Denmark über alles

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Zoid
But if the distinction was clear from the beginning that some drawings could be considered offensive why publish them? And why not admit that it was a mistake when the **** hit the fan? Instead of claiming that the publishing served some form of higher purpose? As BC says above there was a obvious difference between satire and anti-muslim propaganda in the 13 drawings...

12 !!!! Goddammit

Why not ? Satirical drawings are typically offensive by nature.

Why do you think that JP hadn't a concrete case that made them ask for drawings and publish them ?

Why was it a mistake to publish them if they have revealed a serious problem ?

[germanos]

Originally posted by Thue


They were printet in response to death threads against cartonists who wanted to draw cartoons of Muhammad for a childrens book.

I thought the writer just couldn't find an illustrator.
That this was due to death threats is new to me.

BTW: the childrens book has been printed with drawings AFAIK

[Zoid]

But there´s a a (at least to me) clear difference between free speech and being offensive.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by germanos


I thought the writer just couldn't find an illustrator.
That this was due to death threats is new to me.

BTW: the childrens book has been printed with drawings AFAIK

He could actually find illustrators, but none that would have their names mentioned in the books as the illustrator because they feared what migth happen to them.

[Thue]

Originally posted by germanos


I thought the writer just couldn't find an illustrator.
That this was due to death threats is new to me.

BTW: the childrens book has been printed with drawings AFAIK

Fact-checking myself, I can't find documentation for death threads. But Wikipedia says ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhamma...elf-censorship )

On 17 September 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline "Dyb angst for kritik af islam"[9] ("Profound fear of criticism of Islam"). The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unable to find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv ("The Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad's life"). Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before an artist agreed to assist anonymously. According to Bluitgen:

One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen[9].

In October 2004, a lecturer at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen was assaulted by five assailants who opposed the lecturer's reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture[10].

The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples for similar reasons soon emerging. The comedian Frank Hvam declared that he did not dare satirise the Qur'an on television, while the translators of an essay collection critical of Islam also wished to remain anonymous due to concerns about violent reaction.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Thue


Fact-checking myself, I can't find documentation for death threads. But Wikipedia says ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhamma...elf-censorship )

Yep. This is what I have understood from all the other reports as well.
The issue was self-censorship.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Zoid
But there´s a a (at least to me) clear difference between free speech and being offensive.

Well, is this free speech or offensive :

[Zoid]

Originally posted by BlackCat


12 !!!! Goddammit

Why not ? Satirical drawings are typically offensive by nature.

Why do you think that JP hadn't a concrete case that made them ask for drawings and publish them ?

Why was it a mistake to publish them if they have revealed a serious problem ?

12, sorry...

And regarding satire, it only works as satire if it´s aimed at someone who is in majority or represents authority. And since muslims in Denmark isn´t in either of those positions it just comes across as rude and racist. Despite the fact that most of the drawings are not that racist at all.

[lord of the mark]

"In October 2004, a lecturer at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen was assaulted by five assailants who opposed the lecturer's reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture[10]."


Im trying to imagine Jews assaulting a lecturer in Germany in the 1930s for reading from the Torah or some similar ritual misdeed.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zoid

And regarding satire, it only works as satire if it´s aimed at someone who is in majority or represents authority. And since muslims in Denmark isn´t in either of those positions it just comes across as rude and racist. Despite the fact that most of the drawings are not that racist at all.

So you cant satirize fundamentalist Christians in the US, since theyre not in the majority? You cant satirize violent racists, since theyre not only in the minority, but their actions are illegal? You cant satirize the Gaza settlers in Israel? This is absurd. Satire can be aimed at anyone.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Well, is this free speech or offensive :

I don´t find that offensive, but OTOH I don´t get it. Who are the two men supposed to be and what is a "bussemaend"?

[Dr Strangelove]

I don't think that lying was ever intended to be protected as free speech. IMHO you defamed the Danish People's Party and if they wanted they should be able to hold you accountable.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Zoid


12, sorry...

Accepted

And regarding satire, it only works as satire if it´s aimed at someone who is in majority or represents authority. And since muslims in Denmark isn´t in either of those positions it just comes across as rude and racist. Despite the fact that most of the drawings are not that racist at all.

Not nessecarily, it can just as well be aimed against a common belief such as "all islamists are mad bombers". Satire isn't only aimed against the high and mighty, but also against common people en masse.

You see the turban bomb as some kind of confirmation - I see it as "yeah, it's rediciously to think that all muslims are like this despite the fact that there are a lot of muslim bombers".

But then, you are swedish , and I'm danish

[Zoid]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



So you cant satirize fundamentalist Christians in the US, since theyre not in the majority? You cant satirize violent racists, since theyre not only in the minority, but their actions are illegal? You cant satirize the Gaza settlers in Israel? This is absurd. Satire can be aimed at anyone.

Perhaps I should´ve said "has influence" rather than "in majority". But that´s still not right... I must be confusing satire with something else. I have had problems lately in defining words properly...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I don't think that lying was ever intended to be protected as free speech. IMHO you defamed the Danish People's Party and if they wanted they should be able to hold you accountable.

Not lying. Satire