Arabs attempt to murder Danish cartoonists.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just curious, why would it make so much of a difference whether he's hiding within Danish borders or outside of them? I think I know your answer, but just for the sake of discussion, do clarify.

It means that Denmark has passed from being a free and democratic society to being part of the problem. It means your leadership as a whole was too spineless to stand up for the man who is voicing your own freedoms and liberties.

It would be a national shame if an outspoken Dane had to flee the country as some of the Dutch have already done. I would say the same if it were a Canadian, it would be a serious sign for me if someone fled the country in order to practice the freedoms that ought to be honoured and preserved within Canada.

I do hope there is someone with some means and sense and discretion who can protect the man.

[Monk]

That was the answer I expected. And while I certainly agree it would be a great shame if anybody had to leave his country out of fear, I don't quite follow you on the notion that this would necessarily be a result of poor leadership.

Obviously, we don't know exactly what is being done by the police and secret service to accomodate Kurt Westergaard, but even if every official involved did everything they possibly could (and it seems they've already foiled an assasination attempt), don't you think it's sensible to say he'd still be safer in Sweden or Germany?

I don't think he'll go, he's proven himself much to stubborn for that already, and I respect the man highly for that. But if he went anyway, I don't think it's fair to automatically blame anybody but the people who directly forced that decision.

[Ben Kenobi]

If the man leaves because it is his own choice (ie, the provisions are there) but he makes the prudential decision that he would be safer elsewhere that is one thing.

But if the man is not adequately protected (ie, doesn't have a place to live, and that the Danes would prefer him to leave), then that is a condemnation of the Danish leadership.

Honestly, I think the protection should remain private. There are numerous advantages (privacy, etc) and the fact that people who shouldn't know his whereabouts don't, plus he wouldn't have to worry about the loyalty of the folks he is with.

If the government is protecting someone, all it takes is one leak and there you go, you have a successful assassination. If it's private you limit the circle of people who do know.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It means that Denmark has passed from being a free and democratic society to being part of the problem. It means your leadership as a whole was too spineless to stand up for the man who is voicing your own freedoms and liberties.

It would be a national shame if an outspoken Dane had to flee the country as some of the Dutch have already done. I would say the same if it were a Canadian, it would be a serious sign for me if someone fled the country in order to practice the freedoms that ought to be honoured and preserved within Canada.

I do hope there is someone with some means and sense and discretion who can protect the man.

He's a bigot, not a martyr. He wasn't standing up for freedom. That's just rhetoric.

He doesn't deserve this treatment, but there are certainly worse tragedies that happen everyday.

[Ben Kenobi]

He's a bigot, not a martyr.

Then I suggest folks stop trying to make him into a martyr. You can't become one unless you assassinate him.

He wasn't standing up for freedom. That's just rhetoric.

Aren't you glad you live in the US where you have the freedom to call people you disagree with bigots?

I said, this man voices the freedoms. Perhaps I should have been more clear in asking what crime has he committed to deserve assassination?

Surely insulting people shouldn't be cause for a death sentence.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then I suggest folks stop trying to make him into a martyr. You can't become one unless you assassinate him.

You also can't become a martyr for creating bygoted cartoons. Also you don''t become one for doing something stupid that only causes harm. You have to actually do something good for people. You don't become a martyr simply by being assasinated.

Aren't you glad you live in the US where you have the freedom to call people you disagree with bigots?

What does that have to do with anything?

I said, this man voices the freedoms. Perhaps I should have been more clear in asking what crime has he committed to deserve assassination?

I didn't say he should be assasination. I simply said he's not a martyr.

[Winston]

The suspension of Mrs. Westergaard from her workplace at a daycare center has now been reversed by the political top brass after the story having dominated the national news today, and having attracted harsh criticism and indignant comments from nearly all sides of society and across the political spectrum.

It has been noted that Ã…rhus municipality, in its initial decision to suspend, had asked for and received a risk assessment from central police intelligence to the effect that there was no apparent risk as far as Mrs. Westergaard was concerned. The municipality chose to ignore this and issued the suspension regardless - apparently considering a group of parents' "concern for security" to be above the advice of the highest national authority on the matter. This concerned group of parents remains unidentified. The ones who've spoken to the press today opposed the suspension as 'shameful'.

Gitte Westergaard will resume work at the daycare on Monday.

[Kidlicious]

I doubt it. Or at least no children will be there.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Kidicious


They don't hate the fact that you have the freedom to make cartoons like that, just that you do make cartoons like that. mkay. Thank you, good bye.

*sigh*

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Agathon


Yes you have. Stop being an idiot.

Darers go first.


