Arabs attempt to murder Danish cartoonists.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Well, I don't get a lot of the cartoons, and I've even read the translations. I will disagree with you that they are not meant to be bigoted. Especially, since they were reprinted in 50 newspapers. I think that the possible reaction to these cartoons was known, so some people were deliberately trying to infuriate muslims. You may not think it's a big deal to draw cartoons with a black boy with big lips and a watermelon, but black people do. So you should respect the fact that they are offended by that and make publish those types of pictures.

You need to clarify things here to actually back up your statement properly, instead of just throwing accusations into the air. Most importantly, you should tell us just how exactly these drawings - in their context - can be compared to drawing 'a black boy with big lips and a watermelon' in the implied context (just to offend the blacks, nothing more).

I fail to see how the number of reprints is important to figuring out the original intent, and I also think you're giving the editors too much credit if you think they foresaw Denmark's worst diplomatic crisis since WWII as the result of their idea.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That's suppose to stop the murder?

Of course not, have you read the article I posted earlier (not that one I posted just minutes ago)?

From there:

"We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper will always defend,"

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Monk
You need to clarify things here to actually back up your statement properly, instead of just throwing accusations into the air. Most importantly, you should tell us just how exactly these drawings - in their context - can be compared to drawing 'a black boy with big lips and a watermelon' in the implied context (just to offend the blacks, nothing more).

I fail to see how the number of reprints is important to figuring out the original intent, and I also think you're giving the editors too much credit if you think they foresaw Denmark's worst diplomatic crisis since WWII as the result of their idea.

You have it in your head that these cartoons are printed to prevent violence against non-muslims. I'm just pointing out that I don't buy that. I think they are printed by bigots. I don't need to clarify anything. When I look at those cartoons I think of the type of bigotted crap that used to be in newspapers in the past.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro


Of course not, have you read the article I posted earlier (not that one I posted just minutes ago)?

From there:

Oh ****. So if I complain about a crotchless panties add in the newspaper they will repint it because I complained? That's just stupid.

[BeBMan]

The reprinted it as show of solidarity, to make clear that death threats towards the makers don't lead anywhere.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Kidicious
When I look at those cartoons I think of the type of bigotted crap that used to be in newspapers in the past.

OK - would that be the cartoon that's accusing the Danish author of a publicity stunt?

The cartoon that literally calls the same newspaper a bunch of reactionary provocateurs?

Maybe the cartoon where Muhammed is holding back the angry dudes with scimitars, saying it's not worth killing some Danish non-believer? That would be a Muhammed cartoon quite in synch with the 'Islam is peace' notion.

Oh, you already said you didn't need to clarify anything.

Now, I don't know why you'd care to make a statement you don't bother to back up, but sure, that's fine with me. On the off chance you want to actually discuss, I'll be around.

[Wezil]

I would like to point out the obvious that you can't even have this discussion w/o viewing the cartoons.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Agathon


No free speech code I know is based on the idea that people have the right to annoy each other.

I look forward to the Bible, Talmud and Koran being purged of their 'annoying' bits- the bits about genocide, capital punishment, sexism, the inherently anti-gay/lesbian bias...


I fail to see how believing in a religion (no matter how old it may be) gives its adherents the right to publicly proclaim fatwas, death sentences and pass judgment on the sex lives of others- and yet this is what Fundie Protestant Bible Bashers, Papal encyclicals and irritating Imams do all the time... sheltered behind those 'free speech' laws which seem not to apply when used to lampoon the shibboleths and icons and progenitors of religious belief.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Right Molly, which is why Christians are calling for your head.

Thanks for your input, Postulant Benedicta.


I'll file it away with my cherished announcements from the Pope- printed out on soft paper, which comes in very useful...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Agathon




Mahmoud Ahamdinejad was right to point out the hypocrisy of the West in crying foul over the holocaust denial conference while defending the cartoons.

Rubbish.

Holocaust denial is based on the idea of Jews as a distinct race- and as a world spanning conspiracy- not as holders of specific religious beliefs.

The Nazis did not make exceptions for secular or converted Jews.

So far you haven't managed to show how the whole industry of Holocaust denial (which is a worldwide industry, taking in the likes of David Irving, Russian neo-fascists, Arab anti-Zionists, reprints of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Ahmedinejad, et cetera) is in any way comparable to a couple of Danish cartoons about the chief prophet of Islam.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Wezil
I would like to point out the obvious that you can't even have this discussion w/o viewing the cartoons.

