Religious intolerance or freedom of speech. [Archive] - Page 2

Navaros

02-06-2006, 12:46

Well at least I can now see the irony.

To protest a cartoon that depects a religious leader as a terrorist. Some of the so called followers of the religious leader are going to show the rest of the world the falseness of these cartoons by the followers engaging in terrorist acts.

I wonder if they ever watched the Life of Brian and thought it was a documentary?

I didn't know where to jump in on this thread so this seemed as good a post as any.

Standing up for one's religion is not terrorism.

Face it, protests don't mean anything. They never accomplish anything. No one cares about protests. Instead of wasting time with a bunch of useless crap like protests, Muslims will take actions that actually get noticed and have their voices be heard loud, clear, and universally.

Muslims will not tolerate their holy figures being mocked. That is to be commended.

It was common knowledge that to mock Muslim holy figures is to incur the wrath of all Muslims who truly believe in what their Holy Book says. They do not take it lightly as most so-called Christians these days do. Hence the paper and cartoonist responsible for that filth should have fully seen this all coming.

I'm sure all real Muslims would have the good taste to never watch blasphemous trash like "Life of Brian". If they did have the misfortune to watch it, it would incur similar wrath in their hearts. And rightly so in my view.

Fragony

02-06-2006, 12:56

Muslims will not tolerate their holy figures being mocked. That is to be commended.

Muslims should realise where they are. I don't care what they do in their own perverted part of the world but here we have something called civilisation. They are guests and should stfu when adults are talking, muslims will not tolerate anything that isn't muslim anyway. Muslims in Europe should lighten up and behave like real people instead of a rabid mob, maybe their are just too many shiny objects here which they can't deal with.

Navaros

02-06-2006, 12:59

Not a dig on Islam, but when Christians and Jews are potrayed in this sort of disgusting way, you don't see so much violence as you do when Muslims are disrespected by secular media and society. Can someone explain to me why the phenomenom of violence in the Islamic Faith seems more prevalent in these sort of issues?

Because generally speaking, Christians these days do not believe in the Bible with all of their hearts. And they usually somehow have the misconception that they are supposed to act like pansies and tolerate disgusting depictions of their holy figures. Which of course, they are not. Christians have allowed their hearts and minds to be beaten into submission by decades of biased media indoctrination.

Muslims on the other hands, take their faith much more seriously, believe it with all of their hearts, and hence will defend it with ample vigor. They will not backdown or have their spirits broken just because some idiotic newspapers tell them to en masse.

I applaud the Muslims for this conviction.

Adrian II

02-06-2006, 13:08

Because generally speaking, Christians these days do not believe in the Bible with all of their hearts. And they usually somehow have the misconception that they are supposed to act like pansies and tolerate disgusting depictions of their holy figures. Which of course, they are not. Christians have allowed their hearts and minds to be beaten into submission by decades of biased media indoctrination.

Muslims on the other hands, take their faith much more seriously, believe it with all of their hearts, and hence will defend it with ample vigor. They will not backdown or have their spirits broken just because some idiotic newspapers tell them to en masse.

I applaud the Muslims for this conviction.Congrats, you have managed to write a post that is deeply offensive to Muslims and Christians all at the same time.

Adrian II

02-06-2006, 13:20

Muslims in Europe should lighten up and behave like real people instead of a rabid mob, maybe their are just too many shiny objects here which they can't deal with.My dear boy, I don't for the love of me understand what you are talking about. There are millions of Muslims in Europe who all go about their daily business without shouting, demonstrating, siging petitions or calling for anyone's execution.

Red Peasant

02-06-2006, 13:20

Lol.
Bigoted Religionistas always stick together on this kind of issue (before they go back to killing each other). They think they have a right to be beyond criticism and mockery. Think again sonny. :2thumbsup:

Navaros

02-06-2006, 13:24

Muslims should realise where they are. I don't care what they do in their own perverted part of the world but here we have something called civilisation. They are guests and should stfu when adults are talking, muslims will not tolerate anything that isn't muslim anyway. Muslims in Europe should lighten up and behave like real people instead of a rabid mob, maybe their are just too many shiny objects here which they can't deal with.

If Muslims were not instigated into behaving as a rabid mob, then they would not.

It's pretty simple: mess with them, and they mess with you back.

Can't really blame them for that in my view.

Red Peasant

02-06-2006, 13:30

If Muslims were not instigated into behaving as a rabid mob, then they would not.

It's pretty simple: mess with them, and they mess with you back.

Can't really blame them for that in my view.

Over satirical cartoons?!! Get Real.

They were published something like five months ago, and now suddenly this ridiculous hysteria and violence. This situation has been engineered by certain muslims for their own twisted reasons, and the Danes have little to do with it.

Navaros

02-06-2006, 13:41

Over satirical cartoons?!! Get Real.

They were published something like five months ago, and now suddenly this ridiculous hysteria and violence. This situation has been engineered by certain muslims for their own twisted reasons, and the Danes have little to do with it.

The age of them does not matter; they are just as digusting regardless of their age. Similar things have happened in New York and other places in the USA when some foolish men in the USA thought they could get it away with posting derogatory 'art' of the Prophet. This reaction from Muslims is nothing new, and it will happen time and time again any time something of this nature occurs.

Obviously they are much more than "satirical cartoons". Rather, they are a sick violation of something deeply sacred.

Fragony

02-06-2006, 13:44

If Muslims were not instigated into behaving as a rabid mob, then they would not.

It's pretty simple: mess with them, and they mess with you back.

Can't really blame them for that in my view.

Don't mess with them, and they will mess with you anyway, we simply cannot meet their demands.

My dear boy, I don't for the love of me understand what you are talking about. There are millions of Muslims in Europe who all go about their daily business without shouting, demonstrating, siging petitions or calling for anyone's execution.

Still early, probably sleeping.

caravel

02-06-2006, 14:46

While I cannot agree with the typcasting of all muslims as raging fanatics, I can understand some of the points raised by Navaros, that those muslims in question are acting in defense of their own religion. But does this defense require violent behaviour and attacks against neutral parties? Are they not just as bad as those that published these images when they will burn european national flags, destroy a consulate building and run about toting guns with little excuse? Denmark, a country that has hardly offended anyone, is hardly part of the bush/blair "empire". It was Denmark's free press that published this, not the Danes and not their government. The press is not the voice of the government. Unlike islamic states (and many non islamic ones for that matter), Denmark has a real democracy with a press that is free to comment on, and criticize almost anything, it is not bound by religion or government control. Have these muslims considered, that when they burn the national flag of the majority of Danes that did not support or endorse this publication in any way, that they are targeting an entire people for the actions of a tiny minority?

Obviously not, but as usual the fanatical zealots that endorse suicide bombers, "beheadings" and the burnings of flags and effigies, are whipping up the greater majority of the ignorant masses into a fury. Those involved understand nothing about the west whatosever apart from what their media and these manipulative clerics want them to know. The worst.

Those that are living in western european countries as asylum seekers or immigrants and engage in such actions as vandalism, incitement of hatred etc are even worse in my opinion. Such individuals have absolutely no respect for the country that has taken them in, they are there as abusers and nothing more.

Those protesting in london with placards such as "Behead the one who insults the prophet" and "Free speech go to hell" need to ask themselves the question: "Do I belong in a civilised western european democracy?"

Fragony

02-06-2006, 15:21

hmmm,

Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.

Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.

A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.

Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim
outrage.

Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.

Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage

Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.

Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.

Now are we just that civil are or they nuts? Yes, we and they.

Oh wait, fresh from the press. Priest in Turkey gets shot to death. No, well you get it.

Radier

02-06-2006, 15:24

Oh lollipop London is where it's at :laugh4:

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060203/capt.llp12502031855.britain_denmark_europe_llp125.jpg?x=380&y=273&sig=VUHMD_lQkcgfCtFdL3oyXQ--
http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060203/capt.llp12102031635.britain_prophet_drawings_llp121.jpg?x=285&y=345&sig=1q10paVZ1mzss7gin41Q0g--
http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060203/i/r1365134527.jpg?

They sure react in a most passionate way, how exotic :laugh4:

Murder, death, slaughter, behead, cut, stab, teh rage!

All praise the multicult, but hey, shoarma tastes good.

Wow, time to send some out huh? Seriously, If I was one of those english policemen I would consider beating the living hell out of the extremists... They probably were tempted.

Lemur

02-06-2006, 15:24

Best quote yet: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4684652.stm)

"They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers," said Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu Israra.

Ser Clegane

02-06-2006, 16:01

Now are we just that civil are or they nuts? Yes, we and they.

Oh wait, fresh from the press. Priest in Turkey gets shot to death. No, well you get it.

Well - I guess a lot (probably the vast majority) of muslims neither show outrage now, nor did they when the other things happened that you listed.

They probably aren't very happy about the cartoons and a lot of them probably arent't very happy about murder in the name of islam either - I guess most of them (like most Westerners) are just trying to live their lives without making ruckus on the streets.

A personal question, Fragony - as you mention from time to time that you sometimes participate in "public outrage" against immigrants - how often do you go on the street and join protests against right-wingers, e.g. those who hunt and beat up innocent immigrants? Have you ever been outraged about such incidents, or do you consider the beating of immigrants to be an "understandable reaction"?

Vladimir

02-06-2006, 16:08

Blah Blah Blah

Enter the apologist (I've been wanting to use that word). The man who tries to tiptoe around the issue and intimately makes his convictions clear when it says: "it's not their fault". Just keep sending those checks to CAIR and keep the faith brother.

Fragony

02-06-2006, 16:14

A personal question, Fragony - as you mention from time to time that you sometimes participate in "public outrage" against immigrants - how often do you go on the street and join protests against right-wingers, e.g. those who hunt and beat up innocent immigrants? Have you ever been outraged about such incidents, or do you consider the beating of immigrants to be an "understandable reaction"?

Been in a fight from time to time with them but I never activily looked for them if that is what you mean, but I am not the kind of guy that turns the other cheek. Just a matter of time before things will get more sinister though, and I will be there when it does. About rightwingers attacking immigrants, I cannot think of such an incident in the past 10 years, I heard that it does happen from time to time in Germany though. When such a thing happens I wouldn't aprove it but I stopped caring really, so I pull the 'understandable reaction' card.

Watchman

02-06-2006, 16:21

Am I going to be offensive if I bluntly state Fragony does a really good job sounding like a full-blown racist ?

Duke Malcolm

02-06-2006, 16:25

I wouldn't say he seems like a racist, just someone against large scale immigration...

drone

02-06-2006, 16:27

Because generally speaking, Christians these days do not believe in the Bible with all of their hearts. And they usually somehow have the misconception that they are supposed to act like pansies and tolerate disgusting depictions of their holy figures. Which of course, they are not. Christians have allowed their hearts and minds to be beaten into submission by decades of biased media indoctrination.

Muslims on the other hands, take their faith much more seriously, believe it with all of their hearts, and hence will defend it with ample vigor. They will not backdown or have their spirits broken just because some idiotic newspapers tell them to en masse.

I applaud the Muslims for this conviction.
There was a time when Christians did believe in the Bible with all their hearts. During this time, we had wonderful things called crusades, inquisitions, witch trials, various holy wars, etc.

There were a few posts early in this thread about Islam growing up. It doesn't have to mean Muslims renouncing the tenets of their religion, it just means accepting that not everyone will or must believe as they do.

Fragony

02-06-2006, 16:32

I wouldn't say he seems like a racist, just someone against large scale immigration...

C'est ca. Psycholigists have always known that groups that differ heavily on something bring friction, only the politicians have a hard time catching up. Islam and democracy will never work, something people are slowly starting to realise, if not a bit late. As far as I am concerned (sorry muslim orgers) the Islam is nothing more then a violent sect that should have no place in the civilised world.

But@watchman, you can call me suzie if you like.

Red Peasant

02-06-2006, 17:15

Obviously they are much more than "satirical cartoons". Rather, they are a sick violation of something deeply sacred.

You're kidding right? You crack me up. I think most Europeans would definitely disagree.

Of course, I do respect your right to hold your opinions, but I don't respect them. Muslims will never respect our right to our opinions in our countries without issuing their fatwas and threatening violence. If they don't want to buy European cheese, then fair enough, but we don't have to deal with them either.
If you move to a Muslim country then you may find enough people who agree with you, you might feel better for it.

Watchman

02-06-2006, 18:42

*snip*"I'm not racist, I have good reasons to dislike foreigners!"
:coffeenews:
Don't they all ?

Besides, I consider the way you persistently use the blatantly derogatory term "boomski's" (which is fairly obviously roughly equal to "nigger", "kaffir", "rag-head", "kook" and all the other classics) when referring to Muslims in general and Arabs in particular to be telling enough.

Which just goes to prove; boorishness is something nobody has any monopoly on.

That said, I agree with the point that the overall Muslim reaction is way over the top. Alas, since I also bother exterting the mental effort to try and understand *why* this is so (instead of settling for such vulgar, clearly intolerant and patently useless postulations as "Islam is nothing more then a violent sect that should have no place in the civilised world"), I can to an extent sympathize with them. To give you the short form, I think it's partly a way of venting more general uneasiness, anxiety and frustration over phenomenoms far beyond the control of the common man against a simple, easily identified, polarizing and remotely justified offense. 'Course, the same applies to the hardline anti-muslim reactions one can also witness in these very forums; I'm a big fan of considering all human beings equal in potential narrow-minded boorishness and misplaced outrage.

And partly it's opportunistic powers-that-be trying to shift the spotlight away from their own usually quite considerable shortcomings, and partly opportunistic extremists making use of the laden anxiety and a good window of opportunity to further their own causes. Which, again, applies equally here too.

