Arabs attempt to murder Danish cartoonists.

[Monk]

Seems like for once you're on Uffe Ellemann Jensen's opposite fence, Winston...

[Elok]

Originally posted by BlackCat


If you were a dane I'm prety sure that you woulds be a member of Radikale Venstre.

No, if I were a Dane I'd be Hamlet, who realized he was surrounded by liars and criminal perverts, and killed them all before dying himself.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Elok


No, if I were a Dane I'd be Hamlet, who realized he was surrounded by liars and criminal perverts, and killed them all before dying himself.

Something is rotten in the thread of Denmark.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Monk
Seems like for once you're on Uffe Ellemann Jensen's opposite fence, Winston...

And proud of it! Never thought I'd say it. A quarter of a century's worth of absolute agreement down the drain.

[Krill]

[q=BBC]Danish MPs have cancelled a trip to Iran after Tehran demanded they apologise for the republication of cartoons deemed offensive to Islam.

Two days before the scheduled trip, Tehran demanded the MPs condemn the cartoon on their arrival in Iran.

The row follows the arrest on Tuesday of three men for allegedly planning to murder cartoonist Kurt Westergaard.

The following day, 11 Danish papers reprinted his drawing depicting the Prophet with a bomb in his turban.

A condemnation and apology would help convince the Iranian people that Denmark's authorities had distanced themselves from the action, Iran's parliament said in a letter to Danish MPs.


If anyone needs to apologise... it is the Iranians
Villy Soevndal,
Danish MP

Nine members of Denmark's foreign affairs committee were due to arrive in Iran on Monday for a three-day trip focusing on human rights and the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme.

"We are not the ones to apologise," said Villy Soevndal, the leader of Denmark's Socialist People's Party.

"If anyone needs to apologise for freedom of speech, human rights, imprisonments, executions and lack of democracy, it is the Iranians."

Denmark's foreign minister has backed the parliamentarians' decision not to travel.
[/q]

Denmark

[Agathon]

Originally posted by molly bloom


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.

You might want to try again Molly. You missed the point here.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Monk
Oh, and Agathon, on your perfectly valid point that different cultures have different taboos and that context matters, don't you think it's also perfectly valid to point out these drawings were made in the Danish satirical tradition for a Danish audience, and they only reached the international spotlight when a couple of Danes (edit: make that 'imams based in Denmark') went and told the Muslims how amazingly offended they should be? Keep in mind it wasn't in Denmark that buildings were burned to the ground and even people dying.

I'm asking because sometimes when you see this discussion you get the feeling that people (speaking generally here) percieve this as a stunt directed towards the entire Muslim world, presupposing that anybody had a clue that a back side of an ordinary newspaper in Denmark could eventually become the business of somebody in the Middle East and breaking news on CNN.

The easy response to this is that we now live in a globalized world. We have to start taking account of other people's taboos. It's simple politeness to do so. The fact that other people may be rude is no excuse for us to be.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Agathon


You might want to try again Molly. You missed the point here.

No, I haven't. Holocaust denial is still practised in the West- only a few countries, such as Germany have made it a criminal offence to deny the Holocaust.

Then again, one could argue that Germany has a rather special reason for doing so... something to do with the Thirties and Forties, mass deportations and genocide...

In no way does criticism of Holocaust denial in the West compare with the bans on free speech in some Muslim countries where the full force of the 'legal' system is used to punish those who dare to step out of line with received opinion on either the Prophet Muhammad or Islam.

David Irving (well-known Holocaust denier and propagator of lies) sued Deborah Lipstadt to prevent her book being published or disseminated- because she had the audacity to point out what should have been perfectly obvious- that Irving's denial of the Holocaust is as stupid as insisting that gravity does not exist andf more offensive, in that it ties into and is part and parcel of a worldwide network of racist groups, subcultures and in some cases governments- since the governments of some Muslim countries are prepared to finance the printing of 'The Protocols of the Elders Of Zion' .

We have to start taking account of other people's taboos.

I don't serve Jewish or Muslim friends pork. I don't plant pigs' heads outside synagogues or mosques. I don't call for Muslim writers or politicians to be executed because I don't find their views on my sexuality sympathetic....#

all of which compare quite favourably with stoning to death homosexuals and issuing fatwas on Salman Rushdie and Bangladeshi women novelists...

However since Denmark is not a Muslim country, does not have a comprehensive ban on free speech (which includes the right to lampoon religious figures or religions) then Denmark's resident religious believers will simply have to get used to the taboos which exist in Denmark.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by molly bloom
However since Denmark is not a Muslim country (...)

Not yet anyway

[Agathon]

Originally posted by molly bloom

No, I haven't. Holocaust denial is still practised in the West- only a few countries, such as Germany have made it a criminal offence to deny the Holocaust.

Yes you have. Stop being an idiot.

In no way does criticism of Holocaust denial in the West compare with the bans on free speech in some Muslim countries where the full force of the 'legal' system is used to punish those who dare to step out of line with received opinion on either the Prophet Muhammad or Islam.

"In no way" is just rhetoric. It compares precisely in that both are restrictions of speech involving deep cultural taboos, and sometimes involve legal sanctions. Is that not true? Of course it is, so a comparison is possible.

Whether or not you think it is a morally appropriate comparison given other factors is your business (I personally think it was in poor taste, but I got a kick out of western howling about it). I don't care, since it is irrelevant to the point in hand. The conference was held to show how hypocritical we get when it is one of our taboos being violated. Whether or not you personally think the taboos are of equal stature is your problem.

