Danish embassy invaded - Part II

[Pekka]

germanos, so?

This isn't about EU, this is about bigger values that ties us all in the west.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Pekka
germanos, so?

This isn't about EU, this is about bigger values that ties us all in the west.

So?

so Danes feel not so tied to the west? Feeling abandoned when they where not there in the first place?

I don't know, I'm responding to a Frenchmen speaking for Danes. WTF do we know?


Furthermore, I think the discussion here over the past week has shown that this isn't about something that ties us all in the west: There's plenty of us opposing these values.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Pekka
say what?

practice what you preach.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Considering that most standard histories say it was somewhere between 5 and 6 million, including Hilberg, IIRC, Im skeptical of your statement of the law. Perhaps they have prosecuted some of the Deniers-lite who claim only a couple of hundred thousand were killed?

Saying being punished for saying only 5 million Jews died was a bit of exaggeration, but Germany says it is a crime to deny or minimize the holocaust. Saying less were killed than the accepted 6 mil figure is a minimization, even though it is minor.

And, of course, there are people like David Irving, who argue there wasn't a systemic killing, just atrocities of war, who is banned from even setting foot in Germany.

Btw, if there was someone who said only 100 Jews were killed by Hitler in WW2, do you think it's right to jail them?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Bush and Blair both condemned the cartoons, without the "freedom of expression" caveat, lectured Denmark about responsibility, and didn't show support to Denmark in this ordeal that is way too big for that small country.

There is quite a feeling of abandonment in Denmark because of this.

Im looking for exactly what words they used that you disagree with.

you seem in your posts to be quite sensitive to muslim feelings, and I think Bush is trying to do the same. Should he be more nuanced with his caveats? Hes not a terribly nuanced speaker (d'uh) and hes in the more sensitive position of a head of state.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Saying being punished for saying only 5 million Jews died was a bit of exaggeration, but Germany says it is a crime to deny or minimize the holocaust. Saying less were killed than the accepted 6 mil figure is a minimization, even though it is minor.

And, of course, there are people like David Irving, who argue there wasn't a systemic killing, just atrocities of war, who is banned from even setting foot in Germany.

Btw, if there was someone who said only 100 Jews were killed by Hitler in WW2, do you think it's right to jail them?

If its right to jail them for saying zero were killed, i think it would be equally right to jail them for saying 100 were killed.

I live in a country were holocaust denial is legal, and i dont lobby to change that.

What Germany does, given their unique circumstances, is their business. And has nothing to do with the present discussion. Its a red herring. One that has been raised by those freedom loving mullahs in Teheran, btw, who jail journalists routinely for opposing the regime, and who are pursuing a campaign of holocaust denial.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What Germany does, given their unique circumstances, is their business. And has nothing to do with the present discussion. Its a red herring.

A red herring? Having laws that blatently violate freedom of speech and then backing these cartoons because of freedom of speech (which have been shown in German papers, IIRC)? I think that shows a great hypocrisy, as bad as any of the ME countries on the issue.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by germanos
I don't know, I'm responding to a Frenchmen speaking for Danes. WTF do we know?

I'm merely parrotting the statements of a Danish journalist when he was interviewed on French TV. Those statements went in the same direction as what I heard in other occurences (I don't remember which)


LOTM:
I relatively agree with Bush on this one. However, he should have introduced more caveats IMO, so that the Danes can feel supported by their ally.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I'm merely parrotting the statements of a Danish journalist when he was interviewed on French TV.

Offcourse you are.
No offense taken.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What Germany does, given their unique circumstances, is their business. And has nothing to do with the present discussion. Its a red herring.

A red herring? Having laws that blatently violate freedom of speech and then backing these cartoons because of freedom of speech (which have been shown in German papers, IIRC)? I think that shows a great hypocrisy, as bad as any of the ME countries on the issue.

so if George Bush called for Denmark to ban cartoons that mock him, and when the Danes talked about freedom of speech, he cited holocaust denial laws, hed be right? One limitation on freedom of speech doesnt justify another one, based on a totally different principle.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I'm merely parrotting the statements of a Danish journalist when he was interviewed on French TV. Those statements went in the same direction as what I heard in other occurences (I don't remember which)


LOTM:
I relatively agree with Bush on this one. However, he should have introduced more caveats IMO, so that the Danes can feel supported by their ally.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2629&ncid=2629&e=1&u=/ap/20060208/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mideast_4

[germanos]

could LotM and Imran settle on ONE thread to settle there dispute? (preferably the 'apoligize for muslims')

PLEASE?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
so if George Bush called for Denmark to ban cartoons that mock him, and when the Danes talked about freedom of speech, he cited holocaust denial laws, hed be right? One limitation on freedom of speech doesnt justify another one, based on a totally different principle.

Because calling for banning of religious offensiveness, as the Holocaust denial laws are for, is the same thing as calling for the banning of political speech .

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Because calling for banning of religious offensiveness, as the Holocaust denial laws are for, is the same thing as calling for the banning of political speech .

What do the holocaust laws have to do with religion? The holocaust involved the murder of millions of Jews, slavs, roma, gays, etc. Of the close to 6 million Jews killed, many were not religious at all. The Nazis generally used a racial definition. Both Jews who identified strongly as national or ethnic Jews but who were agnostics or atheists, and Jews who had no identification with the Jewish community whatsoever, were killed. The Catholic Church made some effort to protect born Jews who had converted to Catholicism, with fairly limited success, IIUC.


I would suggest a good basic history of the holocaust.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300095570/103-3584629-9520612?v=glance&n=283155

[Imran Siddiqui]

What do the holocaust laws have to do with religion?

Oh please.

Of the close to 6 million Jews killed, many were not religious at all. The Nazis generally used a racial definition.

And the 'racial defintion' has absolutely nothing to do with a particular religion.