Devastatin Dave

02-06-2006, 18:44

Because generally speaking, Christians these days do not believe in the Bible with all of their hearts. And they usually somehow have the misconception that they are supposed to act like pansies and tolerate disgusting depictions of their holy figures. Which of course, they are not. Christians have allowed their hearts and minds to be beaten into submission by decades of biased media indoctrination.

Muslims on the other hands, take their faith much more seriously, believe it with all of their hearts, and hence will defend it with ample vigor. They will not backdown or have their spirits broken just because some idiotic newspapers tell them to en masse.

I applaud the Muslims for this conviction.
Let the Lord, not the mob or man's sinful desire for violence judge the offenses my Brother in Christ. I choose to turn the other cheek when my faith is mocked although I may fight with words which really most of the time doesn't matter or work. What is happening here is not to be applauded and i do pray that you can see and understand why.

Louis VI the Fat

02-06-2006, 19:03

You're scary when you talk like that, Dave. :hide:

Goofball

02-06-2006, 19:12

I'm usually very quick to say that Islam is a good religion and that it's simply the acts of a few that are spoiling it for the rest. However, this one has really started to get to me. I have no problems with them being pissed and rioting over the cartoon. It's their right if they are offended and I can't criticize them for that. What this has had me asking though is, why aren't they this upset about the killings of innocents in the Mideast? Where are the riots for the beheadings? Where are the images of bin Laden being burned for his distortion of Islam? They seem to be picking their outrages in a rather questionable manner.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head TC.

I have also in the past been quick to point out to those who decry Islam as a religion of small-minded, violent, fanatics that they are making a broad generalization against the moderate majority based on the actions of the extremist minority.

This whole sad saga has made me doubt my previous position very seriously.

Devastatin Dave

02-06-2006, 19:17

You're scary when you talk like that, Dave. :hide:
How's that? Is it better to riot, burn, and kill when offended by someone?

Watchman

02-06-2006, 19:21

Elementary, dear Watson. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend, at least for the time being." People have a tendency to get quite... accommodating of atrocities that'd normally disgust them if they're committed in the process of pursuing a project - such as "opposing Them" - they can dig.

Put this way: how many "conservatives" would still argue for the use of interrogation-means-practically-amounting-to-torture in the War Against Terror, or alternatively deny anything of the sort ever happened ? Pretty much the exact same principle. And I'm sure our local Con friends here will have no trouble pointing out comparative Liberal cases.

It's all very "oh, the humanity!" really.

Goofball

02-06-2006, 19:28

Not a dig on Islam, but when Christians and Jews are potrayed in this sort of disgusting way, you don't see so much violence as you do when Muslims are disrespected by secular media and society. Can someone explain to me why the phenomenom of violence in the Islamic Faith seems more prevalent in these sort of issues?
Because generally speaking, Christians these days do not believe in the Bible with all of their hearts. And they usually somehow have the misconception that they are supposed to act like pansies and tolerate disgusting depictions of their holy figures.

Or (and I'm just throwing this out there; if you like it you can keep it, if you don't like it you can send it right back) it could be that Christians actually pay attention to the teachings of Jesus, who said a lot of things (IIRC) along the lines of "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek."

Now Nav, I understand that it is very presumptious for me (somebody whom Jesus would refer to as "a very naughty boy" at best) to question you (a self-proclaimed expert Christian moralist) on matters of Christian scripture and dogma, but I really have to ask:

Do you honestly think that Jesus would have been happy with his followers attacking people because a newspaper printed a picture of him wearing a funny hat?

Tribesman

02-06-2006, 19:29

Been in a fight from time to time with them but I never activily looked for them if that is what you mean
Is this the same person who wrote a few weeks ago that he was having a little get together to go and teach those nasty immigrants a lesson ?

hmmmmm...... whats that river in Egypt called ? de Nile

Taffy_is_a_Taff

02-06-2006, 19:34

How's that? Is it better to riot, burn, and kill when offended by someone?

pfffffffffffft, yeah DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:laugh4:

Watchman

02-06-2006, 19:35

Ole Jesus would have a heart attack if He saw just what has been done in His name over the millenia anyway.

Islam has far fever pacifistic pretensions (likely due to the historical contexts of its birth; Roman overlordship and a failed major uprising a few decades ago don't exactly encourage a terribly fierce attitude, unlike the decidedly more warlike and overlord-less seminomadic Arab culture of the comparable period), and thus a whole lot less schizophrenia over the use of violence. The Prophet, praise be and all, would nonetheless no doubt gape in abject disbelief at some of the stuff his followers have been up to.

Devastatin Dave

02-06-2006, 19:37

Do you honestly think that Jesus would have been happy with his followers attacking people because a newspaper printed a picture of him wearing a funny hat?
He would not. In fact, the Lord would forgive them if they asked for forgiveness. At no time would I think Jesus would promote any violence for the mochery of Himself. Nav might have a different interpretation than I do. The Lord did get angry about money lenders in the Temple and turned over their tables but He never called for violence against those that hated Him. Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's if you will. Stuff like the abortion clinic bombings, Crusades, and other such events, I'm sure, the Lord would not have approved of.

Kommodus

02-06-2006, 19:40

Not that anyone would read a reply this late in the discussion, but I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding exactly what the Muslims are protesting against. Am I to understand that the Danish cartoon pictured the prophet Muhammed with the top part of his turban shaped like a bomb with a fuse attached? Thus, it's suggesting that Islam is a religion of violence. And what has the response been so far?

"No, it's the religion of peace, d***it! Kill all the infidels who suggest otherwise! Burn their flags and merchandise, burn everything!"

:inquisitive:

I can't imagine a better example of making your opponent's point for him.

A friend and I were talking about this yesterday, and he asked me: "What's more important, religious sensitivity or freedom of speach?" My answer was instinctive: freedom of speech. Why? Because the truth is more important that any individual's personal feelings and preferences.

Watchman

02-06-2006, 19:45

Viking

02-06-2006, 19:50

TinCow

02-06-2006, 19:56

Kommodus

02-06-2006, 20:03

The trouble is, True Believers always think *they* know the Truth... And not just any old truth, but The Truth. You know, the fundamental one.

Which naturally tends to make them rather unsympathetic to alternative explanations.

Well, there's one more link required to connect fundamentalism to violence. I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking that your beliefs are correct - everyone has to hold to this idea somewhat; otherwise we would never act on anything.

To go from strong convictions to violence, you also have to believe that it's your responsibility to force everyone to think as you do (not just convince them of what you consider true). You need a willful blindness to the viewpoints of other people; you can't think about their well-being at all.

Basically, in order to commit violence in the name of "the truth," you have to pick a narrow few "truths" to focus on and ignore all the rest.

Watchman

02-06-2006, 20:04

They're using the occasion to air their assorted grudges, anxieties and - yes - prejudices. Quite typical but hardly commendable mob behaviour.

Figuratively speaking, the issue with the cartoons made the crack that broke down the dam and now the whole torrent's bursting forth.

Watchman

02-06-2006, 20:10

Methinks the leap from plain fundamentalism to the violent kind happens almost exclusively only if there's enough other issues to prompt it. Sort of how like witch hunts only ever happened when communities felt sufficiently insecure and anxious, or how massive race riots tend to be detonated by some as-such unremarkable and depressively common incident of authority racism.

Bottle that sort of stuff long enough, and it will burst out violently over some as-such minor triggers.

Kommodus

02-06-2006, 20:15

I'm starting to get the feeling that this isn't about the cartoons anymore. This seems to be evolving into a general Anti-West 'movement'. The longer this goes on, the less sympathy I have for them. It's rare that incidents cause me to change my mind about my most basic beliefs, but my belief in the general goodness of the greater Muslim population is being severely shaken. In situations like this, if you do not decry the violence that is being done, you are condoning it.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
-Edmund Burke

You know, over the past few days I've begun to feel the same way. I don't want to believe that Islam is a religion of violence, and many events over the past years failed to make me think so. For example:

1. Pre-9/11 acts of terrorism didn't do it. In truth I didn't hear about them often, and didn't pay much attention when I did. Terrorism was just something that popped up on the news now and then, and it was done by many different groups.

2. 9/11 didn't do it. Crowds of Muslims celebrated in the Middle East came close, though.

3. Suicide bombings, car bombings, and other violent acts post-9/11, which have received more media coverage, didn't do it. These and all of the previously mentioned incidents could be dismissed as a relatively small number of extremists committing acts of insanity.

But lately, we have:

1. The election of an radical with intolerant and violent tendencies in Iran.

2. The election of a terrorist group to lead the Palestinians.

3. Large-scale, violent (even deadly) protests across the Muslim world over a cartoon.

These are actions of the mainstream, not a few fringe groups. It can no longer be denied - something is seriously wrong with Islam as it is currently practiced. The question is, what can be done to fix it?

Watchman

02-06-2006, 20:29

It can no longer be denied - something is seriously wrong with Islam as it is currently practiced.You're confusing religion and society now, although I'll give you te two can be hard to keep apart when discussing Muslim countries. Muslims aren't rioting (or whatever) because of Islam; they're rioting (or whatever) over a whole host of issues, for which Islam provides a socially acceptable and fairly safe front.

Remember, for most Muslim countries not only did the Middle Ages in practice only end around late 1800s and early 1900s, virtually the entire postcolonial period has been spent under the 'benign' rule of dictatorships and other such nasties. But as even the worst tyrants tended to balk at the idea of crushing Islamist movements with the same brutal efficiency they used on other naysayers (rarely due to personal convictions, but simply because that'd most likely have pissed off most of their populace but good and no canny tyrant wants *that*); this left more-or-less radical Islamist movements as the main outlet of protest against almost anything, and this state of affairs persists to this day. Which is obviously a bit problematic given that such movements have been taking increasingly radical turns as of late.

Although they tended to be outlawed, back in the day Communist and/or Socialist movements (as about the only organized resistance around) tended to meet similar social demands in much of Asia and Latin America. This can be witnessed even today in the curious Maoist rebels of, whatwasit, Nepal ?

rory_20_uk

02-06-2006, 20:37

Islam itself has nothing that would make it unable to exist with Democracy, any more than christianity in (for example) 15th Century Spain did. But one more time: Christianity changed. It adapted. scriptures were re-examined.

The Islamic leaders should go back to basics and build a more tolerant code of practice for the 21st Century. It's been several centuries since the last one, it could do with an update. Of course I imagine they like things the way that they are: if Muslims feel "got at" by all these pictures etc etc, they are more likely to remain a power. To be all nice to people never gets the leaders ahead.

~:smoking:

Watchman

02-06-2006, 20:45

Mind you, what "scriptures were re-examined" led to in practice was a century of wholesale slaughter and atrocities between Catholics and Protestants, and it took the apocalyptic ruin of the Thirty Years' War before folks decided enough was enough.

So it'd probably be safer to leave the Scriptures themselves alone and instead concentrate on people's attitudes to them.

What made Europe follow the path that skyrocketed it far ahead of everyone else, and the Muslim world to enter a long period of ossification around the same time, is something historians still break lances over. However, the earlier history of the Islamic world proves concretely enough the faith is not by itself in no ways hostile to learning, enlightement and general progress.

Papewaio

02-06-2006, 20:48

C'est ca. Psycholigists have always known that groups that differ heavily on something bring friction, only the politicians have a hard time catching up.

Man + Woman are very different... so not all friction is bad.

Louis VI the Fat

02-06-2006, 20:49

How's that?Oh fergitit. It's just that I ain't never herd yew fellar use all them big wurds and talkin' 'bout the Lawd that way.

A.Saturnus

02-06-2006, 20:54

C'est ca. Psycholigists have always known that groups that differ heavily on something bring friction, only the politicians have a hard time catching up.

Psychologists do also know that in-groups are always seen as moral superior to out-groups. In fact, minimal group paradigmas have shown that groups do not need to differ heavily to bring friction. Even randomly generated groups that only differ by colored bands can evoke racist tendenties. The lesson to learn is that frictions are not a function of the differences of groups but of the mindset of the members of the groups.

To me it seems as if these protest are also a sign of helplessness. They know very well that they can't change anything about the way Europe is and at the same time they don't understand Europe. Since ignorant people are afraid of what they don't understand, they experience a vague, looming threat against which they don't have weapon. I don't want to offend anyone but I think these people demonstrate a culture of immaturity and insecurity.

Kommodus

02-06-2006, 21:10

You're confusing religion and society now, although I'll give you te two can be hard to keep apart when discussing Muslim countries. Muslims aren't rioting (or whatever) because of Islam; they're rioting (or whatever) over a whole host of issues, for which Islam provides a socially acceptable and fairly safe front.

I certainly did not intend to; sorry if I gave anyone that idea. That's why I didn't say there was something wrong with Islam, but rather Islam as it is currently practiced. I was referring to the overall culture and attitude of the Muslim world, not the religion per se. Although you're right; it is a bit difficult to divide the two.

I'm fully aware that, at least in theory, there is a possibility for a Muslim "reformation" of sorts. I just hope it doesn't take anything like the religious wars of Europe to make it happen.

Watchman

02-06-2006, 21:33

Methinks it is already underway, through the inevitable filtration of what might be termed "modern" values, cultural icons (think McDo's and suchlike) and so on into the Islamic world.

Which is, obviously, among the causes for the anxiety now getting shouted out in the streets. It's my firm belief that worry about "cultural polution" of sorts, or at least "debasement of our traditional values", is among the prime motivators of most Muslim extremists.

Not that anyone ever had too easy a time accepting that sort of thing. We have had and have no shortage of reactionaries in the West either, after all. Heck, the damn Nazis were partly a reaction against modernity...

