing a book critical of Islam. Of course the first offense is far worse than the second one, as it is a totalitarian move, preventing others from getting a specific education, whereas an offensive book can be left alone. Furthermore, Islamists have not only demanded that freedom of speech is curbed, they have also rioted and killed and boycotted innocents in this case. So even if making demands of foreign nations would be morally equivalent to drawing cartoons of religious idols and publishing them domestically, then the Islamists are still the moral losers here. The final point I would make, is that the author is guilty of misrepresenting reality. She quotes a study saying that 97% of "Muslim youth" deplore the reaction among Muslims, and latently draws the conclusion that the extremists among Muslims are few. However, a recent poll among Palestinians showed that 63% of these found "burning embassies and flags and rioting" was suitable responses to the offense, so one can chose the poll most in accordance with ones worldview. Furthermore, looking at the rhetorics of the media and rulers in Muslim countries, it is obvious that the 97% of reasonable youths don't have much influence there, and that it is the extremists that are being pandered to. The same cannot be said of the rhetorics in the West, where the harshest statements are "freedom of expression in the West will not be curbed" and that "I prefer an excess of charicature over an excess of censorship".
Anyway, Prince Charles just joined Jack Straw and the other British hypocrites:
| quote: | Charles in religious tolerance call
The Prince of Wales has appeared to criticise the Danish cartoons which sparked a wave of violent protests over their satirising of the Prophet Muhammad.
During his tour to the Middle East, Charles, who is in Egypt with the Duchess of Cornwall, expressed concerns over the "failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others".
The heir to the throne addressed more than 800 Islamic scholars at Al-Azhar University, calling for greater tolerance between different religions.
Camilla watched from the audience as the Prince delivered his serious, impassioned 30-minute speech which he had titled "unity in faith".
The Prince said: "The recent ghastly strife and anger over the Danish cartoons shows the danger that comes of our failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others. In my view, the true mark of a civilised society is the respect it pays to minorities and to strangers."
The Prince spoke about divided communities in Iraq, and said his fears from more than a decade ago of growing misunderstanding between Islam and the West had come true.
"For so many, those years have been profoundly bleak. My heart is heavy from witnessing the never-ending death and destruction." He added: "Images of communities torn apart by religious conflict are deeply harrowing, from Bosnia to Baghdad, from Chechnya to Palestine - evidence of just how far misunderstandings have continued and escalated."
The Prince called on religious leaders to play their part in encouraging tolerance. "We must foster, encourage and act upon that which embodies the divine attributes of mercy and compassion. That calls for calmness and the exercise of restraint. And, if I may say so, it requires all those who are in positions of authority in our different faiths to preach clearly and consistently to others the eternal values of these divine attributes."
Charles was also presented with an honorary degree which prompted a swell of applause from the auditorium. The decision to present him with the accolade was criticised by one lecturer, who said he did not believe the Prince merited it.
The Al-Azhar mosque had urged caution in response to the Danish cartoons at the time of the troubles, but organised protests and rallied people to demonstrate against the publications. |
From Huddersfield
Charles timed his statement just nicely with the trials of the Afghan Christian and the Yemeni newspaper editor, I must say. Furthermore, I like how someone, who's offended scores of brits by divorcing his wife, and fostered a kid who dresses up as a Nazi for kicks, talks about "respecting what is sacred of others". Similarly, one wonders why as a representative of the UK, he does not address his own troops behaviour in Iraq prior to handing out moral judgment on an independent newspaper who has acted within the boundaries of the law. |
|
|
| Dopey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Maybe we should learn our timeline...
May 10, 1940 - Nazis invade France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands; Winston Churchill becomes British Prime Minister.
Churchill was called back that same day because he knew exactly what Hilter was years ahead of time and no one listened...
|
faaaak... me is le pwned
completely forgot he wasnt in office |
|
|
| trancaholic |
A further development (relevant bits emphasized):
| quote: | COPENHAGEN, March 23 (Reuters) - Danish police will launch an investigation into allegations that an imam at the centre of the Prophet Mohammad cartoon row issued death threats against a moderate Muslim politician, a spokesman said on Thursday.
