Danish embassy invaded - Part II

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Mao
Answer for your Falun Gong/Buddhist defamation Sirotnikov!!!

Who is the chief falun gong prophet or priest? I wish to draw a comics of him committing incest with his sister and 2 donkeys!!

[Mao]

It's Pamela Anderson. Get drawing!!!

[Felch]

Originally posted by Geronimo

In fact I have seen that style of bomb used in many other cartoons with no connection for terrorism to imply that the thing symbolized with a bomb was part of a chain of a events that would erupt explosively.

That's certainly true, but perception is more significant than intention.

[Chemical Ollie]

SD-Kuriren, the internal paper of the obscure ultra-nationalist party Sverige-Demokraterna, has called for a "Muhammed cartoon competition".

The Swedish security police has now closed SD-Kurirens web site "in the name of national security". The site has later been relaunched with a text that they will not publish any cartoons "to spare the lifes of Swedish citizens"

That's the first time I can recall anything like that happening. Even if SD is unpopular among the other parties, they have seats in several city councils and about 1% of the parliament votes (but no seats).

[Az]

Originally posted by Mao
My favorite:

Well, the argument so goes that just because you have the right to do something, does that mean you should? I fully believe I have the right to say "all n*ggers are stupid and lazy," but I'm not going to because it's insensitive and wrong IMHO.

I think that the main reason why you shouldn't say it is wrong. the insensitivity is meaningless, because then you sometimes refrain from telling the truth. These cartoons, however weren't in the bussiness of truth and false, at all, since the were published to to explore self-censorship wrt anything islam-related. The context of this is, that whenver you want to actually print something mocking a religion on a truthful basis, you can't do it.

Although, I do agree that there should be peaceful demonstrations/protests. Unfortunately, it demonstrates a relative lack of political maturity/respect for the rule of law that this happens. Taken another way, however, it can be seen as a great step forward, since a few decades ago it would've been conceivable that the embassy would've been burned down or somesuch, no?

eh?

[Mao]

Originally posted by Az
I think that the main reason why you shouldn't say it is wrong. the insensitivity is meaningless, because then you sometimes refrain from telling the truth. These cartoons, however weren't in the bussiness of truth and false, at all, since the were published to to explore self-censorship wrt anything islam-related. The context of this is, that whenver you want to actually print something mocking a religion on a truthful basis, you can't do it.

OK, that's fair I guess. Although I recognize that our interpretation of it is only one possible one. Society has molded us in such a way that the truth simply isn't supposed to be always said (*ahem* "Hun, do I look fat in this dress?"...yeah, you go and tell your wife that it was your right to call her fat, see if you get sex )

eh?

What I mean I guess is that peaceful demonstrations appear (to me at least) to be a hallmark of a functioning liberal democracy. Protest is a vital part of that. Peaceful protests have gone on throughout the Muslim world, but some have turned violent, which is perhaps a sign that they're not yet ready for liberal democracy? Looking at it from the other angle, it could be much worse, which perhaps show progress in the Arab/Muslim world?

[Az]

OK, that's fair I guess. Although I recognize that our interpretation of it is only one possible one. Society has molded us in such a way that the truth simply isn't supposed to be always said (*ahem* "Hun, do I look fat in this dress?"...yeah, you go and tell your wife that it was your right to call her fat, see if you get sex :tongue

Hell, if she looks fat, you better tell her, because they have a tendency to realize that you're lying in these matters.

What I mean I guess is that peaceful demonstrations appear (to me at least) to be a hallmark of a functioning liberal democracy. Protest is a vital part of that. Peaceful protests have gone on throughout the Muslim world, but some have turned violent, which is perhaps a sign that they're not yet ready for liberal democracy? Looking at it from the other angle, it could be much worse, which perhaps show progress in the Arab/Muslim world?

I don't think that "they aren't ready". They never "be ready" as long as you don't surround them with the ideas of free speech, etc., and actively preach those ideas to them. And guess what? that includes blasphemy. You have to live through the "offence" and continue to push your ideas. If you'll always fear offending them, then you'll never break this barrier. A long time ago, people were jailed and even hung for this. These days, free speech has a home, a safe haven in many countries. It should be exploited, to push these ideas.