Devastatin Dave

02-06-2006, 21:37

Oh fergitit. It's just that I ain't never herd yew fellar use all them big wurds and talkin' 'bout the Lawd that way.
I get warnings now if I speak urban or hick.:laugh4:

Devastatin Dave

02-06-2006, 21:59

Well looks like the UN is taking action....
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/06/D8FJPIBG2.html
which is just basically lip service like everything the UN says or its fearless leader says. Too bad the UN isn't located in Europe where it can get torched like the rest of Europe will be in the next 5 to 10 years. Europe needs to learn to be more tolerant like they constantly preach to the US to be. The irony really is that NOW after all the rioting and criminal acts of their newest "citizens", the Europeans are sounding more like Pat Buchanan at an all white golf course.:laugh4:

Meneldil

02-06-2006, 22:07

I'm starting to get the feeling that this isn't about the cartoons anymore. This seems to be evolving into a general Anti-West 'movement'. The longer this goes on, the less sympathy I have for them. It's rare that incidents cause me to change my mind about my most basic beliefs, but my belief in the general goodness of the greater Muslim population is being severely shaken. In situations like this, if you do not decry the violence that is being done, you are condoning it.

Same thing here. In 2002, when the extreme right reached the 2nd turn of the presidential election, I manifest, joined an anti-racism association (SOS Racisme). Yet, over the past few years, I changed my mind, and I'm now on the verge of blank racism.
Right now, with the cartoon issue, I think we should either bomb them or stop all kind of diplomatic and trading relations with the middle east, bar a few countries and let them do whatever they want in their lands. I have no more pity, I don't even want to understand them anymore. I read the Qur'an, a lot of books on Islam, but now I don't respect this religion anymore, nor I want to hear anything about it.

Well looks like the UN is taking action....
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/06/D8FJPIBG2.html
which is just basically lip service like everything the UN says or its fearless leader says. Too bad the UN isn't located in Europe where it can get torched like the rest of Europe will be in the next 5 to 10 years. Europe needs to learn to be more tolerant like they constantly preach to the US to be. The irony really is that NOW after all the rioting and criminal acts of their newest "citizens", the Europeans are sounding more like Pat Buchanan at an all white golf course.

Well, frankly, what should have Annan said ? 'Stop right now, or we're going to bomb the hell out of you a make jokes about Mohammed daily ?'. The UN is powerless atm. They are supposed to deal with governements, not with angry crowds.

Devastatin Dave

02-06-2006, 22:20

The UN can't even deal with bad catering to one of its millions of "meeting" let alone any rogue government or unruley mob. :laugh4:

Kralizec

02-06-2006, 22:23

The site of the Arab European League (AEL) has over the past few days posted anti semetic cartoons in reaction to the Danish caricatures. I'm not going to provide a link, as it probably would be a violation of the forum rules. Google for AEL if you're interested.
I can only wonder what these guys were "thinking"...

"Shameless dogs! You can't abuse freedom of speech like that! Watch as we do the same!"
and
"Blasphemous Danes, slandering our prophet! Let's pick on the jews!"

~:rolleyes:

Samurai Waki

02-06-2006, 22:29

Just to confuse and bewilder the Muslims, I think Christianity should steal the prophet Muhammed and claim him as a sacred symbol of Christianity, and that we'll fight to the death to protect his good name.

Goofball

02-06-2006, 22:31

Right now, with the cartoon issue, I think we should either bomb them

Bomb who, exactly?

BDC

02-06-2006, 22:32

Right now, with the cartoon issue, I think we should either bomb them or stop all kind of diplomatic and trading relations with the middle east, bar a few countries and let them do whatever they want in their lands. I have no more pity, I don't even want to understand them anymore. I read the Qur'an, a lot of books on Islam, but now I don't respect this religion anymore, nor I want to hear anything about it.

I think this is the view of a lot of Europeans. You invite people into your country, protect them, give them the same opportunities as everyone else, and then it appears that they reject this all.

This isn't the case though, the people in the Middle East burning stuff aren't European Muslims, and the extremists here are just idiots. There are plenty of home grown fanatics for other causes who happily blow stuff up and threaten violence for some vague, never-achieveable goal.

Watchman

02-06-2006, 22:39

There's also the little detail that the average European is either unaware or unwilling to admit just how badly the immigrant groups on the average get Ye Olde Boot In The Head...

Someone once said "give them work and tolerance so they don't segregate into veil cults." Too bad that has not, in practice, been tried too hard...

Meneldil

02-06-2006, 23:04

Bomb who, exactly?

The guys who torched the ambassadies, for example.

There's also the little detail that the average European is either unaware or unwilling to admit just how badly the immigrant groups on the average get Ye Olde Boot In The Head...

Yeah, sure, they were and are probably badly treated, and in some places, second class citizens. But that's what happen to migrants everywhere in the world. I'm fully aware my point of view may sounds silly, but why the hell our Pole or Cambodian migrants don't piss me off as much as the muslim ones ? As I said in the topic about the french suburb riots, I don't feel responsible for what my parents or grand parents did to them 30 years earlier. Yet, as a someone studying in a relatively big city, I constantly have to deal with the - mostly arab - scums. I'm not speaking about serious stuffs like rapes, racketerring (if that's the correct word), but about the everyday little annoyances that makes you feel they hate you while you don't deserve it.

Someone once said "give them work and tolerance so they don't segregate into veil cults." Too bad that has not, in practice, been tried too hard...

Great. And do you have a genius idea to integrate them into a western society ? In liberal countries, governements allowed them to do whatever they want, thinking they would sooner or later turn into average europeans. It didn't work.
In France, we tried to impose our values and customs upon them. It didn't work.

Should we teach them La Marseillaise in arabic ?

Watchman

02-06-2006, 23:11

Whether you feel responsible for it or not doesn't lessen their plight one bit, far as I can tell.

People who feel like they're not welcome in a community will react accordingly. And young men without future prospects are a major source of trouble everywhere; add that to the above, and what the Hell can you expect ?

I'm fully aware my point of view may sounds silly, but why the hell our Pole or Cambodian migrants don't piss me off as much as the muslim ones ?Hey, our Asian migrants never drew even a fraction of the hostility the rather more numerous Somali refugees who came in the early Nineties still get. Doesn't make the latter's lot any better, or the problems our society gets from it any less largely self-inflicted.

It's racism, pure and simple. That it's concentrated on a single prominent (and relatively large) group quite possibly only makes it worse - if nothing else, it's not even being consistent...

Brenus

02-06-2006, 23:15

There are divisions in Islam.
There isn’t a unique lecture of the Koran. Because there is no Pope in Islam, no Rome (even if Saudi Arabia wishes to be seen as), a lot of scholars debate the faith and its practise. The best known is between Shiite and Sunnite, but Islam goes from pacific Sufis to the more reactionaries Wahabists and Taliban for the most extremists.

The main problem to reform Islam is the book was written by the Prophet himself. Christianity rules were fixed 300 years after Christ, and base on documents written 60 years after his death the resurrection. Knowing that Christ died at around 33 years old and his disciples were probably around the same age, that let the atheists like me questioning the validity of such witness, but that is another debate…:laugh4:

The New Testimony is the base of Christianity, not the Bible, which is recognised by the Christians (and the Muslim) is questionable. The words of Christ himself are depending of the witness. The Muslims haven’t such possibility of doubts.
But interpretations of the words are still possible, and all the Muslims intellectuals during the centuries never failed to do it.
Islam and Democracy are mixable. Who could have believed that the Catholic Inquisition would melt, that people like Torquemada would give path to Las Casas.
Ok, it cost the extermination of all South and Central America, but all religions could evoluate.

TinCow

02-06-2006, 23:22

The question at this point then becomes, can we reform Islam and improve the condition of Muslims quickly enough to prevent an all-out conflict between them and the West? What's scaring me is that the positive movements seem to be advancing much slower than the march towards all out warfare.

Watchman

02-06-2006, 23:24

The main problem to reform Islam is the book was written by the Prophet himself.Except it wasn't, AFAIK. It was compiled not long after his death when the rulers of the Caliphate became alarmed at the fact there were, oh, about three somewhat differing versions of the creed currently being circulated in their realm. So they set to work codifying the thing, gathered the most reliable versions, double-checked the whole thing with the Prophet's private secretary, and declared the end result unchangeable and inviolable.

Which actually worked. To my knowledge Muslims haven't engaged in the Christian pasttime of Massacre Over Translation Errors and the like, although sectarian violence and factionalization over interpretation was naturally never absent.

'Course, I suspect the average Muslim will seriously blow a fuse if you try to tell most of the above to him. I once managed to goad a perfectly sensible, moderate imam into a quite lenghty exposition of apocryphal 'proof' of the Prophet's divine miracle-working abilities via the simple expedient of asking a few nosy questions about the man. The experience was enough to convince me Muslims tend to have a bit of hair trigger about some things.

Samurai Waki

02-06-2006, 23:24

You're using the word racism a little too liberally, methinks. True racism generally involves one group hating another group without being provoked. It's a superiority complex that ALL people have, if you say you aren't a little racist or a little prejudicistic towards something that either goes against your moral values, or is threatening the destruction of your way of life then I'd call you a complete liar.

Meneldil brings up a very valid point, and it is, that there is a good reason to be wary of Islamic Fanatics. It's a natural developed thought process, that seeks the best ways for self preservation.

If you didn't want to go into a place contaminated with Ebola Virus, but someone said you were racist because you didn't want to be close to the victims, because you might get killed, I don't see anything racist about that.

Sjakihata

02-06-2006, 23:24

What scarces me the most is, that Denmark was one of the first european countries to show solidarity with USA, in terms of the Iraq war (I still dont agree with it) - but USA takes a long while before they back Denmark up in this conflict - true allies... right

Meneldil

02-06-2006, 23:32

Whether you feel responsible for it or not doesn't lessen their plight one bit, far as I can tell.

People who feel like they're not welcome in a community will react accordingly.

And here we are. This is a vicious circle. They don't like me because I don't like them, and I don't like them because they don't like me.

And young men without future prospects are a major source of trouble everywhere; add that to the above, and what the Hell can you expect ?

I'd be expecting them to try to get a work and to study, instead of standing in the street insulting and making fun of everyone.
I'm really not fond of the liberal ideology, but I seriously think young people are having trouble because they're idiots, and don't even try to get a better life. I know a lot of people that appeared to be doomed to have a totally crappy life, but who worked hard, studied, and who are now doing alright, even though they're black or arab.

Watchman

02-06-2006, 23:40

Oh, I'm all for the "better your lot by working hard" idea too. I just don't see how people who have to climb up a far steeper slope in face of assorted prejudices and crappy starting conditions can be expected to pull it off with success rates as good as the folks with decks less stacked against them display.

Try to work your way out of the slums when the ethnic majority hates you, and I'll quarantee your chances of success are way lower than they'd be if you were the local equivalent of "white trash" who at least aren't disadvantaged by their very physical existence. And if you fail, what do you have left ? Damn near nothing.

Big surprise you get a fair number of embittered drop-outs and failures hanging out in street corners with nothing better to do as a result.

Lazul

02-07-2006, 00:02

My father said this when we watched the new's today; "Why are they angry at the danish people and their gov., the newpaper isnt owned by the state, but is a private-company."

Thats a damn good question, are the muslim nutcases trying to tell us to censur our newspapers?
Well they sure know how to gain enemies. :wall:

Watchman

02-07-2006, 00:11

Actually when you think about it, given how most Muslim countries are governed the idea of a free news outlet not at least de facto controlled by the governement may indeed be somewhat alien to many of the inhabitants...

That said, I don't think it's unheard-of for Western governements to demand an official apology from their peers over what some private news enterpreneur has said. I seem to recall Israel being particularly sensitive in that regard.

Devastatin Dave

02-07-2006, 00:16

Actually when you think about it, given how most Muslim countries are governed the idea of a free news outlet not at least de facto controlled by the governement may indeed be somewhat alien to many of the inhabitants...

Exactly, as far as they know they think that the government is in control of the media, much like their former resident governments. Its hard to to re-educate those of such different societies to the Western frame of mind. But at the same time, I think many out there doing the rioting are simply using the cartoons as an excuse, a lame one at that, in an attempt to further the Kingdom of EuArabia...

solypsist

02-07-2006, 00:25

Sjakihata

02-07-2006, 00:27

Not really expanding Eurabia, but more like using the West as an excuse. Instead of channelling the anger inwards, against their own regimes and the poor lives of the majority of the people as a result of those regimes. Instead of trying to focus on the real issues and bettering their own situation, said regimes are using the West as a scapegoat and lifting the lid of the valves against the West.

The cartoons were drawn for one single purpose: to attack Muslims and provoke their ire.

For a full description see: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=60868 my post is #6

Watchman

02-07-2006, 00:42

Well, protesting against the West doesn't get you visits from the resident secret police. Protesting against your own governement, which most no doubt well know to be among the main sources of their misery, does.

Do the math.

Goofball

02-07-2006, 00:47

Are the cartoons freedom of speech? Well, yeah. Of course you have the right to print ******, racist cartoons that serve no purpose but to inflame Arab sentiment and make racist right-wingers feel good about themselves. You have the right to show a black man hanging from a tree or a buck-toothed Asian, too. But in any of those cases you don’t have the right to feign petty self-righteous faux-amazement that people got upset about it. Instead of saying “these are controversial but we uphold a standard of free speech, regardless of ones personal tastes,” they claimed that people getting outraged were simply being ridiculous. Le Monde made this their cover today- they might as well have printed “darn it, we LOVE mocking Arabs and **** you if you don’t!” as the headline.

The cartoons were drawn for one single purpose: to attack Muslims and provoke their ire.