At least 50 people have been killed in protests in Asia, Africa and the Middle East after Danish paper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons about the Prophet last year.
A French TV documentary crew secretly filmed Imam Ahmed Akkari threatening to have Naser Khader -- a founder of Denmark's Democratic Muslims network, which opposes violent protests over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad -- bombed.
"It is truly shocking that an elected Danish politician can be the object of threats in this way," Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters. "I take for granted that the police will investigate what happened and will deal with it."
Police spokesman Flemming Steen Munk said the inquiry would begin as soon as Akkari returned from Bahrain, where he was attending a conference that finished on Thursday.
If convicted, Akkari would face a maximum of eight years in prison.
Akkari, a spokesman for the Islamic Religious Community in Denmark, told Danish National TV he regretted his threat and said he "in no way" wanted to provoke an attack on Khader.
"I am deeply sorry about the remark, which was meant as a joke, but was taken seriously," he said in an open letter to Khader, who lives under police protection.
Syrian-born Khader, a member of parliament for the opposition Social Liberal Party, told Danish media he did not want to comment on the threat until he had seen the documentary, which was scheduled to be broadcast later in the day.
Three Danish embassies have been attacked in violent protests against the cartoons, which have been reprinted in many European papers, and many Muslims have boycotted Danish goods. Muslims considers caricatures of prophet blasphemous.
Danish Imams, including Akkari, said on Thursday they would not call for a halt to a Muslim boycott of their country's goods until Danes apologise for the cartoons.
"We didn't ask that the boycott be ended, but we urged that there is no escalation of the boycott," said Raed Hlayhel, who is leading the delegation of Danish imams to the "International Conference for Supporting the Prophet" in Bahrain.
Danish-Swedish dairy cooperative Arla, one of the Danish firms hit by the boycott, has been criticised by politicians and women's groups for cowing to fundamentalism in advertisements published in Saudi Arabia, where the group distances itself from the cartoons and apologises to its customers.
Last month, Denmark's centre-right government accused some local imams, including Akkari, of whipping up anti-Danish anger during a tour of Egypt and Lebanon last year.
The anti-immigrant Danish Peoples Party, a government ally, wants those who made the trip last year to be expelled. (Additional reporting by Rasmus Jorgensen and Isa Mubarak) |
Added info:
Arla is facing growing contempt among danish consumers, due to their adverts in Saudi Arabia, which included somthing like "our time in your world has taught us that justice and tolerance are fundamental values in Islam" - a sentence which has sparked quite a bit of outrage from feminists and secularists in Denmark. Personally I'm torn over the Arla issue, as at one hand I despise their pathetic pampering to fundies in the Middle East, but at the other time know that the owners of Arla are everyday farmers, and quite a lot of these have spoken out against the Arla appeasement campaign. Furthermore, Arla is the only company selling organically produced milk and butter, which I really want to support. An interesting dilemma for me. :)
Akkari has excused his statement with "the tradition for harsh sarcasm and humor in Denmark" - a tradition which he was apparently totally oblivious to when he condemned the Mohammad cartoons. Once again it has been demonstrated that fundies have one set of rules for themselves and another for others. God damn it pisses me off.:toothless
EDIT: Think it's stupid to view the statement as a "threat", though. And it pains me to see a lot of politicians using this to play the "let's have an investigation"-card for boosting their own image. |
|
|
| CaTcH21 |
I think all in the world can agree that mutual understanding, mutual respect, peace and justice certainly will never result from defamation, ridicule and insult. Therefore, there is no real benefit from defaming or denigrating the Prophet Muhammad PBUH in a manner like the recent political cartoons in Europe. The only result that one can expect from such practices is more hatred, violence and fear. Certainly, if you disrespect someone else, you cannot expect that he will show great respect for you in return. If this hatred does turn into more terrorism, the longer term result may simply be more restrictions on civil liberties and freedoms in the West. Those who are supporting such cartoons in the name of rights and liberties may, in the long-run, find their liberties restricted because of what these disrespectful acts produced. In essence, nobody wins in the long-run. There is simply no rationale for such behavior.