The whole backlash is part of the moronic "Might is wrong" ( as opposed to the equally fallacious "Might is right" ) It seems that from the time when free thought was persecuted, makes liberals feel sympathetic to various *******s.

[Mao]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Az

I don't think that "they aren't ready". They never "be ready" as long as you don't surround them with the ideas of free speech, etc., and actively preach those ideas to them. And guess what? that includes blasphemy. You have to live through the "offence" and continue to push your ideas. If you'll always fear offending them, then you'll never break this barrier. A long time ago, people were jailed and even hung for this. These days, free speech has a home, a safe haven in many countries. It should be exploited, to push these ideas.

Well, how was this dealt with in those countries (the West I guess)? Can we mimic those conditions again? Was it simply "surrounding people with ideas"? That seems...simple to me, too simple almost. Like I said, I think there might actually be improvement, so we may even be on the right track.

The whole backlash is part of the moronic "Might is wrong" ( as opposed to the equally fallacious "Might is right" ) It seems that from the time when free thought was persecuted, makes liberals feel sympathetic to various *******s.

Ummm...might does make right. It's not a popular view I think, and not even one that we want to resign ourselves to (because we have "ideals" and all) but most of what I've seen of the world seems to prove that might does make right, that just seems the way it is. I'd like to change this, I agree with you, though, and maybe this is one small step to changing it (although this will have to be fought on a number of fronts).

[Pekka]

CO, Oh that's bad......

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Az

OK, that's fair I guess. Although I recognize that our interpretation of it is only one possible one. Society has molded us in such a way that the truth simply isn't supposed to be always said (*ahem* "Hun, do I look fat in this dress?"...yeah, you go and tell your wife that it was your right to call her fat, see if you get sex :tongue

Hell, if she looks fat, you better tell her, because they have a tendency to realize that you're lying in these matters.

You are a very lonely man, aren't you, Az?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Mao
My favorite:

That about sums it up, yeah.

-Arrian

[Pekka]

It would be interesting to make a map and see geographically how the reactions have been taken, combined with timeline and movements of the Danish Imam.

The reactions in Europe have been rather mild, as suspected. Muslim reactions for example in here, hardly noticable. They had a protest, but it was rather peaceful, it was more like a gathering of bunch of people and they talked and some dude went to talk with the embassador. It was very nice to see the level of understanding of the community in here. Because naturally they didn't like it either, but they handled the situation like you do in democratic society, being a sub-society in it. And of course it has been quite cold so what are you going to do. Rage outside and freeze?

Anyway, for that I decided I will eat kebab today, like I often do and support the community in here for showing example and being reasonable during offensive times, and tomorrow I will drink few Carlsbergs to show support to the glitch in Danish business.

[Arrian]

Good article, IMO:

The Ayatollah Joke Book
So, the Prophet Mohammed walks into a bar …
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Friday, Feb. 10, 2006, at 6:12 AM ET


Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, the noted wit, expert on freedom, and unelected religious leader—the leader who counts—of Iran, observed the other day that in the West, "casting doubt or negating the genocide of the Jews is banned but insulting the beliefs of 1.5 billion Muslims is allowed." He apparently thought this was a devastating point. Touché, Ayatollah Khamanei.

The worldwide fuss over 12 cartoon images of the Prophet Mohammed (some mocking, some benign) that ran in a Danish newspaper has already killed at least 10 people. Many self-styled voices of Islam have made the bizarre comparison between showing pictures of the Prophet Mohammed and expressing doubt about the Holocaust. A government-controlled Tehran newspaper announced a contest for cartoons about the Holocaust, asking "whether freedom of expression" applies to "the crimes committed by the United States and Israel." In a spirit of "see how you like it," a European Muslim group posted on the Web a cartoon of Anne Frank in bed with Hitler.

Muslim complaints about a Western double standard would be more telling if the factual premise was accurate. But it is not. In fact, it is nearly the opposite of the truth. Nothing is easier and more common in the West, including the United States, than criticizing the United States—except for criticizing Israel. A few Western countries have stupid laws, erratically enforced, against denying the Holocaust, but that hasn't stopped Holocaust denial from becoming a literary industry and cultural phenomenon. This is distressing to many Jews and others because making sure that the world remembers the Holocaust has become the main strategy for trying to prevent another one. The willingness of so many people to disbelieve the reality of a historical event as relatively recent and well-documented as the Holocaust leads you to despair of the human capacity for reason, along with more or less every advance in human affairs since the Dark Ages. Nevertheless, there has been no rioting about the historical reality of the Holocaust. No one has died over it.

