Danish embassy invaded

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon


You guys are funny.

If people burned the New Zealand flag, a lot of us would stand around and cheer.

I'd call bull****, but with you I could be hundred-nilled.

[Gangerolf]

YeahI guess Norway has been a little less willing to join the coalition of the willing thing than Denmark, if that's what you mean. Afghanistan yes, Iraq no. Sweden on the other hand is just unwilling. But they're "neutral" so it's OK. Didn't stop them from helping Hitler back in the old days, but that's way off topic. You're not the only one who is a little drunk.

[Frozzy]

Originally posted by Gangerolf


Well did you have to FIGHT FOR 500 YEARS to get your flag?. Didn't think so

On the contrary, some people would be willing to fight for 500 years to get rid of it

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


If I recall in France it is illegal to deny the holocaust.

In the US the confederate flag has been banned in many forms, some states want to ban teaching about evolution etc...

The whole 'PC' culture...

The west bleating on about freedom of speech is basically hypocritical when taking those examples into consideration...

AFAIK it is not illegal to publish or display the confederate flag anywhere in the US. The closest thing to that has been restriction on students displaying the flag (but minors rights aren't really respected anywhere in any case) and decisions of various government institutions to stop making use of the image of the flag. The distance restriction on protests near abortion clinics might also have been a near example.

I think the US can bleat vehemently on about freedom of speech with essentially zero hypocracy.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Gangerolf


If you see the Nowegian coat of arms laying around in the gutter nearby, please give it a proper burial. It got killed today.
The flag has already been cremated.

I still wonder why they've been burning Norweigen and Swedish flags when it was a Danish paper which published the satire cartoons.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by BlackCat

Please dig up some history books - there was some swedish wikings, but it's not those you remember - those who did biggies were danes and norwegians (who cares about travelling to the black sea)

Sedes were big in attempting to take over Russia/Ukraine plus they attacked Constantinople though the Emperor bought them off and turned them into Imperial guards.

[OzzyKP]

I found this with a pretty comprehensive look at the topic. With images of Mohammed throughout history including the new ones:

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I found this with a pretty comprehensive look at the topic. With images of Mohammed throughout history including the new ones:

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Anybody else think it might be a not-so-great time to point out that the supreme court building has an image of Mohammed on it?

[OzzyKP]

[Dinner]

Ozzy, that website is totally awesome. I wish everyone would read it.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi

Anybody else think it might be a not-so-great time to point out that the supreme court building has an image of Mohammed on it?

The Supreme Court building does not have an image of Mohammed on it. Since the 1930's the Supreme Court has had it's own building instead of meeting in the capital building and the capital building is the one with the image of Mohammed (along with a great many other historical law givers ranging a great many different historical periods and nationalities).

[OzzyKP]

Actually he is right, it is the Supreme Court building:

http://www.oneandfour.org/archives/2006/02/is_the_scotus_i.html

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The Supreme Court building does not have an image of Mohammed on it. Since the 1930's the Supreme Court has had it's own building instead of meeting in the capital building and the capital building is the one with the image of Mohammed (along with a great many other historical law givers ranging a great many different historical periods and nationalities).

It's almost like when Tingkai goes off about basic facts of Canada.

[Seeker]

LOL I loved whoever it was who suggested 'arresting and interning' 500 peaceful protestors as a way of safeguarding people's freedom to express unpopular minority views.

Plotting a bombing is illegal. Bombing is illegal. Conspiracy is illegal. Saying some **** is not and if it is shouldn't be illegal.

Go back to Germany if you don't care for freedom of expression!!

[Frozzy]

Here's Wellington's Domion Post's editorial about why it published the cartoons (a good read):

The Precious Right of Freedom of Speech


Modern society rests on the contest of ideas, the ability to question perceived wisdom and to challenge authority.

Without that contest, and the right to free speech that makes it possible, societies stultify and become entrenched in their beliefs. That freedom to question and to challenge must include the right to be offensive, to affront people's most heartfelt beliefs, even to disparage that which they hold sacred. Otherwise it is an empty freedom.

Our decision to publish the 12 cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (Jutland Post) at the centre of the escalating row between the Muslim world and the nations of the West is not one that the newspaper has taken lightly. However, in the clash of values at the centre of the dispute not to publish because of fear of disturbing the sensibilities of Muslims would be to give way in the face of bullying threats. That is what Muslims are seeking to have the Western democracies do with their threats of bombs and trade boycotts.

There is no doubt that Muslims find the portrayal of the Prophet offensive. The Koran is clear that the slander and mockery of Islam and prayer crosses a sacred boundary, and warns that those who cross that boundary will be hurled into "crushing disaster". Mufti Abdul Barkatullah, a member of the British Muslim Council, calls it a no-go area at any cost, adding "the Prophet is held above everything in the universe, over one's own person, family, parents, the whole world. It is less offensive to condemn and vilify God".

That is certainly true – for Muslims.

However Denmark, and the other countries where the cartoons have been reproduced, including in Britain by the BBC and in newspapers in France, Switzerland, Spain, Italy and Germany, are not Muslim countries.

They are democratic, secular countries which are not ruled by religious dogma, whether it be Muslim or Christian.

They have the same values as New Zealand, which includes the right to free speech in its Bill of Rights. There is an acceptance that people can write and say what they wish – except in tightly defined circumstances – even if others are offended by it, and that being shocked can be part of the price for being informed.

The Muslim case is not helped by the hypocrisy when it comes to respecting the religious values of others. No doubt many fundamentalist Christian Americans find it deeply offensive for their country to be constantly labelled the Great Satan.

And, as the German newspaper Die Welt pointed out when it published one of the cartoons, "when Syrian television showed drama documentaries in prime time depicting rabbis as cannibals, the imams were quiet".

There have been earlier cultural confrontations between the West and a resurgent Islam, beginning with the death sentence pronounced in 1989 on author Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses, and including the murder in 2004 of Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh after he made a film dealing with violence against Islamic women.

They are confrontations the West cannot afford to lose. The right to freedom of speech is a precious one that has to be defended.