At the same time, we have to call upon all interested parties to show restraint and to consider what ramifications anything that they say or do might have. Muslim scholars should take the lead, as they have done in the past, to stress to the Muslims that the actions of the non-Muslims should never anger them so much that it leads them to do something that contradicts the Law of Islam. It is time for leaders in the West to realize that the "freedom" which is very dear to the Western conscience should not be an unwise or harmful freedom. I believe it was Milton Friedman who stated, "My freedom to swing my fist stops where your chin begins." In today's turbulent environment, perhaps it should be said—not as a law but as moral behavior—"My freedom of speech ends where your personal dignity begins." |
|
|
| trancaholic |
I just posted
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Once again it has been demonstrated that fundies have one set of rules for themselves and another for others. |
and then someone with an avatar like this:
posts something like this:
| quote: | Originally posted by CaTcH21
I think all in the world can agree that mutual understanding, mutual respect, peace and justice certainly will never result from defamation, ridicule and insult. |
Bravo! I couldn't have illustrated this any better if I had created a new profile myself. Thanks! |
|
|
| CaTcH21 |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I just posted
and then someone with an avatar like this:
posts something like this:
Bravo! I couldn't have illustrated this any better if I had created a new profile myself. Thanks! |
hahaha, you a joke ! |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| You're out of your element kid. Didn't you see the warning about intellectuals and dictionaries on the door? It takes more than blatant copying to navigate these waters. Go back to the COR or wherever you came from. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by CaTcH21
I think all in the world can agree that mutual understanding, mutual respect, peace and justice certainly will never result from defamation, ridicule and insult. Therefore, there is no real benefit from defaming or denigrating the Prophet Muhammad PBUH in a manner like the recent political cartoons in Europe. The only result that one can expect from such practices is more hatred, violence and fear. Certainly, if you disrespect someone else, you cannot expect that he will show great respect for you in return. If this hatred does turn into more terrorism, the longer term result may simply be more restrictions on civil liberties and freedoms in the West. Those who are supporting such cartoons in the name of rights and liberties may, in the long-run, find their liberties restricted because of what these disrespectful acts produced. In essence, nobody wins in the long-run. There is simply no rationale for such behavior.
|
Yes, and we can all dress in white, skip through the fields and sing while throwing flowers everywhere too.
Unfortunately this utopian picture you draw, while nice, just isn't the real world.
As far as the cartoons go, those that are protesting need to get over themselves. Welcome to the world of civil liberties and freedom of expression because unless those Muslims that "don't get it" understand what freedom is, they're damning themselves to extinction while the rest of the world is passing them by in the dust.
There's nothing wrong with being pious and all that, but don't let the religion keep you in the dark either; it's akin to a theocratic enslavement of the mind.
| quote: |
At the same time, we have to call upon all interested parties to show restraint and to consider what ramifications anything that they say or do might have. Muslim scholars should take the lead, as they have done in the past, to stress to the Muslims that the actions of the non-Muslims should never anger them so much that it leads them to do something that contradicts the Law of Islam. It is time for leaders in the West to realize that the "freedom" which is very dear to the Western conscience should not be an unwise or harmful freedom. I believe it was Milton Friedman who stated, "My freedom to swing my fist stops where your chin begins." In today's turbulent environment, perhaps it should be said—not as a law but as moral behavior—"My freedom of speech ends where your personal dignity begins." |
This is where things have failed and since they've only let things fester out of control, we (the free world) are forced to deal with it; partally because we were foolish enough to trust and empower them to begin with, and partally because they've simply just been running amok too long. They must figure since we've let them run around bombing things in the past then it's alright to test the limits to the extreme.
This arguement of tolerance, while valid, is a two-way street and that's what they have to learn...
[edit] When I say, "They", I am of course refering to the Muslim extremists, NOT the Muslim population as a whole so don't go there. ;) |
|
|
|
|