Maybe this is not too different from discussions about 'In Search of Lost Time' and similar books where a lot of distinguished people won't admit they didn't actually read it.

So this book is a must-read item before the next Muhammed thread:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/McInerney-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Robert]

Free Speech means that the governament can't punish/persecute/sue people because of their opinion.

People can still sue each other, in example if someone had spread lies about someone else that has hurted his reputation. But that's not criminal law but social law.

Fortunately we have free speach. What if the governament would allow people to love Islam and prevent people from hating Islam? Why would someone not be allowed to show he thinks that religion is?

We can always discuss if someone has expressed his opinion in a good way or in a disgusting way. We hold someone very low because he's not able to express his opinion in a civilized manner. But we do not put him in jail. We do not shut his mouth. Anyone can express himself in whatever way he wants.

As a christian I have no desire that the governament will sue people who spread hate about christians / Christ or God. If someone wants to draw any painting that mucks God, that's between God and him. It's not between the governament and him or me and him.

I believe God will judge all, no reason for me to do so.
The governament is there to make sure that people live in a correct way together. Don't kill each other, protect peoples properties, etc.

If one has faith in God or Allah or whatever, then he should have faith that God or Allah or whatever will be able to act himself.

Someone who uses swords or guns does apparantly have little faith in God.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Encouraging hate speech is no way to protect freedom of speech. Not in Europe, Canada or anywhere else. If you like your rights so much, use them responsibly, not recklessly. Don't be a dumb ass.

Freedom of speech isn't there to protect popular speech, Kid. It exists to protect the right of people to make arses out of themselves. If we can only rouse ourselves to protect speech we find politically correct, of what use is the freedom when we allow the government to become that arbitor?

[BlackCat]

;hmmm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7248629.stm

Iranians urge Dutch to ban film
By Elettra Neysmith
BBC News

Geert Wilders
The Iranians want Geert Wilders' film banned
The Iranian government has intervened to try to stop the screening of a film in the Netherlands about the Koran.

The Iranians say that the film, by the Dutch member of parliament Geert Wilders, is offensive.

The Iranian justice minister, Gholam Hussein Elham, wrote to his Dutch counterpart, Ernst Hirsch Ballin, calling for a ban.

Mr Hussein Elham said freedom of speech should not be used as a cover for attacking moral and religious values.

'Freedom of expression'

Mr Wilders says his film will show the Muslim holy book is an inspiration for murder.

But the Iranian justice minister says it is an unnecessary attack on what Muslims regard as the holiest of things.

He said the motivation behind the film was satanic and urged the Dutch government to stop its screening.

Mr Wilders has already been advised that he may have to leave the country for his own safety.

But the government has so far refused to intervene, saying the issue is one of freedom of expression.

In 2004, the Dutch film director, Theo van Gogh, was killed by a Muslim extremist in an Amsterdam street after bringing out the film Submission.

It dealt with the issue of abused Muslim women and included scenes of nearly naked women with Koranic texts engraved on their bodies.

Further - a group of danish politicians were going to Iran monday, but the iranian ambassador has delivered a letter that demanded that the members of that group should excuse for the renewed publication of the drawings - of course the group isn't going to Iran. A member of Socialistisk Folkeparti says that the iranians must have "spist søm" ("eaten nails" - a danish proverb meaning WTF are the idiots thinking).

Edit : danm slpeling.

[Elok]

Originally posted by BeBro
The reprinted it as show of solidarity, to make clear that death threats towards the makers don't lead anywhere.

You're assuming they follow the same logic as you, y'know. They might very well take the lesson to be "the infidels think we make idle threats" or "the people who merely protested gave them the false impression that we'll take no for an answer."

On the actual topic, while I don't of course think they should be killed or even censored, it's pretty stupid to make a cartoon just to show that you're not afraid to make a cartoon, make it with the full knowledge that it's going to offend people, and act surprised when they're offended. Sure, it's not offensive enough to justify riots and bombs--to you--but if you don't even appreciate why they're offended, are you really in a position to predict where their indignation may lead? Agitating lunatics is just shy of shouting fire in a crowded theater and it's worse when done for its own sake.