Methinks you are letting the fact that the Iranian regime gives gays a hard time cloud your judgement. Communists aren't much above them in the pecking order, but that doesn't mean I have to alter the facts.

David Irving (well-known Holocaust denier and propagator of lies) sued Deborah Lipstadt to prevent her book being published or disseminated- because she had the audacity to point out what should have been perfectly obvious- that Irving's denial of the Holocaust is as stupid as insisting that gravity does not exist andf more offensive, in that it ties into and is part and parcel of a worldwide network of racist groups, subcultures and in some cases governments- since the governments of some Muslim countries are prepared to finance the printing of 'The Protocols of the Elders Of Zion'.

Why shouldn't Irving be allowed to sue? I mean, is he not even allowed to have his case heard? Sure, he's a ****, but do you really want to prevent him accessing the legal system.

I don't serve Jewish or Muslim friends pork. I don't plant pigs' heads outside synagogues or mosques. I don't call for Muslim writers or politicians to be executed because I don't find their views on my sexuality sympathetic....#

all of which compare quite favourably with stoning to death homosexuals and issuing fatwas on Salman Rushdie and Bangladeshi women novelists...

I've been forced to read some of Rushdie's work. The fatwa is entirely justified.

But it's irrelevant crap again. Whether or not these people are a bunch of pig ****ers does not matter. Our standards of behaviour should not be guided by theirs. The cartoons were an obvious troll, and it was a bad idea to publish them.

Cut the BS and explain to me why the misdeeds of others suddenly makes similar misdeeds of my own morally permissible. Just answer that simple question and save me the rhetoric.

Like I said, I thought the conference was in poor taste - I don't think it should have been held. But the western hypocrisy was a riot.

However since Denmark is not a Muslim country, does not have a comprehensive ban on free speech (which includes the right to lampoon religious figures or religions) then Denmark's resident religious believers will simply have to get used to the taboos which exist in Denmark.

You don't seriously believe that, do you?

[Monk]

Originally posted by Agathon
You don't seriously believe that, do you?

What's wrong with his statement?

Nobody is arguing the Western world doesn't have its issues too, but you're dismissing completely the important question of what effectively happens when these codes are violated (edit: and you pretty much admit it yourself - but why oh why?)

Most importantly, Denmark won't outlaw your political or religious beliefs, not even David Irving's. This is why Molly's statement makes perfect sense the way I understand it.

And secondly, there is nothing a newspaper in Syria or Iran could possibly write that would lead to an angry mob of Danes attacking the embassies of those nations. This suggests that 'taboo' is too strong a word.

I suppose it makes sense to say Germany is suffering from a taboo - but don't take that one out on the rest of us.

[Arrian]

You don't seriously believe that, do you?

The sad thing is I'm sure you believe what you just posted (except that the fatwa against Rushdie was justified).

-Arrian

[C0ckney]

i forgot about this thread, nice one molly for bumping it.

aggie, you talk a lot about social rules, but these are not the same as rights, and i don't feel it's very helpful to compare the two in the way you have. a lot of people on this forum, including yourself, don't think the cartoons should have been published. others, including myself think that it was the right thing to publish them. of course we are all entitled to our opinions, however no one can disagree that the cartoonists had the right to publish those cartoons. they would, as the man in wezil's video rightly said, have had the right to publish them, even if they were informed by racist sentiment or were simply setting out to troll the muslim world.

as others have said however, the debate has moved on since the cartoonists were threatened, the danish flag was burnt, riots broke out etc. such things are a challenge to our rights and liberties and i think it is vital for those of us who believe in a democratic society to stand up for what we believe in and not allow ourselves to be intimidated into silence.

There's a right place and a right way to discuss these things. When people deliberately break the social rules of discourse and try to hide behind free speech, they ought not to be defended.

defended from what? from criticism, perhaps not. from violence and intimidation, absolutely yes, how could any reasonable person say otherwise.

In practice you do, and you have an obligation not to offend others by adhering to the social rules of discourse.

What you don't have is an absolute right to be offended. You do however have a relative right not to be offended by people breaking the social rules of discourse. Someone who starts randomly yelling at strangers has broken no law, yet is clearly doing something that he shouldn't.

i disagree completely i'm afraid. you don't have a right to any such thing. people generally will try to be polite and friendly and observe other such rules, because of social pressure, because they believe it is the right thing to do, and also because they wish to get along with others. so you might reasonably expect people to conform with these rules, but this is not a right, nor should it be confused with one.

people often say inappropriate things, act in a disrespectful way or are just plain rude. in fact some people seem to go through their whole lives just being rude to others. this may well lead to adverse social consequences, but if they want to live like that, then it's their decision at the end of the day.

[Arrian]

One thing: I don't care about burnt Danish flags. Let 'em burn some flags if they want.

It's the violence/threats of violence and demands for governmental action against the newspapers & cartoonists that I object to. Complaining (including doing rude things to flags) is all fair.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by C0ckney
as others have said however, the debate has moved on since the cartoonists were threatened, the danish flag was burnt, riots broke out etc. such things are a challenge to our rights and liberties and i think it is vital for those of us who believe in a democratic society to stand up for what we believe in and not allow ourselves to be intimidated into silence.

No one is intimidating you unless you are racist. I don't see how your rights are being challenged. Do you think they are trying to outlaw free speech? No, they are just fighting racist speech.