So what?

As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, members in the Arab/Muslim community make statements every day (i.e. Israel should be wiped off of the map), or take actions (i.e. cutting of hostages' heads then posting the video on the Internet) that have one purpose: to attack non-muslims and provoke their ire.

So for them now to stand back and (to use your term) "feign petty self-righteous faux-amazement" that a non-muslim cartoonist might engage in a little acid humor at the expense of their religion is so incredibly ridiculous as to be almost sublime in its idiocy.

Yes, the cartoon was a nasty shot at Muslims as a whole.

But their reaction to it has been entirely out of proportion, no matter how one looks at it.

Gawain of Orkeny

02-07-2006, 00:47

Whats wrong with pictures of Mohamed anyway?

http://www.peoples.ru/sport/boxer/ali/ali_09.jpg

Am I in trouble?

Watchman

02-07-2006, 01:17

I doubt it. Lame jokes mainly just get sneered at around here, methinks. :rtwno:

Devastatin Dave

02-07-2006, 01:24

Are the cartoons freedom of speech? Well, yeah. Of course you have the right to print ******, racist cartoons that serve no purpose but to inflame Arab sentiment and make racist right-wingers feel good about themselves. You have the right to show a black man hanging from a tree or a buck-toothed Asian, too. But in any of those cases you don’t have the right to feign petty self-righteous faux-amazement that people got upset about it. Instead of saying “these are controversial but we uphold a standard of free speech, regardless of ones personal tastes,” they claimed that people getting outraged were simply being ridiculous. Le Monde made this their cover today- they might as well have printed “darn it, we LOVE mocking Arabs and **** you if you don’t!” as the headline.

The cartoons were drawn for one single purpose: to attack Muslims and provoke their ire.

By the same token Soly the pictures you take of scantaly clad women and posing them and publishing them would be controversial enough for these people to call for your hand to be cut off or maybe your head? Sure you have the freedom to and the right to print these pictures but in the eyes of these Muslims they might consider it to have, "racist cartoons that serve no purpose but to inflame Arab sentiment and make racist right-wingers feel good about themselves."

solypsist

02-07-2006, 01:46

nah. everybody likes teh pr0n. i haven't heard of any fatwahs being issued against Maxim or Playboy - have you?

By the same token Soly the pictures you take of scantaly clad women and posing them and publishing them would be controversial enough for these people to call for your hand to be cut off or maybe your head? Sure you have the freedom to and the right to print these pictures but in the eyes of these Muslims they might consider it to have, "racist cartoons that serve no purpose but to inflame Arab sentiment and make racist right-wingers feel good about themselves."

Papewaio

02-07-2006, 03:11

nah. everybody likes teh pr0n. i haven't heard of any fatwahs being issued against Maxim or Playboy - have you?

Zing: Playboy of Western world upsets Muslims (http://smh.com.au/news/world/playboy-of-western-world-upsets-muslims/2006/01/30/1138590441920.html)

JAKARTA: The 200-plus demonstrators from the student group Concerned Muslims who had gathered in light drizzle at one of Central Jakarta's main roundabouts had a simple message for passing motorists. "Reject Playboy! Reject Playboy!" they shouted. "Don't publish that filth here. Keep the Indonesian nation clean."

"We don't need that sort of porno here," said Muhammad Salim. "There's enough vice here already."

Yesterday about 500 protesters - all members of a conservative Muslim political party - demanded the parliament quickly pass tough laws now under debate to crack down on existing girlie magazines and pornographic DVDs, which are widely available throughout the country.

solypsist

02-07-2006, 03:14

Zing! is right. There goes my livelihood.

If anything, Islam should be criticized for the way it refuses to let their women be as beautiful as they really are.

Redleg

02-07-2006, 03:38

With Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press comes responsibility. Chosing to print something because you can - does not necessarily make it the "right" thing to do.

On that note however just because a paper prints something you find offensive as an individual or even as a group does not give premission to throw a stone through the paper's window.

As I said in another thread - Freedom of Speech is a double edge sword, it cuts both ways.

The only issue that I have with the Muslim outrage about the pictures being printed is that some are threatening and/or have done violence because they dislike the pictures.

Burning flags in protest, boycotting goods, asking for an official apology from the paper, and any other civil non-violent protest because someone stated or printed something you find disagreeable are all within the scope of voicing one's opinion under the concept of Freedom of Speech.

Violence and threats of violence on the other hand is something else. The Islamic Religion has some growing pains to confront. In this instance their actions and protests are actually making them look worse in the exchange.

Now I know this has been said by others, but it looks like after reading the last few pages, that it needs to be said again.

I wonder if some one was to speak to one of the Muslem leaders that are advocating violence because of the cartoon drawing and ask them, Why do you hate freedom? What there reaction to the question would be.

InsaneApache

02-07-2006, 12:08

What there reaction to the question would be.

Allah Akbar. There is no law but Gods law.

There again the majority of the Muslims learn the Koran by rote. Most of these can't read and write in their own language, never mind Arabic.

Education is the key, but how? If everything is Gods will what's the point in doing anything?

:book:

kataphraktoi

02-07-2006, 12:22

On the DOme of Rock, there is an inscription which insults and castigates Christians for believing that God has a Son. Thats as bad as the Danish Cartoons simply because its done in a place like Jerusalem that Muslims know full well is holy to Christians as well. Funny isn't it that the Crusaders were ignorant of Arabic to tear it down hahaha...who looks tolerant now :laugh4:

Navaros's startling mindless assumption Christians dont react like Muslims becaue they're not as dedicated is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Do you have to react violently to show how devout you are?

Right, tomorrow, I'm going to burn an embassy just to show that Jesus is Love.....

Insane Apache is right, most Muslims are uneducated and are easily swayed by the preaching of hyped up imams and mullahs. Education is key.

"Poverty is a weakness that is always exploited" - Kataphraktoi :laugh4:

Adrian II

02-07-2006, 12:43

The cartoons were drawn for one single purpose: to attack Muslims and provoke their ire.Brother Solypsist, it seems that like other Americans who share the Bush administration's point of view that the cartoons are 'unacceptable', you haven't the faintest idea what this is all about.

One of the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten actually made fun of the newspaper itself. It showed a Persian schoolboy by the name of Mohammed who had just written in Farsi on a blackboard that the Jyllands-Posten are a bunch of 'reactionaries'. Satire, you know.

The real issue is that the whole cartoon contest was Jylland-Posten's answer to a most disturbing fact. This most disturbing fact is that a writer of childrens' books could not find a good illustrator because good illustrators are afraid to be killed by Muslim fanatics. Because the good artists are afraid for their lives, the mediocre steal the show. The lack of quality of the twelve cartoons is a symptom of Muslim terrorism, not of right-wing provocation. This state of affairs in neither normal nor acceptable in a democracy.

Maybe some Americans don't understand the implication of the murder of Van Gogh. The '9/11' victims were anonymous, they were targeted because of who they were or where they were. Van Gogh was singled out as a victim because of what he stood for. This means our artists, the best and most ebullient users of the freedom of thought and espression, run the risk of being killed on their own doorstep in broad daylight by a Muslim fanatic.

Beirut

02-07-2006, 12:48

There again the majority of the Muslims learn the Koran by rote. Most of these can't read and write in their own language, never mind Arabic.

Actually, in real life, the majority of predominatly Muslim countries have literacy rates in the high 70% range with many being in the 80% range and some in the 90% range.

Indonesia, for example, has an 88% Muslim population and an 89% literacy rate.

Adrian II

02-07-2006, 12:51

If everything is Gods will what's the point in doing anything? :book:Except for killing of course. There is always room for another killing. I mean someone needs to be killed to keep the faith alive, right? Beheaded, burnt, blown up, stabbed, cut open with lots of blood pouring out to make sure you mean business in the name of the Prophet, no? :skull:

Navaros

02-07-2006, 12:56

This means our artists, the best and most ebullient users of the freedom of thought and espression, run the risk of being killed on their own doorstep in broad daylight by a Muslim fanatic.

They could always stop instigating Muslims. Problem solved.

Watchman

02-07-2006, 13:06

You know, I'm under the distinct impression many ethnic minorities, particularly those of darker skin tones, have for a long time been existing daily under a very real threat of violence against their persons solely for what they are in the West. It just occurred to me that the anxieties of artists appear somewhat minor in comparision.

Just a thought.

Adrian II

02-07-2006, 13:09

They could always stop instigating Muslims. Problem solved.Imagine, if you will, that there are artists with convictions just as deep as yours. Problem addressed.

InsaneApache

02-07-2006, 13:18

Actually, in real life, the majority of predominatly Muslim countries have literacy rates in the high 70% range with many being in the 80% range and some in the 90% range.

Indonesia, for example, has an 88% Muslim population and an 89% literacy rate.

And they speak Arabic in Indonesia do they? Because that's how the Q'ran is taught, in Arabic. Or how about Bangladesh? or Pakistan?....perhaps Albania?

In the Arabic speaking countries what is the literacy rate there?

I live in a city with over 80 000 Muslims in it. None of them has Arabic as a native tongue. None of which understand the language of the Q'ran as it taught.

:book:

Beirut

02-07-2006, 13:27

And they speak Arabic in Indonesia do they? Because that's how the Q'ran is taught, in Arabic. Or how about Bangladesh? or Pakistan?....perhaps Albania?

In the Arabic speaking countries what is the literacy rate there?

Iran, Syria, and Kuwait show literacy rates of 77%, 79%, and 84%.

Oh... by the by, Albania is 87%. :bow:

Kralizec

02-07-2006, 13:30

Adrian II

02-07-2006, 13:44

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

Egypt: 57.7
Morocco: 51.7
Syria: 76.9
Iraq: 40.4 (my guess is that literacy must be pretty bad among Kurds)

That's actually a whole lot worse then I expected...Literacy numbers don't even tell half the story of Arab backwardness. Arabs who can read have very little that is worthwhile to read, very little that informs them about the outside world, current affairs, sophisticated subjects, free newspapers. Almost no books are translated into Arab, almost no scientific literature. And almost no media are free; outside news and occasional translations or foreign sources are 'adapted' to Arab audiences by the authorities, etcetera. It is sickening.

Adrian II

02-07-2006, 13:51

It just occurred to me that the anxieties of artists appear somewhat minor in comparision. Just a thought.Just don't let it strike any root.
1. Racism does not justify religious obscurantism.
2. There are artists who are of 'darker skin tone'.
3. There are mixed audiences for many an artist these days.
4. The freedom of artists is highly symbolic of all the freedoms we cherish.

Watchman

02-07-2006, 14:12

Just pointing out that things are relative. Besides, #2 and #3 at least are very much beside the point.

Adrian II

02-07-2006, 14:21

Just pointing out that things are relative. Besides, #2 and #3 at least are very much beside the point.They are not. Imagine you are an Arab artist in Europe and after years of racial slurs and threats over your 'darker skin tone', you are now receiving death threats from zealously religious fellow Arabs over your work as well. Sheesh, what an improvement!

Devastatin Dave

02-07-2006, 14:52

They could always stop instigating Muslims. Problem solved.
Do you believe that playing nice to people that will murder someone over a cartoon would end hostilities? Interesting...

Devastatin Dave

02-07-2006, 14:56

Wow Adrian, people are going to start calling you racist and close minded. You've made good valid points and I salute you, of course my agreement with you on many of your points probably won't win you much of a popularity contest here in the Backroom. Sorry, but I found your views on this issue with much agreement to my own feelings. I apologize for agreeing with you, i hope you can forgive me.:laugh4:

Redleg

02-07-2006, 15:24

Well it would seem to me that Freedom of Speech issues are often not understood by both the people who react with violence on an issue of speech, and those who believe that Freedom of Speech means the individual does not have to accept the consequences of their speech.

Brother Solypsist, it seems that like other Americans who share the Bush administration's point of view that the cartoons are 'unacceptable', you haven't the faintest idea what this is all about.

Are you posing that Freedom of Speech means that the one can write and draw anything that one wants without accepting responsiblity for the words.

There is a venue for such type of writings - normally found on the walls in bathrooms where little children write and draw racist comments about others.

One can understand why the drawings were done, and still call it unacceptable. A concept that it seems some in Europe have forgotten.

TinCow

02-07-2006, 15:31

They could always stop instigating Muslims. Problem solved.

That certainly might work, but is it in the best interests of society? Freedom of speech exists to protect the expressions that you don't like, not that ones that you do like. If you start demanding that everyone restrict what they say so as not to offend anyone else, then you are severely limiting free speech. There's a reason why the ACLU has defended the KKK and the Aryan Nation. It's not the message that counts, it's the ability to say it.

I firmly believe that freedom of speech is the only thing humans have developed that has any possibility of creating and maintaining freedom and human rights. Anything that infringes upon that runs a risk of creating far more serious consequences in the long run. Having to let people say things that you disagree with or even that insult you is far better than losing the most important elements of modern society.

rory_20_uk

02-07-2006, 15:39

I agree with what you say Adrian.

Muslims should realise that only a 4 year old puts their own values above all others and throws a tantrum when they don't get their own way. If they don't like it, they don't have to read it.

I get offended when I see Mulim women walking in London covered head to foot in black material. that's my view, and although I don't like it I feel that it is a good aspect of my society that they are able to do that without fear of persecution.

Can I go and drink a bottle of Jacky D in Saudi Arabia? I'd probably get flogged. So much for tolerance there, eh?

