Danish embassy invaded

[germanos]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If religion is going to be made a matter where people cannot speak freely then the media in the muslim world must stop their daily attacks on Jews.

could you elaborate?
It doesn't make sense to me at the moment.

[Datajack Franit]

Article published on February 3rd

Vittorio Feltri


"Absurd. The owner of France Soire fired the president and director of the prestigious newspaper for an idiot reason: publishing the so called satanic comics, about Mohammed, Islam and those bigot dumbasses that fall on their knees whenever the name Allah is spoken.


The editor´s name clears some of the initial doubts: Raymond Lakah, clearly of Egyptian origin. As he found out that the newspaper dared to, let´s say, profane muslim religion, he lost his mind in the same way of those that obviously do not have a mind at all, and sent a letter to the director, removing him from his job. Arab style. Since yesterday French journalist Jacques LeFranc is unemployed, for using the most elementary of the democratic rights: freedom of press.


In a country like France, this episode is a terrorist attack againts tolerance and freedom of personal opinions. The sketches are, let´s be honest, ugly and not really funny; still, the point isn´t the quality of the drawing or of the quotes. The point is to either accept or refuse the principle of accepting or not, or just criticize, a mentality, a religion, a way of expressing spirituality. As westerners, we went over such preconcepts and we do not allow censorships. In Italy, for example, we´re making fun of the Pope and Berlusconi, and the crime of defamation was just erased from our laws. [...] Nobody ever felt offended. But on tv we saw any kind of things happening. Wonder why in France, in 2006, a newspaper director can be fired like a maid because of the publication of sketches judged as satanic by hysterical and hydrophobes fundamentalists.


You can tell by yourself that fanatical muslims know no shame about stepping on others´opinions; but what bothers the most in this specific case, is the fact that the editor of the newspaper bowed to blackmail. To condamn who authorized the publication of harmless sketches and to apologize to the muslim mob: an act of submission to the stupidity of who believes to know the only and final truth, the ticket to heaven, the licence to shut or kill those that have different views. It´s the negation of civilization, a surrender to the fanatical overbearingness of people that came here to survive and unable to show not only any kind of gratitude toward the guests, but even of respect.



The 12 "blasphemous" sketches were already published by a Danish newspaper, and now in Cisjordan the Mohammed Mob are hunting Danish citizens, in hotels, residences; they want to find them and kill them. A bestiality. And what does the European Union? Apologizes to Islam´s lambs for the offence. It becomes a carpet for extremism´s bare-feet. It shows the disgusting serfdom of the people of Europe toward those that want to behead us, the constant fear of being a victims of terrorist attacks, the delight of surrendering to the executioner hoping to obtain his mercy. Illusions, dreams.



Surrendering will only bring us the end faster. This is not what we want. Libero rebels against both to the arrogance both to the cowardy of those already succubous, and publishes the 12 sketches called satanic. A challenge? Yes, a challenge. Let it be. Anyway, I´d rather die standing than live on my knees."

[Dinner]

Gepap, either we all accept that religions need to be treated with special care and we all make sure we try not to offend everyone or we all agree that religious hypocracy is fair game for satire. It is complete bull**** for the media of the Islamic world to continually post far worse cartoons about Jews (and sometimes even Christians) and then claim that their religious sensativities are some how super special and must be pandered to.

Turn around is fair play especially since these cartoons were originally designed to explore the limits of free speech and self censorship instead of the typical mindless anti-semitic garbage which fills the Arab press.

[BlackCat]

@oerdin : gepap has been "avatarjacked" by germanos

[germanos]

Oerdin,

I'm not GePap, but have taken his avatar since he was restricted.

What I don't get from your argument is that you seem to imply that if the arab/muslim world would 'agree' that freedom of press has its restrictions, you would too.

Another thing I don't get that even while the originals cartoons had nothing to with 'fair play' (or ***-for-tat- as I call it) this now suddenly becomes an argument, raising the suspicion that its been the main issue anyway.

[BlackCat]

Thanks Data

I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't subscribe for that paper if I could read italian, and I'm not sure that I like it as an ally. I have a suspicion that it easily could accept restriciton of free speech under the right circumstances.

[duke o' york]

If Berlusconi told them to...?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos


@LotM:
While you are (probably) not a sposeman for the ADL, I do have this question for you:
What action do you think the leaders of Arab and Muslim leaders should take towards the non-state sponsored papers that issue these anti-semitic pics/cartoons/articles?

Precisely the same steps taken by Jack Straw, that sensible man. Denounce them. Denounce them whenever they come up.