Meanwhile, whatever point these European Muslims were making with their cartoon of Hitler and Anne Frank is more or less disproved by their very exercise. No one tried to stop them from putting the cartoon on the Web. The notion that jokes about Anne Frank are beyond the pale is provably false. There's a play running in New York right now called "25 Questions for a Jewish Mother." It's a monologue written and acted by stand-up comic Judy Gold, who says on stage every night that her mother used to read to her from a pop-up version of Anne Frank's diary and would say, "Pull the tab, Judith. Alive. Pull it again. Dead." Maybe you had to be there. But the New York Times reviewer called the play "fiercely funny, honest and moving" and did not demand that the author be executed, or even admonished.

By contrast, in a spectacular exercise of self-censorship, almost every major newspaper in this country is refraining from publishing the controversial Danish cartoons, even though they are at the center of a major news story that these papers cover at length every day. The Danish paper that originally published the 12 cartoons has apologized and editors in France and Jordan who published some of them have been fired. In tomorrow's paper, you're more likely to see a picture of Anne Frank or Hitler or both in bed with Eleanor Roosevelt, all three of them naked and performing unconventional sex acts, than you are to see a perfectly respectful picture of the Prophet Mohammed. An editorial in the Times on Wednesday said that not publishing the cartoons was "a reasonable choice" since they would offend many people and "are so easy to describe in words." I am looking at a front page photo in today's Times (as I write on Thursday) of Mariah Carey singing into a microphone. Words do it justice, I think.

Of course it is not Western values that are trampling freedom of expression: It is the ayatollah's own values, combined with the threat of violence. The other problem with his little joke about double standards, and with the whole supposedly mordant comparison between denying the Holocaust and portraying the prophet, is that the offended Muslims do not want a world where people are free to do both. They don't even want a world where people are not free to do either, which would at least be consistent. They want a world where you may not portray the Prophet Mohammed (even flatteringly, slaying infidels or whatnot) but you may deny the Holocaust all day long.

The bewildered prime minister of Denmark, trying to calm the whirlwind that has descended on his innocent, unsuspecting country, gets it spectacularly wrong when he reassures disgruntled Muslims that Denmark supports "freedom of religion" and is "one of the world's most tolerant and open societies." Tolerance, openness, and freedom of religion are not what they have in mind.

A lively debate is going on about whether Islam really does forbid any portrayal of the prophet, however benign, or whether that is a recent innovation of some subset of the faithful with possible ulterior motives. This debate misses the point. Some Christians believe they are required to wear particular sorts of clothing. Some Jews and Muslims don't eat pork. They don't claim that their religion requires other people to wear special clothing or avoid eating pork. Tolerance and ecumenism can only do so much. They have nothing to offer a Muslim in Afghanistan who is personally insulted and enraged about an image that appears in a newspaper in Denmark.

The shameful American position on all this is boilerplate endorsement of free expression combined with denunciation of the cartoons as an "unacceptable" insult. When three protesters died this week in a confrontation at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, an American spokesman there said that Afghans "should judge us on what we're doing here, not on what some cartoonist is doing somewhere else." But the limits of free expression cannot be set by the sensitivities of people who don't believe in it. How can President Bush continue to ask young Americans to sacrifice their lives for freedom in the Muslim world, if he won't even defend freedom verbally when forces from that world are suppressing it in our own?

From Slate.com

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

damn you, i was just about to post that!!!!

[Pekka]

Great article, except it doesn't make a difference between extremists and normal followers. I see that as troublesome, even though we all here know the difference, but many other readers might not. The mind that is preset to certain things, equipped with islamophobia will only find this article feeding his wild imaginatin about 1.4 billion people.

So for that sake only, I would have hoped to see a clear difference drawn between who does violence and threats with it, and who are just offended and do protesting and other reasonable things.