~:smoking:

Devastatin Dave

02-07-2006, 15:46

I get offended when I see Mulim women walking in London covered head to foot in black material. ~:smoking:
Why in the world would that offend you? I get more offended when a Londener smiles at me and I have to look at their lack of dental care.:idea2:

rory_20_uk

02-07-2006, 15:48

Me it's looking at an American and having to stop looking for the scars from the way they've reconstructed their features.: can they really be that ugy on the inside? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

Kralizec

02-07-2006, 15:53

I get offended when I see Mulim women walking in London covered head to foot in black material.

The other day I had a naughty thought:

walking up to women dressed in burqa's and telling that you find their clothing strangely arousing. I'd like to see their reaction :laugh4:

Devastatin Dave

02-07-2006, 16:14

The other day I had a naughty thought:

walking up to women dressed in burqa's and telling that you find their clothing strangely arousing. I'd like to see their reaction :laugh4:
Just tell her she's got sexy ankles, just watch out for her man six paces ahead of her!!!:laugh4:

Redleg

02-07-2006, 16:20

That certainly might work, but is it in the best interests of society? Freedom of speech exists to protect the expressions that you don't like, not that ones that you do like. If you start demanding that everyone restrict what they say so as not to offend anyone else, then you are severely limiting free speech. There's a reason why the ACLU has defended the KKK and the Aryan Nation. It's not the message that counts, it's the ability to say it.

You are correct, and I even agree completely.

I firmly believe that freedom of speech is the only thing humans have developed that has any possibility of creating and maintaining freedom and human rights. Anything that infringes upon that runs a risk of creating far more serious consequences in the long run. Having to let people say things that you disagree with or even that insult you is far better than losing the most important elements of modern society.

Yes indeed, however your missing one point about Freedom of Speech in your comment. Freedom of Speech also requires the speaker to be responsible for their words, to accept that the consequences of thier words can cause harm to others.

Freedom of Speech is a double edge sword. It cuts both ways.

rory_20_uk

02-07-2006, 16:38

That may be, but compare the outrage over 2 cartoons to other parodies:

The Life Of Brian being the big one I can remember.
In the UK, such things as the Vicar of Dibley or even Father Ted both mock religion, and there are scores of others. All could be accused of exactly the same things that the cartoons are - and concerning the Life Of Brian a hell of a lot more (imagine something that even hints that Muhammed was not the real Prophet!)

We in Europe and the UK especially have a very healthy sense of humour and enjoy even self-ridicule. IMO it is high time that something amusing was said against Islam, else they are not being fairly mocked as opposed to Christianity.

Because words are going to harm others is not a reson not to say them. Nor s the fact that others were harmed a reason that the person who wrote them is instantly culpable.

on the BBC wevsite there is even one Egyptian saying that the cartoon is worse than the 1,000 people drowned. Now there's a religion that needs to change for anyone to say that in all sincerity and to be viewed as reasonable by his peers.

~:smoking:

Adrian II

02-07-2006, 17:02

I apologize for agreeing with you, i hope you can forgive me.:laugh4:That's OK, happens to the worst of us... ~:)
Wow Adrian, people are going to start calling you racist and close minded.Excuse me, I have friends of the Arab, Turkish and melatonine persuasion who are in total agreement with certain cartoons and who despise these riots because they (1) are incited and manipulated by some of the worst regimes in today's world and (2) because many of the demonstrators are their own cartoons. I also beg to differ with Meneldil and others who state that freedom of speech is a European or Western value and that 'other peoples' are somehow not up to it. You bet they are. The Lebanese political process is a fine recent example of Arabs making good use of it. Freedom is not tied to skin colour or religion.

Adrian II

02-07-2006, 17:16

Are you posing that Freedom of Speech means that the one can write and draw anything that one wants without accepting responsiblity for the words.I am posing that freedom of speech is endangered if artists must fear for their lives merely because they draw a person, no matter in what way they draw them. That is what this row is about.

Ser Clegane

02-07-2006, 17:18

I also beg to differ with Meneldil and others who state that freedom of speech is a European or Western value and that 'other peoples' are somehow not up to it. You bet they are.

Indeed - the European history of the last century shows how quickly societies that seemed to be lost cases in terms of democracy and free speech can change.
It might take some more time in some countries in e.g. the Middle East, especially as religion is (ab)used by some groups to maintain an oligarchy vs democracy - but the idea that an islamic society and democracy/free speech have to be mutually exclusive seems to be a bit too simplistic.

Adrian II

02-07-2006, 17:25

Yes indeed, however your missing one point about Freedom of Speech in your comment. Freedom of Speech also requires the speaker to be responsible for their words, to accept that the consequences of thier words can cause harm to others.Rest assured, Redleg, several people are being arrested today in Britain for inciting murder and terrorism. They will have to accept the consequences of their words and actions. No problem at all.

InsaneApache

02-07-2006, 17:42

How many Islamic states are fuctioning democracies?

I would actually contend that Islam is not compatable with democracy. How can it be when it places Gods laws above 'man made' laws. As long as that is the case, democracy would be unworkable.

To try and equate Islam with Christianity or any other monotheism is like trying to equate chalk with cheese.

IIRC when the Arabs overran Egypt they destroyed the Great Library at Alexandria as they asserted that the only knowledge worth having was Gods word. The rest being superfluous. So they burnt it all. Even to this day we have no way of knowing what the ancients left for us in their writings.

The Moslems invaded Egypt during the seventh century as their fanaticism carried them on conquests that would take form an empire stretching from Spain to India. There was not much of a struggle in Egypt and the locals found the rule of the Caliph to be more tolerant than that of the Byzantines before them. However, when a Christian called John informed the local Arab general that there existed in Alexandria a great Library preserving all the knowledge in the world he was perturbed. Eventually he sent word to Mecca where Caliph Omar ordered that all the books in the library should be destroyed because, as he said "they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." Therefore, the books and scrolls were taken out of the library and distributed as fuel to the many bathhouses of the city. So enormous was the volume of literature that it took six months for it all to be burnt to ashes heating the saunas of the conquerors.

link (http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm)

Says it all really.:wall:

InsaneApache

02-07-2006, 17:44

Rest assured, Redleg, several people are being arrested today in Britain for inciting murder and terrorism. They will have to accept the consequences of their words and actions. No problem at all.

They do indeed.

Abu Hamza al-Masri, the radical Muslim cleric whose fiery rhetoric has become synonymous with Islamist extremism in Britain, was jailed for seven years today after being found guilty of inciting his followers to kill non-believers.

link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2028671,00.html)

Ser Clegane

02-07-2006, 17:52

You are using incidents of the 7th century as evidence that Islam and democracy are not compatible? :inquisitive:

I guess if go back that far back into history a lot of the European Christian societies to not fare to well either - I guess a couple of centuries can change a bit.

To try and equate Islam with Christianity or any other monotheism is like trying to equate chalk with cheese.

Not correct - equating most current Christian societies with most current Islamic societies is like trying to equate chalk with cheese.

Turkey apparently is an example that democracy is compatible with a muslim society. The fact that there currently aren't a lot of muslim democracies does not prove that they are not compatible (just as the lack of Christian democracies in medieval times is no prove of the imcompatibility of Christianity and democracy).

Ironside

02-07-2006, 17:57

You are using incidents of the 7th century as evidence that Islam and democracy are not compatible? :inquisitive:

That is debunked as a myth in the same source :dizzy2:

The verdict on Omar
The errors in the sources are obvious and the story itself is almost wholly incredible. In the first place, Gregory Bar Hebræus represents the Christian in his story as being one John of Byzantium and that John was certainly dead by the time of the Moslem invasion of Egypt. Also, the prospect of the library taking six months to burn is simply fantastic and just the sort of exaggeration one might expect to find in Arab legends such as the Arabian Nights. However Alfred Butler's famous observation that the books of the library were made of vellum which does not burn is not true. The very late dates of the source material are also suspect as there is no hint of this atrocity in any early literature - even in the Coptic Christian chronicle of John of Nikiou (died after 640AD) who detailed the Arab invasion. Finally, the story comes from the hand of a Christian intellectual who would have been more than happy to show the religion of his rulers in a bad light. Agreeing with Gibbon this time, we can dismiss it as a legend.

InsaneApache

02-07-2006, 17:59

You are using incidents of the 7th century as evidence that Islam and democracy are not compatible?

I was trying to show that the mindset isn't something new or recent.

Turkey apparently is an example that democracy is compatible with a muslim society.

[sarcasm on] Ahh yes of course that shining beacon of individual freedoms and free speech that needs the Army to hold down the Islamic militants and gaols journalists [sarcasm off]

Nope you've failed to convince me. :coffeenews:

rory_20_uk

02-07-2006, 18:10

Turkey is probably as good as it gets, and it heading in the "right" direction - albeit only as it wants to be in the EU.

Until extremely recently the Irish were killing and maiming each other, but no one ever said that they wern't fit for democracy, even when the body that was supposed to have democartic power was repeatedly suspended.

Yes, Turkey has some massive problems, but the majority of the people are muslim and are generally getting along in a society that is becoming more democratic. As an example I think it is an acceptable one.

~:smoking:

Sjakihata

02-07-2006, 18:16

Turkey is probably as good as it gets, and it heading in the "right" direction - albeit only as it wants to be in the EU.

You do realize that a catholic priest was shot in Turkey, right? Not saying I disagree with you, but Im just saying all religions are potentially dangerous.

InsaneApache

02-07-2006, 18:23

That is debunked as a myth in the same source

It also debunks the claim that Julius Ceaser burnt it down (by mistake :dizzy2: ) and the claim by Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

So no one did it then. :laugh4:

rory_20_uk

02-07-2006, 18:24

I think that religions are basically memes (information genes), and only the best stand the test of time.
All attempt to infect others with their message. Most have buildings and people to assist with this.
Children are often infected at an early age.
Discussion of the meme is not allowed
And until relatively recently when another meme is encountered the carrier either has to be converted or destroyed.

As such the Catholic Priest is an invading organism in the Islamic Meme host. The immune system quickly chewed him up before he could do any damage.

Religions memes that do not perform in this manner often die out as the more aggressive memes will mercilessly attack until they have consumed all available subjects.

Hence all religions are without a doubt extremely dangerous.

~:smoking:

Redleg

02-07-2006, 18:50

I am posing that freedom of speech is endangered if artists must fear for their lives merely because they draw a person, no matter in what way they draw them. That is what this row is about.

However when it has been done in the manner in which it was done, you can not expect everyone to believe that it was an acceptable method in which to do it. To understand the reasons for the drawing of the cartoons and calling the pictures themselves unacceptable - is consistent with Freedom of Speech. To say to an American that

Brother Solypsist, it seems that like other Americans who share the Bush administration's point of view that the cartoons are 'unacceptable', you haven't the faintest idea what this is all about.

Tells me that maybe you don't understand Freedom of Speech as well as you should for working as a journalist you should understand the concept of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press better then I.

I can find the pictures unacceptable and still understand the reasoning behind the drawing. I find the pictures unacceptable - however I also find violent demonstrations against the pictures unacceptable.

Burning the Danish Flag, advocating a boycot of European Goods, demanding a public retraction and apology from the paper are all acceptable forms of speech to protest the unacceptable nature of the cartoons that were drawn.

Violence and threats of violence are not acceptable forms of speech.

I can draw such pictures myself and put them on the walls of public bathrooms. While my point of my picture might be valid the method of displaying that point is unacceptable. Especially if I am making pictures out of context of the individual I am drawing about.

Freedom of Speech is always endangered by those who would like to repress the views of others. In fact one can safely state that the concept of Freedom of Speech is always endangered, both by those who wish to silence others, and by those who incite others to violence with their speech.

There are acceptable ways to get your message across, and then there are ways that others feel are unacceptable. Depicting Mohammound as a bomb throwing terrorist is unacceptable in my opinion and the paper displayed poor judgement in publishing those pictures. Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from responsiblity. Freedom of Speech does not give you a pass on exercising sound judgement and decision making when you own a paper, publish a paper or write for a paper.

If the publishing of said pictures were done with the express intent to incite others - the line of Freedom of Speech has been crossed. Are you attempting to state that the pictures were done to incite others to violence because of thier tendency toward violence because of a drawing? And because of that the pictures are something that is acceptable to publish? Because the term "row" leads me to the conclusion that the pictures were indeed published to incite others by the paper, and that means that the paper was guilty of doing exactly what some are accusing.

Rest assured, Redleg, several people are being arrested today in Britain for inciting murder and terrorism. They will have to accept the consequences of their words and actions. No problem at all

Yes indeed the British understand the concept of Freedom of Speech. Your allowed to say what you will, expect when your words and actions incite violence. I wonder if the Danish paper owners and publisher are beginning to understand that responsiblity that goes along with the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press?

Freedom of Speech requires some responsiblity to be taken by those who print, write, and produce words and pictures for others to read. Artists can do what they wish and accept the personal responsibility for their art. Just because a group often resorts to violence because of pictures drawn of a religious prophet, does not excuse the publisher from printing pictures that they know will incite violence. This only applies to what the publisher knew would be the reaction in Denmark - not outside of Denmark.

Frankly I find the whole situation dangerous to the concept of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, from both directions. A group that would advocate violence to stop messages against their religion, and a group within the print industry that seemly does not think about what they are printing, does not accept responsiblity for what they print, and then hide behind the cloak of Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of the Press concepts.

Komutan

02-07-2006, 19:04

You do realize that a catholic priest was shot in Turkey, right? Not saying I disagree with you, but Im just saying all religions are potentially dangerous.

That murder may have nothing to do with the recent hostilities. The murderer has been arrested today and claimed that the priest was giving him 100 Euro each week for joining the sunday sermons, but refused to give 500 Euro when the boy brought four of his friends. Seems like an ordinary murder...

I believe in Freedom of Speech. In my opinion people have the right to write, or say whatever they wish. Moslems should be indeed more tolerant.