You're simply being obtuse, in a way that believers in antiquated millenarian faith systems (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Communism) tend to be.


Insult is no adequate substitute for argument, by the way.

"In no way" is just rhetoric.

No, it isn't. It is a figure of speech, but in context (easily demonstrated) one can see that Holocaust denial in the West is generally permitted (if decried by most) and does not attract the kind of death threats or extreme criticism (read: murder, attempted assassination, fatwas) that critiques, lampoons or satires of Islam/the Prophet Muhammad routinely generate in both the West and assorted Muslim countries.

How anyone (even a constant critic of Israel) can seriously take what Ahmedinejad says at face value is beyond me.

It compares precisely in that both are restrictions of speech involving deep cultural taboos

Historically inaccurate- since the Holocaust took place from the late 1930s to 1945, Holocaust 'denial' can only itself be a fairly recent phenomenon, and is hardly a 'deep cultural taboo', certainly at least not outside of Germany, for the special reasons already outlined.

Persistent and ingrained antisemitism is still a part of European (and sadly, wider) cultural life.

Is that not true?

No.

The depcition of the Prophet Muhammad is not forbidden in the Qu'ran. If you knew more about Muslim history and didn't rely on Ahmedinejad or assorted Muslim fundamentalists for your info., you'd know that.

Of course it is, so a comparison is possible.

Ahmedinejad can make the comparison- it doesn't make it valid, or accurate.

The conference was held to show how hypocritical we get when it is one of our taboos being violated.

Really ? Ahmedinejad told you personally what the point of the conference was, and that it had nothing to do with Middle Eastern/Near Eastern geopolitics, or the creation of the State of Israel in the late 1940s.

One never knew your relationship was so close....

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Agathon


Methinks you are letting the fact that the Iranian regime gives gays a hard time cloud your judgement.

Whatever floats your boat. I don't like populists, ideologues and liars, and Ahmedinejad (if he is a Holocaust denier) qualifies as all three.

That Iran has anti-gay laws does not influence me in my criticism of Holocaust denial- I dislike lies and censorship wherever they originate, Iran or the Vatican, the White House or Ann Coulter.

Communists aren't much above them in the pecking order, but that doesn't mean I have to alter the facts.

When was the last Iranian Communist stoned to death in Iran for their beliefs ?

You have the luxury of not living in Iran too- and unlike Communism, homosexuality (like race or ethnicity) isn't something one grows disenchanted with.

Why shouldn't Irving be allowed to sue? I mean, is he not even allowed to have his case heard?

I didn't say he wasn't allowed to sue- he had his books of lies published already. He was the one trying to prevent Lipstadt from being published. That's how much one notorious Holocaust-denier cares for the freedom of the press and free speech...

Sure, he's a ****, but do you really want to prevent him accessing the legal system.

Not my point. However, as you have just pointed out even liars and Holocaust deniers get published in the West and have legal redress- unlike perceived critics of Islam in the West and some Muslim countries....

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

Thanks for those bons mots. Perhaps you might like to live somewhere like Burma, Iran or Guatemala, where the freedom to write freely isn't taken so glibly. Even if he's a bad novelist, he should still have the right to be read without having fatwas issued by some fanatical mediaeval holdover.

But it's irrelevant crap again.

I fail to see how- we have different expectations and different standards here- that press freedom thing that Holocaust deniers like Mr. Irving and hatemongers like the Vatican take for granted- and which you seemingly treat so glibly.

Our standards of behaviour should not be guided by theirs.

For the most part they aren't- there is a long history of political and religious satire in the West, both illustrated and without pictures. About time some people had a decent grounding in history, I'd say....

The cartoons were an obvious troll

So ?

Cut the BS and explain to me why the misdeeds of others suddenly makes similar misdeeds of my own morally permissible.

You haven't proven that creating the cartoon was a 'misdeed'- not by the cartoonist's own cultural/ethical/moral standards, nor by the standards obtaining in the cartoonist's country.

You haven't even successfully shown how satire in Islam is haram or forbidden- you're just taking it for granted.

Just answer that simple question and save me the rhetoric.

Oh, anything for less rhetoric from you on this issue, and more MATTER.

But the western hypocrisy was a riot.

There was no hypocrisy- again you have failed to show that this was the case.

You don't seriously believe that, do you?

I believe the standards operating in Denmark (and most of the rest of Europe) with regards to freedom of the press, censorship and free speech are generally superior to those operating in much of the Muslim world, and certainly Iran.

I've yet to see Iran's version of 'Father Ted', for instance- but perhaps there is an 'Ayatollah Beheshti' set on an island in the Persian Gulf.... but I doubt it.

Fanatics and zealots don't tend to have a great sense of humour.