But more importantly, they stop them in the many state sponsored and state connected media where they show up.

And that they point out to their populations, that just as antisemitic cartoons are tolerated in non-state papers in their countries, so Western countries tolerate antimuslim cartoons in non-state papers in their countries.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by germanos
Oerdin,

I'm not GePap, but have taken his avatar since he was restricted.

What I don't get from your argument is that you seem to imply that if the arab/muslim world would 'agree' that freedom of press has its restrictions, you would too.

Im not oerdin, but as Im part of a group whose members are murdered at disco, pizza parlors, and on buses, by terrorists who have lived in the context of that antisemitic propaganda, id be tempted to accept a grand deal - no cartoons of mohammed for no antisemitic cartoons - John Stuart Mill forgive my soul. But thats academic, as no such grand deal is executable or enforceable. And John Stuart Mill might not forgive my soul

Another thing I don't get that even while the originals cartoons had nothing to with 'fair play' (or ***-for-tat- as I call it) this now suddenly becomes an argument, raising the suspicion that its been the main issue anyway.

I dont think its the main issue. But its certainly part of how we think about the protests. It would be one thing if they simply had no idea of free speech, - we Millsian westerners belive in free speech even when its offensive, and they, traditionalists, oppose free speech when its offensive. Its another thing when they oppose free speech when its offensive to THEM, but defend appeal to free speech when its offensive to folks they dont like.

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
And John Stuart Mill might not forgive my soul

I'd take the risk.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos
More and more I get an uneasy feeling...

As I had feared, the issue is not about free speech, but about the right to take an eye for an eye.
A value that all three monotheistic religeons hold so very dear.

1. I wouldnt confuse exchanging a word for a word, with inflicting physical harm for physical harm. Part of the western ideal of free speech, whether that ideal be right or wrong, is the distinction between words and physical harm

2. Jewish law from at least the time of the Mishnah interpretated eye for an eye to mean the value of an eye. Its thus a principle for establishing fair damages in tort law, NOT a prescription for eternal revenge.

[germanos]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Precisely the same steps taken by Jack Straw, that sensible man. Denounce them. Denounce them whenever they come up.

But more importantly, they stop them in the many state sponsored and state connected media where they show up.

state controlled media suck, and should not enter political satire

And that they point out to their populations, that just as antisemitic cartoons are tolerated in non-state papers in their countries, so Western countries tolerate antimuslim cartoons in non-state papers in their countries.

I respectfully disagree that intolarance to one group of people should or could be used to justify intolerance to others

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by germanos

state controlled media suck, and should not enter political satire

State controlled media are a fact of life in that part of the world, as are state controlled mosques, religios organizations, etc

If youre not going to join us an extended war to establish liberal democracy from morocco to Pakistan, a war we in fact have no taste for, wed better learn to work incrementally. No viciously antisemitic cartoons would be a good enough first step.

I respectfully disagree that intolarance to one group of people should or could be used to justify intolerance to others

when i said tolerate, i meant in the legal sense.

[germanos]

I don't know who this John Stuart Mill guy is, but I have the feeling I would disagree with him.

Freedom of speech is a good thing. To me though, the main profit from this freedom is that it will allow people to engage in conversation or debate.
Human psycholigy however will ensure that insults will put serious strains on the effectiveness of debate.
Insults should therefore be avoided.

It is therefore that I feel that the issue of insults should allways be taken into account when expressing your right to freedom of speech.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos
I don't know who this John Stuart Mill guy is, but I have the feeling I would disagree with him.

Freedom of speech is a good thing. To me though, the main profit from this freedom is that it will allow people to engage in conversation or debate.
Human psycholigy however will ensure that insults will put serious strains on the effectiveness of debate.
Insults should therefore be avoided.

It is therefore that I feel that the issue of insults should allways be taken into account when expressing your right to freedom of speech.

John Stuart Mill was mid 19th century english philosopher, author of "On Liberty" and one of the most persuasive advocates for an almost absolutist approach to free speech.

As a rule I dislike insults and ad hominems. I hope my posting here reflects that (although i know there are times when it has not) However a free speech absolutist wouldnt want the state to enforce the absense of insults. Or, I think, the fear of terrorists, kidnappers, etc to enforce the absence of insults. Who ends up defining what is legitimate conversation and what is an insult? Is Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" an insult - it depicts Mohammad fairly poorly. Nietsche is filled with insult - yet this is seen as an inseperable part of his style. Quite frankly theres a lot that I find insulting that I suspect you would not. When we step away from free speech absolutes, we start on a dangerous path.