On the other hand, what some European journals did, was very irresponsible. Instead of letting the issue drop, they poured oil into the fire. I dont see any good served by publishing those caricatures again.

Ser Clegane

02-07-2006, 19:10

[sarcasm on] Ahh yes of course that shining beacon of individual freedoms and free speech that needs the Army to hold down the Islamic militants and gaols journalists [sarcasm off]

Not that different from some European nations during the last century (Germany, Spain, Greece come to mind).

Adrian II

02-07-2006, 19:20

I can draw such pictures myself and put them on the walls of public bathrooms. While my point of my picture might be valid the method of displaying that point is unacceptable.Ah yes, that is another classic misunderstanding: the notion that freedom applies only to the Leonardo's of this world and not to the bathroom door drawers. Freedom is indivisible, it applies to all. One man's bathroom door doodle is another man's fresco.

Dâriûsh

02-07-2006, 19:28

Adrian II

02-07-2006, 19:37

The Muslim overreactions, the Muslims burning embassies, the Muslims burning flags, the Muslims etc…

I have a question regarding proportion. Do the actions of a few thousand fools (out of 1.3 Billion Muslims) make all Muslims jihadist extremists, more than the actions of a few Danish cartoonists and editors (out of 5.4 Million Danes) make all Danes enemies of Islam?

It is also important to look at the groups most likely involved in the recent violent protests:

In Syria – Most likely culprit: the Muslim Brotherhood, who has been mercilessly suppressed by the Syrian authorities. The older al-Assad waged a bloody campaign against the Brotherhood, resulting in Le massacre de Hama. They get to vent some steam, everybody is happy.

In Lebanon – Most likely culprit: The Hizbullah. Inspired, or ordered, by Syria, in a rampage in the Christian neighbourhood, where the Danish Mission was located. They get to vent some steam, Syria is happy.

In Iran – Most likely culprit: The Basij. This was no spontaneous protest. This was organized by the Basij. These guys are the stormtroopers of the Mullahs. They get to vent some steam, the Mayor of Iran is happy.I have made this point before. In Egypt, back in November, Mubarak tried to steal the Brotherhood's thunder in election time by calling for anti-Danish boycots and such, but the rest of the Arab leaders were not ready. The Saudis joined the fray after the Hadj accidents in order to deflect criticism of their desastrous handling of the yearly event. Then Damascus joined. Then Fatah joined -- not Hamas mind you, but Fatah surrounded and threatened the EU mission in Gaza in order to make sure that the new Hamas government would get no European funds. In fact, have we seen any genuine protests yet? So far they were all organised and manipulated by religious and political leaders who have no legitimacy whatsoever.

Viking

02-07-2006, 19:38

On the other hand, what some European journals did, was very irresponsible. Instead of letting the issue drop, they poured oil into the fire. I dont see any good served by publishing those caricatures again.

No, I`m afraid it isn`t that easy; Denmark is still the most hated.

Redleg

02-07-2006, 19:45

Ah yes, that is another classic misunderstanding: the notion that freedom applies only to the Leonardo's of this world and not to the bathroom door drawers. Freedom is indivisible, it applies to all. One man's bathroom door doodle is another man's fresco.

Yes the misunderstanding is yours. There is acceptable forms of speech and there are unacceptable forms of speech. Both are within the scope of Freedom of Speech. One requires the individual to accept the consequences of his speech before he makes the speech. The other requires the individual to accept the consequences of his speech after he does it. To not accept responsiblity means that the individual is abusing Freedom of Speech. To restrict one's ability to free speech is to deny that individual the freedom to speak.

With Freedom comes responsiblity.

Did the paper publish the pictures to incite others? If they published the pictures to incite - then they abused Freedom of Speech.

If they published them to inform, then I can voice my opinion that the picture is unacceptable, and they can vioce their opinion that it is acceptable. Both concepts are within the scope of Freedom of Speech. I am allowed to find something unacceptable and to state that it is unacceptable. Just like some will find the speech acceptable.

It would seem to me that maybe some need to learn what Freedom of Speech really means. Your ability to express yourself does not mean I have to find your expression acceptable. Just that I can not prevent you from expressing your views and ideas - unless you are inciting violence (the intent not the consequence of the speech).

Vladimir

02-07-2006, 19:47

In Syria – Most likely culprit: the Muslim Brotherhood, who has been mercilessly suppressed by the Syrian authorities. The older al-Assad waged a bloody campaign against the Brotherhood, resulting in Le massacre de Hama. They get to vent some steam, everybody is happy..
etc.

:bow:

http://www.johnbatchelorshow.com/article.cfm?id=2751

Syria behind torching of Danish buildings?
By Aaron Klein from World Net Daily
Posted February 06, 2006

The burning this past weekend of Danish government offices in Damascus and Beirut in protest of newspaper cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad were directed by the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in part using undercover soldiers acting as rioters, Lebanese leader Walid Jumblatt charged today during an exclusive WorldNetDaily interview...

Most of these reactionaries are being used as tools by their oppressive governments or radical leaders. Many of them have no other outlet for their anger. However this does not excuse the culture which condones these actions. I haven't heard yet about any American or Canadian Muslims rioting. They're probably just as amazed at the stupidity on both sides as I am.

OT: I attended a presentation by your PM, he seems like an OK guy.

Dâriûsh

02-07-2006, 19:52

I have made this point before. In Egypt, back in November, Mubarak tried to steal the Brotherhood's thunder in election time by calling for anti-Danish boycots and such, but the rest of the Arab leaders were not ready. The Saudis joined the fray after the Hadj accidents in order to deflect criticism of their desastrous handling of the yearly event. Then Damascus joined. Indeed. What is the saying? Nail on the head? ~;)

...Then Fatah joined -- not Hamas mind you, but Fatah surrounded and threatened the EU mission in Gaza in order to make sure that the new Hamas government would get no European funds... The Hamas have joined in on the fun, a few rallies, some rhetoric spewing, the usual. Interestingly, when the Fatah (or was it the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades?) threatened Christian churches, the Hamas offered armed protection.

...In fact, have we seen any genuine protests yet? So far they were all organised and manipulated by religious and political leaders who have no legitimacy whatsoever. To some extent, I believe, the consumer boycott. Many Muslims, regardless of, well, “devotion”, were genuinely offended. Especially by the picture of our Prophet (pbuh) with a bomb.

And like I said in the closed thread: this incident is being exploited for all it is worth by almost every Middle Eastern government involved. :shame:

Brenus

02-07-2006, 19:52

“I wonder if the Danish paper owners and publisher are beginning to understand that responsiblity that goes along with the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press?”
Which is if you draw something I dislike I will kill you…:oops:

By the same token, the Muslims who by their silence until recent years allowed the usurpation of the words of their religion by the Islamic Fascists, letting them to speak for them, should accept the consequences of their silence. If Islam is seen today as it is, it is because the most dreadful events of the end of last century and at the beginning of this century were done on the name of this religion.

And yes, why all this come 4 months after the publication of the drawings?

Redleg

02-07-2006, 20:00

“I wonder if the Danish paper owners and publisher are beginning to understand that responsiblity that goes along with the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press?”
Which is if you draw something I dislike I will kill you…:oops:

Again the question you have to ask and have answered - is did the paper publish the pictures to incite violence? Some papers are indeed publishing the pictures for reasons that would seem to show that their intent is to inflame others.

By the same token, the Muslims who by their silence until recent years allowed the usurpation of the words of their religion by the Islamic Fascists, letting them to speak for them, should accept the consequences of their silence. If Islam is seen today as it is, it is because the most dreadful events of the end of last century and at the beginning of this century were done on the name of this religion.

Accepting the consequences of not speaking out - is indeed something the Islamic community must face.

And yes, why all this come 4 months after the publication of the drawings?

Another is demonstrating the concept of Free Speech by voicing their opinion about the drawings. Which is perfectly fine until one begins to advocate violence in that opinion.

Redleg

02-07-2006, 20:02

Quoting myself from my spoiler comment.

"Freedom of Speech requires some responsiblity to be taken by those who print, write, and produce words and pictures for others to read. Artists can do what they wish and accept the personal responsibility for their art. Just because a group often resorts to violence because of pictures drawn of a religious prophet, does not excuse the publisher from printing pictures that they know will incite violence. This only applies to what the publisher knew would be the reaction in Denmark - not outside of Denmark.

Frankly I find the whole situation dangerous to the concept of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, from both directions. A group that would advocate violence to stop messages against their religion, and a group within the print industry that seemly does not think about what they are printing, does not accept responsiblity for what they print, and then hide behind the cloak of Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of the Press concepts."

If your unwilling to accept responsiblity for Freedom, then you do not deserve that freedom.

Gawain of Orkeny

02-07-2006, 20:06

Redleg

02-07-2006, 20:13

Does anyone think they published these cartoon in oerder to cause this reaction? Sure maybe they should have seen it coming. And once more the Muslim nations have no problem printing far more offensive cartoons of Jews and the US. There is no excuse for their actions. Non in the least.

To be honest the initial publication seem to have been an attempt to inform, regardless of how unacceptable I find the pictures - the intent of the paper does not seem to be one of intended harm.

Now the continued re-publishing of the drawings are a different story.

And as for Muslim nations printing far worse - they are also demonstrating an unacceptable form of free speech - the difference is how the recieving end handles that unacceptable form. We have a tendency to ignore it.

TinCow

02-07-2006, 20:18

Does anyone think they published these cartoon in oerder to cause this reaction?

It seems unclear whether the original publication in Denmark had that intention or not. Depending on how you interpret the situation, the answer could be yes or no. However, the republication a week or so ago had nothing to do with provoking anyone, it was a statement about freedom of speech made shortly after the Danish newspaper apologized.

*edit*
I see I was beaten to the submit button on this one so I feel the need to expound. The initial publication seems to have been done to point out the reluctance of illustrators to deal with the issue. Depending on how you look at it, that could mean that it was their attempt to address a freedom of speech issue OR it could mean that they were trying to flout a Muslim taboo. The first would not be meant as provocation, the second would.

The republications were simply a protest over the fact that the Danish newspaper was essentially forced into apologizing. The various other papers published the cartoon as a form of protest over what they saw as an infringement on free speech. As such, that's not specifically aimed at insulting anyone, it was meant as support for what they saw as an infringed upon right.

At least, that's my take on it.

Kanamori

02-07-2006, 20:23

Freedom is indivisible, it applies to all.

Exactly, the whole premise of freedom of speech is that it applies to all people through nearly whatever they may say, IMO only modes of expression should be able to be controlled by the government.

Gertz:

"Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas."

To draw filthy, absolutely insulting, pictures on a wall is a right. At the core of my view of free speech: It is only my judgment that such pictures are filthy, and the government should never be in the position to tell us what is an absolute. Violating this principle violates the very premise of it; put more clearly, if free speech is not an absolute right, if there are exceptions on which content of expression may and may not be expressed, then there is no reason to believe that the right should be there at all.

If your unwilling to accept responsiblity for Freedom, then you do not deserve that freedom.

How do you mean "responsibility"? The person doing some thing cannot avoid being "responsible" for it. It is not a matter of our choice, or some judgement by others, it is the very definition of the word. If you mean to say that somehow it is van gogh's fault for his death, you are terribly mistaken. Of course, if he didn't express his views, he most likely would not have been murdered, but that is certainly not to say that he is responsible for his own murder. There was nothing in his expression which unerringly led to his death, and if he cannot be said to have caused it, he is certainly not "responsible" for it. Saying that he should have seen such a thing coming is different quite different.

ScionTheWorm

02-07-2006, 20:50

the nationalism is growing at a tremendously rate here, both in me and all around. in the end I mainly fear for the muslim family across the street, when this gets into proportions again. damn I hate being forced upon muslim laws.

http://www.vg.no/bilder/edrum/1139324704290_547.jpg :laugh4:

Redleg

02-07-2006, 21:49

Exactly, the whole premise of freedom of speech is that it applies to all people through nearly whatever they may say, IMO only modes of expression should be able to be controlled by the government.

Modes of expression fall within the concept of Freedom of Speech. Access is part of the freedom.

Gertz:

"Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas."

To draw filthy, absolutely insulting, pictures on a wall is a right. At the core of my view of free speech: It is only my judgment that such pictures are filthy, and the government should never be in the position to tell us what is an absolute. Violating this principle violates the very premise of it; put more clearly, if free speech is not an absolute right, if there are exceptions on which content of expression may and may not be expressed, then there is no reason to believe that the right should be there at all.

Its a good thing no western governments are curtailing the speech. Freedom of Speech also requires personal responsiblity and accountablity.

How do you mean "responsibility"? The person doing some thing cannot avoid being "responsible" for it. It is not a matter of our choice, or some judgement by others, it is the very definition of the word. If you mean to say that somehow it is van gogh's fault for his death, you are terribly mistaken. Of course, if he didn't express his views, he most likely would not have been murdered, but that is certainly not to say that he is responsible for his own murder. There was nothing in his expression which unerringly led to his death, and if he cannot be said to have caused it, he is certainly not "responsible" for it. Saying that he should have seen such a thing coming is different quite different.

Read what was written. Did I state Van Gogh was at fault for his death? A strawman arguement is nothing but a strawman arguement. Was Van Gogh responsible for his art and his artistic interpation? Did he behave in a responsible manner concerning his art? Did he exercise his freedom to express his ideas? The answer to this is yes. The individaul responsible for his death is the individual who committed the crime.

What I am saying is that the publishers of the papers have a responsiblity inherient within the concept of Freedom of Speech which goes beyond the individual right to Free Speech. With Freedom comes responsiblity.

Adrian II

02-07-2006, 22:00

Modes of expression fall within the concept of Freedom of Speech. Access is part of the freedom.

Its a good thing no western governments are curtailing the speech. Freedom of Speech also requires personal responsiblity and accountablity.

Read what was written. Did I state Van Gogh was at fault for his death? A strawman arguement is nothing but a strawman arguement. Was Van Gogh responsible for his art and his artistic interpation? Did he behave in a responsible manner concerning his art? Did he exercise his freedom to express his ideas? The answer to this is yes. The individaul responsible for his death is the individual who committed the crime.

What I am saying is that the publishers of the papers have a responsiblity inherient within the concept of Freedom of Speech which goes beyond the individual right to Free Speech. With Freedom comes responsiblity.Dear Redleg, what are you on about? These generalities are disputed by no one.

Kanamori

02-07-2006, 23:05

Its a good thing no western governments are curtailing the speech. Freedom of Speech also requires personal responsiblity and accountablity.

Actually, many are, have, and most likely will continue to. The religious hatred bill, though much better in its amended state, is an example. The exception SCOTUS has made for obscenity is allowing it, and many states have laws in the area restricting it. I do not understand what you mean when you say people must act responsibly and with accountability. (This is not the Pindar I-do-not-undesrtand-what-you-mean, God bless his soul, I do not understand what you are saying.) If someone has a view, they should not have to be scared of expressing it, whatever it is. I only favor self censorship when one believes the expression will offend, and they do not wish to, and in such a case I actually think that a proper discussion will help a person.

Read what was written. Did I state Van Gogh was at fault for his death? A strawman arguement is nothing but a strawman arguement. Was Van Gogh responsible for his art and his artistic interpation? Did he behave in a responsible manner concerning his art? Did he exercise his freedom to express his ideas? The answer to this is yes. The individaul responsible for his death is the individual who committed the crime.

It is not a purposeful construction of a strawman. If you accept that his death is no fault of his own, I wonder what you mean by "responsible." If you mean that the newspaper somehow meant it to inspire rage, I think you are mistaken. AFAIK, this was a local paper, and the imams went around preaching about them, when they were not meant for a muslim audience. (Please do correct me if I'm wrong.)

Redleg

02-07-2006, 23:12

Dear Redleg, what are you on about? These generalities are disputed by no one.

And yet you claim this.

Brother Solypsist, it seems that like other Americans who share the Bush administration's point of view that the cartoons are 'unacceptable', you haven't the faintest idea what this is all about.

It seems you did dispute the general concept of Free Speech being able to find the form as being unacceptable.

Or how about this comment

Ah yes, that is another classic misunderstanding: the notion that freedom applies only to the Leonardo's of this world and not to the bathroom door drawers. Freedom is indivisible, it applies to all. One man's bathroom door doodle is another man's fresco.

If you believe in Freedom of Speech then you have to accept the responsiblity that comes with that Freedom. To include the possibility that someone will disagree with your method.

Violence as a form of protest is not an acceptable form of speech. Telling someone that they can not find the method and content of the speech unacceptable falls within the same aspect. Your attempting to curtail dissent of the speech.

The muslims are wrong for using violence. You are wrong for saying that an American or anyone for that matter can not find the method or the message unacceptable.

Redleg

02-07-2006, 23:19

Actually, many are, have, and most likely will continue to. The religious hatred bill, though much better in its amended state, is an example. The exception SCOTUS has made for obscenity is allowing it, and many states have laws in the area restricting it. I do not understand what you mean when you say people must act responsibly and with accountability. (This is not the Pindar I-do-not-undesrtand-what-you-mean, God bless his soul, I do not understand what you are saying.) If someone has a view, they should not have to be scared of expressing it, whatever it is. I only favor self censorship when one believes the expression will offend, and they do not wish to, and in such a case I actually think that a proper discussion will help a person.

Self censorship is part of responsiblity and accountablity for what you say.

It is not a purposeful construction of a strawman. If you accept that his death is no fault of his own, I wonder what you mean by "responsible." If you mean that the newspaper somehow meant it to inspire rage, I think you are mistaken. AFAIK, this was a local paper, and the imams went around preaching about them, when they were not meant for a muslim audience. (Please do correct me if I'm wrong.)

If the paper meant the drawing to inspire rage they did not operate in a responsible fashion in regards to speech.

Just because one has the Freedom to speak however they so choice, does not make it the responsible thing to do.

Again Freedom requires responsiblity. No responsiblity no Freedom.

InsaneApache

02-08-2006, 01:54

It also debunks the claim that Julius Ceaser burnt it down (by mistake :dizzy2: ) and the claim by Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

So no one did it then. :laugh4:

I've thought about this. I have to say I got caught with my trousers down on this one. Fair play to the posters who saw it. :shame:

Let the debate continue. :inquisitive:

Soulforged

02-08-2006, 04:07

It seems you did dispute the general concept of Free Speech being able to find the form as being unacceptable.You say that there's some kind of freedom that's unacceptable? Ok I give you that, but it's part of the Speech, or it's something like movement, action or association?

If you believe in Freedom of Speech then you have to accept the responsiblity that comes with that Freedom. To include the possibility that someone will disagree with your method.But nobody disagrees with that generality. You're pointing exceptions, or even better, consecuences of the use of this freedom, but nobody disagrees on the general concept.

Violence as a form of protest is not an acceptable form of speech. Telling someone that they can not find the method and content of the speech unacceptable falls within the same aspect. Your attempting to curtail dissent of the speechViolence is not always unacceptable, it's only unacceptable if it affects a third party. I can break my own TVs as a form of protest against globalization, and it will be violence (if you consider it like the use of force) and it will also be acceptable. But as I see it freedom of speech it's absolute, the method is forbidden because it obstaculizes the freedom of other people, not just because it's violent.

Redleg

02-08-2006, 04:36

You say that there's some kind of freedom that's unacceptable?

Strawman warning - that was not what was stated.

Ok I give you that, but it's part of the Speech, or it's something like movement, action or association?

In the concept of freedom of speech - you can state whatever you please, I on the other hand can tell you that I find your speech unacceptable.

But nobody disagrees with that generality. You're pointing exceptions, or even better, consecuences of the use of this freedom, but nobody disagrees on the general concept.

Oh but someone has disagreed with the concept. Again refering to Adrian's comment.

Brother Solypsist, it seems that like other Americans who share the Bush administration's point of view that the cartoons are 'unacceptable', you haven't the faintest idea what this is all about.

Again a person can understand what the message is about, and still find it unacceptable. So what the point is - when someone exercises free speech they also open themselves up to criticism from those who disagree with them. As long as the criticism is not one of advocating violence against the individual, that criticism is just as valid and is an exercise of free speech.

Violence is not always unacceptable, it's only unacceptable if it affects a third party.

Violence as a form of free speech that advocates the destruction of others and their property was what was meant. If you didn't understand that, you were not paying attention to the words used.

I can break my own TVs as a form of protest against globalization, and it will be violence (if you consider it like the use of force) and it will also be acceptable.

Smashing your own property does not count as violence - unless your smashing your property against someone else's body or property.

But as I see it freedom of speech it's absolute, the method is forbidden because it obstaculizes the freedom of other people, not just because it's violent.

There are no absolutes in freedom of speech. You are not permitted to advocate violence in your speech in most societies.

With Freedom comes responsibility. No responsiblity, no freedom.

Soulforged

02-08-2006, 04:47

Strawman warning - that was not what was stated.I should first know what's an "strawman". If I look the definition in the dictionary it aludes to the object made of straw in the form of a man, usually male, wich is used to scare the crows that surround the crop. But if I get the metaphore right, then not it wasn't an strawman, perhaps I misunderstood your use of unacceptable. NOTE: It seems that the term "strawman" or "strawman arguement" plagues your posts. As I see it, and only guessing it's meaning, it appears to be an arbitrary association.

In the concept of freedom of speech - you can state whatever you please, I on the other hand can tell you that I find your speech unacceptable.But you disagree on the method.

Again a person can understand what the message is about, and still find it unacceptable. So what the point is - when someone exercises free speech they also open themselves up to criticism from those who disagree with them. As long as the criticism is not one of advocating violence against the individual, that criticism is just as valid and is an exercise of free speech.Yes I agree with that, that's the basic dialect. But now that I understand your concept of violence everything is clearer.

There are no absolutes in freedom of speech. You are not permitted to advocate violence in your speech in most societies.I notice your choice of words, and you should notice mine, AS I SEE IT, wich means that following my valoration there shouldn't be any limitations. When there are obstacles to other's freedom, in all it's aspects, then by very definition is not more freedom. So it's not restricted, it simply isn't.

PS: I'm seeing that if you continue with that possition of the process used to show disagreement this will eventually come to the definition of revolution. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Divinus Arma

02-08-2006, 05:05

Wow. This thread is growing growing growing.

I thought that this was a solid article:

**Warning: May offend Muslims. Also some very light use of passionate language** (http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/7719.htm)

Why are we cowering to Islam?!?!?!?!?

Redleg

02-08-2006, 07:03

I should first know what's an "strawman". If I look the definition in the dictionary it aludes to the object made of straw in the form of a man, usually male, wich is used to scare the crows that surround the crop. But if I get the metaphore right, then not it wasn't an strawman, perhaps I misunderstood your use of unacceptable. NOTE: It seems that the term "strawman" or "strawman arguement" plagues your posts. As I see it, and only guessing it's meaning, it appears to be an arbitrary association.

You need to look up what a logical fallacy called strawman actually is. Needless to say its a distortion of what was stated so that you can disprove the individuals statement.

You say that there's some kind of freedom that's unacceptable?

Now did I say that there was some kind of freedom that was unacceptable, or did I say the message and drawings were unacceptable?

Your question falls into the catergory of a distortion of what was stated.

But you disagree on the method.

No I disagree with the drawing - the method was to print the drawings in a newspaper. The drawings are an unacceptable message becasue they are a distortion, and the voicing of my opinion is that the newspaper did not exercise proper responsiblity in the the publication of the cartoons. Not so much the initial paper printing of them - but the subsequent printins.

Yes I agree with that, that's the basic dialect. But now that I understand your concept of violence everything is clearer.

We are exercising the fundmental freedom of speech - discourse on issues that we might or might not agree with. Unacceptable forms of discourse have been mentioned.

I notice your choice of words, and you should notice mine, AS I SEE IT, wich means that following my valoration there shouldn't be any limitations. When there are obstacles to other's freedom, in all it's aspects, then by very definition is not more freedom. So it's not restricted, it simply isn't.

Yes indeed I notice your choice of words - and again societies don't allow you the freedom to use violent speech if it is direct at another. Again with Freedom comes responsibility.

PS: I'm seeing that if you continue with that possition of the process used to show disagreement this will eventually come to the definition of revolution. Perhaps I'm wrong.

You are incorrect. Freedom of Speech is not a concept that necessarily leads to revolution. People are always free to speak their minds in a responsible manner in most free societies. No need for a revolution to increase that freedom.

solypsist

02-08-2006, 07:09

These rioters need to calm down. Living in a free society means sometimes you're going to hear and see things you find offensive.

Fragony

02-08-2006, 10:48

In the end it boils down to this, Denmark shouldn't have drawn cartoons, and France shouldn't have had electricity.

rory_20_uk

02-08-2006, 11:56

Fragony, I can agree with you that France should never have been allowed to leave the Dark Ages. I still feel that they shoud return the ancestral land that they annexed from England. (Sorry, going on on a bit of a rant there...)

It is basically a misunderstanding between cultures. They place religion (Islam - none of the others) above everything else, we place (most of the time) freedom of speech. A parallel would be how the West places the individual above all else, whereas in China it is the good of the many that take presidence over the wishes of the individual. Both have advantages, and it is a matter of choice whish should be followed.

~:smoking:

Taffy_is_a_Taff

02-08-2006, 12:52

Frag: that definitely sounds like what these gits would have liked.

Has France fully calmed down yet? or is it just officially calm as violence is down to average levels?

Edit: removed bad word, *spanks self*

TinCow

02-08-2006, 14:38

Redleg

02-08-2006, 14:46

I'm sorry for perhaps coming off as insensitive or something, but I don't agree that the cartoons (1) shouldn't have been drawn and (2) are irresponsible. There are certainly proper limits imposed on freedom of speech, but those are restricted to situations where the speech itself creates a danger to others. The typical example here is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Then I hope you have been paying attention to what I have stated.

These cartoon endanger no-one by their nature. Sure they are offensive. Sure it's to be expected that many people will be greatly upset by them, but they are NOT irresponsible. They are the expression of an opinion which exists in society and not a whole lot else. It's like publishing books that claim the Holocaust never occurred. I'm immensely bothered and offended by these books, but I will fight to the death for their right to be published. Any action other than support for such statements is assisting in the infringement of free speech.

Good you understand what I have been saying then.

When it comes to expressing your opinion in a free society, there is no such thing as a "wrong" or "irresponsible" statement (excepting what was noted above). Statements can be "rude," "provocative," "degrading," etc. but you simply can't catagorize a statement of speech as an absolute wrong without wrecking the whole concept of free speech. I'll say this again; freedom of speech exists to protect the speech that you don't like, not the stuff that you do like.

Freedom of Speech exists to protect you from governmental prosecution of your speech. It does not remove your responsiblity for your speech and its effects from the general population.

That is why Freedom of Speech does not remove your responsiblity to exercise your freedom in a responsible manner. This is why I stated that the intent of the publishers is important. The initial printing was most likely not done in an irresponsible manner, but one to inform the people of a situation. That pictures of such a nature are often the function of a fearful society.

4 monthes down the road when it strikes the chords of discontent with the masses who disagree with it, republishing the pictures to futher inflame the situations smacks of irresponsiblity on part of the papers that published them. (Yea, I know that the papers republished the pictures because of the protests and the statements that pictures of the prophet can not be done. But on the surface it smacks of being irresponsible.)

Again Freedom requires responsiblity. No responsiblity no freedom.

TinCow

02-08-2006, 15:07

Again Freedom requires responsiblity. No responsiblity no freedom.

Certainly, but again I think we need to question what "responsibility" really is. In the US legal system, there are many restrictions imposed upon free speech, but they all share a common factor: the speech causes harm to others in a tangible way. Typical examples are defamation, copyright infringement, and public disclosure of private facts. All of these are considered by society to be "irresponsible" exercises of free speech because they result in a direct harm to another person.

While I understand that what the cartoons are insulting, I simply do not see this tangible harm even if you assume that the papers published them with malicious intent. It seems to me that you are saying that the speech shouldn't have been expressed simply because it was likely to offend and/or insult. I just can't agree with that analysis as resulting in a determination of irresponsibility.

Devastatin Dave

02-08-2006, 15:28

These rioters need to calm down. Living in a free society means sometimes you're going to hear and see things you find offensive.
I nominate you to go and discuss these matters with the nice people in these mobs. I'm sure you'll be able to explain to them how their narrow-mindedness is wrong and they should change their ways and get out of the 7th century.:laugh4:

Kralizec

02-08-2006, 16:17

Redleg: the question is not wether or not the newspaper had the legal right to print those caricatures (they had), but wether or not publishing was so unreasonable that such an outrage could be expected.

Yillands Posten did not post the caricatures to provoke outrage. They meant to make a point, that after Van Gogh nobody dared as much to make a drawing of Mohammed.
Neither did any of the newspapers that followed to fuel the fire. They meant to show sympathy to Yillands Posten. It was somewhat naive and they should have seen it wouldn't do any good, but I don't see any malicious intent here.
Besides, they don't have free speech in the Arab world yet everyday there are newspaper cartoons there that demonize jews, Americans and western values in general. Yet if a newspaper decides to publish a few insensitive pictures about Mohammed, embassies are torched and foreigners are publicly beaten. There's a huge double standard at work here and if some fanatics (a lot of fanatics) can't take a little criticism to counter their own, that's their problem and not ours.

Call either unproffesional or irresponsible, it was legal what they did and nobody here would want it any other way. People that are offended can protest and demand an apology or even in extreme cases go to court, but that's it.
No European country is going to implement some government office that has to rubber stamp each publication before it may become public. And because we don't have or want such a thing, no government in Europe can take responsibility for the drawings and apologize for it, like some countries have demanded.

Adrian II

02-08-2006, 19:24

Redleg: the question is not wether or not the newspaper had the legal right to print those caricatures (they had), but wether or not publishing was so unreasonable that such an outrage could be expected.Exactly. The outrage is unreasonable, not the printing of the twelve cartoons.

None of the cartoons was 'unacceptable' as Bush and quite a few ordinary Americans seem to think. Mind you, one of the cartoons made fun of the Jyllands-Posten. And even the most critical drawing, the one of Mohammed with a live beum (thank you, Peter Sellers) in his little hat, was in no way 'unacceptable'.

I recall that years ago the late great Dutch Arabist Jan Brugman published an essay entitled 'Once the sword, forever the sword' in which he stated that violence, war and repression were the very core of Mohammed's message. It was a very well argued essay (Brugman knows his classics) and it certainly was (and still is) perfectly legitimate to state such a view in public. Brugman did not call for violence or other offensive behaviour against Muslims, he just pointed out to Muslims and everyone else who bothered to read his essay that their faith was unreasonable, violent and primitive.

In its own way, the Danish cartoon does the exact same thing. In the most uncharitable interpretation possible, said cartoon passes judgment on the entire religion of Islam. It does not call for violence or offensive behaviour against Muslims, it does not even address Muslims in a direct fashion. All it does is express someone's personal view on Mohammed. It is perfectly legitimate to express this view. In this context, words like 'unacceptable' and 'irresponsible' are totally out of place and reflect either weak knees or weak principles on the part of speaker.

Brenus

02-08-2006, 19:33

Redleg

02-08-2006, 20:00

Certainly, but again I think we need to question what "responsibility" really is. In the US legal system, there are many restrictions imposed upon free speech, but they all share a common factor: the speech causes harm to others in a tangible way. Typical examples are defamation, copyright infringement, and public disclosure of private facts. All of these are considered by society to be "irresponsible" exercises of free speech because they result in a direct harm to another person.

Indeed

While I understand that what the cartoons are insulting, I simply do not see this tangible harm even if you assume that the papers published them with malicious intent. It seems to me that you are saying that the speech shouldn't have been expressed simply because it was likely to offend and/or insult. I just can't agree with that analysis as resulting in a determination of irresponsibility.

You acknowledge the key word here - if the papers did it with malicious intent then they acted in an irresponsible matter.

Just because something might offend others is not an excuse to prevent the printing of material - there are many things I find offensive in print, but that is because I don't agree with the method of the delivery. However the intent of most of those items was not to offend but to inform.
If it was to inform - then the offense is an unfortunate side effect of informing people of the speech, something that those who wish to live in a society that practices Free Speech must accept.

If the intent was to offend with malicious forthought by the paper then they acted irresponsible. Its a subtle (Sp) difference but one that make Freedom of Speech important. To repeat myself - Freedom of Speech requires responsiblity, without responsibility no freedom.

Redleg

02-08-2006, 20:02

Redleg: the question is not wether or not the newspaper had the legal right to print those caricatures (they had), but wether or not publishing was so unreasonable that such an outrage could be expected.

Bingo you hit exactly what I have been saying.

Yillands Posten did not post the caricatures to provoke outrage. They meant to make a point, that after Van Gogh nobody dared as much to make a drawing of Mohammed.
Neither did any of the newspapers that followed to fuel the fire. They meant to show sympathy to Yillands Posten. It was somewhat naive and they should have seen it wouldn't do any good, but I don't see any malicious intent here.
Besides, they don't have free speech in the Arab world yet everyday there are newspaper cartoons there that demonize jews, Americans and western values in general. Yet if a newspaper decides to publish a few insensitive pictures about Mohammed, embassies are torched and foreigners are publicly beaten. There's a huge double standard at work here and if some fanatics (a lot of fanatics) can't take a little criticism to counter their own, that's their problem and not ours.

Call either unproffesional or irresponsible, it was legal what they did and nobody here would want it any other way. People that are offended can protest and demand an apology or even in extreme cases go to court, but that's it.
No European country is going to implement some government office that has to rubber stamp each publication before it may become public. And because we don't have or want such a thing, no government in Europe can take responsibility for the drawings and apologize for it, like some countries have demanded.

Well maybe you don't get the point.

Redleg

02-08-2006, 20:08

Exactly. The outrage is unreasonable, not the printing of the twelve cartoons.

And the subsequent reprinting of the drawings after the outrage has been noted was not irresponsible?

None of the cartoons was 'unacceptable' as Bush and quite a few ordinary Americans seem to think. Mind you, one of the cartoons made fun of the Jyllands-Posten. And even the most critical drawing, the one of Mohammed with a live beum (thank you, Peter Sellers) in his little hat, was in no way 'unacceptable'.

So are you attempting to tell others what they can believe or not believe?

I recall that years ago the late great Dutch Arabist Jan Brugman published an essay entitled 'Once the sword, forever the sword' in which he stated that violence, war and repression were the very core of Mohammed's message. It was a very well argued essay (Brugman knows his classics) and it certainly was (and still is) perfectly legitimate to state such a view in public. Brugman did not call for violence or other offensive behaviour against Muslims, he just pointed out to Muslims and everyone else who bothered to read his essay that their faith was unreasonable, violent and primitive.

Again that follows the concept of Freedom of Speech - to voice your opinion, which I could find his article unreasonable if I so choice. Not that I do, just that if I decided to voice my opinion on his material - I would be correct in expressing my dis-satification with his statements.

In its own way, the Danish cartoon does the exact same thing. In the most uncharitable interpretation possible, said cartoon passes judgment on the entire religion of Islam. It does not call for violence or offensive behaviour against Muslims, it does not even address Muslims in a direct fashion. All it does is express someone's personal view on Mohammed. It is perfectly legitimate to express this view. In this context, words like 'unacceptable' and 'irresponsible' are totally out of place and reflect either weak knees or weak principles on the part of speaker.

Actually you are incorrect. I can find something unacceptable and not be weaked kneed or weak principled. So a bomb wearing dipcition of Mohammed is an acceptable drawing? IN your opinion it might be. IN my opinion it is not, nor is an acceptable drawing of the man. Now draw someone like Osma Bin Laden wearing a turbin with a bomb then it is an accurate representation of the man.

Adrian II

02-08-2006, 20:19

So a bomb wearing dipcition of Mohammed is an acceptable drawing?That is what I have upheld for 67 posts now. So for the 68th and last time: yes.
IN my opinion it is not, nor is an acceptable drawing of the man.Opine away, Redleg. It's called democracy.

Redleg

02-08-2006, 20:52

That is what I have upheld for 67 posts now. So for the 68th and last time: yes.

Then under the same concept of Freedom of Speech that you are allowed to follow - you have to allow others to disagree with your position.

I have gotten the distinct impression - and I could be wrong - is that you do not want to accept that some people might have a disagreement with the way the message was done. To say something is unacceptable is voicing free speech. Just like making the drawings and publishing them.

With Freedom comes responsibility.

Opine away, Redleg. It's called democracy.

Yes indeed - a concept I understand very well. Free Speech does not give one leave to state anyold thing they wish without facing the consequences of that speech. Criticism of the speech is one of those consequences.

It seems a strawman question is needed.

Why do you hate democracy?

Redleg

02-08-2006, 21:06

“Again the question you have to ask and have answered”; So before to express an opinion or to draw whatever, you have first to ask yourself if you want to be killed by Jews, Christians, Muslims, Atheism, Pagans, Communist, Socialist, capitalists, etc, all groups which could be offended.

Not what was stated. Freedom of Speech requires one to act responsible in thier speech along with the exercise of that speech.

Well, that means because religions offended me deeply, can you start burning and destroyed all holly books and buildings. If the USA could remove from the Bank Notes the “In God We Trust”, I should appreciate. And if you don’t, well, I will kill you, or at least, I will try.:dizzy2:

You can state that it should be removed - in fact that happens in the United States every now and then. Haven't seen any violence associated with that yet.

The responsible of this violence are not the authors of the drawings, but the people who torch Embassies, use violence and make appeal to kill.

And they are being irresponsable in their behavior. Exercising irresponsible speech does not give others an excuse for violence. The author's responsibility only rests in the concept were the drawings done with malicous intent to create violence?

The papers publication of the drawings and thier assigned responsiblity rests in the intent behind the publication. Was it done to inform or was it done in malicous intent.

Now this is not governmental prosecution of wrong doing - but responsibility of the individual.

The newspaper used a pencil; they use guns, bombs and flames. So, yes, it is Religious Intolerance. The mob is an offence, the intolerance, the violence are, not few drawings published 4 months ago:wall:

Explain the recent publication of the drawings in other papers? Both sides of the issue are acting irresponsible in my opinion.

THe only action that is questionable is the orginal intent of the first paper - which I believe was only done to inform. I can call that pictures unacceptable in my opinion (free speech you know) and be within the confines of acceptable free speech criticism. Again Freedom of Speech requires responsiblity.

I actually find both groups are now acting irresponsible. Stroking the flames is an act of irresponsiblity when you see the house is alreadly burning.

“Just because a group often resorts to violence because of pictures drawn of a religious prophet, does not excuse the publisher from printing pictures that they know will incite violence.” The Pope was right. Galilee was wrong to offend the Christians. Earth is the centre of the Universe and the Sun is turning around it.
:help:

A strawman arguement to counter - hm, someone doesn't understand Free Speech.

If you know the pictures will incite violence, and you with malicous forthought print those pictures - then you are in part responsible for the violence.

“If your unwilling to accept responsiblity for Freedom, then you do not deserve that freedom.” I agree with that. The Muslim Countries (not all of them) and their populations have to make their revolution and gain their freedom.:duel:

yes indeed they need to understand what Free Speech is all about. Unfortunately for the world their governments do not want people to actually think and speak.

“Freedom of Speech also requires personal responsiblity and accountability” : Right, in front of a court, not a mob, we agree on that.:2thumbsup:
[/quote]

Actually I was not speaking of in front of a court or a mob. But in front of the mirror looking at yourself.

Goofball

02-08-2006, 21:56

If you know the pictures will incite violence, and you with malicous forthought print those pictures - then you are in part responsible for the violence.

I don't quite agree with you Red. I don't think a person printing a picture, writing an article, or making a speach can ever be held responsible for any ensuing violence, unless it can be proved in a court of law that inciting violence was their intent. The way you have describe it, if I call somebody a mean name that I know they hate, I could be held partly responsible for them running my family over with their car in retaliation, and that is simply not right.

The author of an article that is currently the subject of another Backroom thread said is best:

It should go without saying that individuals in a secular democracy have every right to caricature and mock authorities, even religious ones. They should be prepared to meet criticism but not punishment.

It sounds to me like you are saying they should be prepared to meet criticism and punishment, and that they bear responsibility for that punishment, no matter how over the top or out of proportion it is.

Redleg

02-08-2006, 22:55

I don't quite agree with you Red. I don't think a person printing a picture, writing an article, or making a speach can ever be held responsible for any ensuing violence, unless it can be proved in a court of law that inciting violence was their intent. The way you have describe it, if I call somebody a mean name that I know they hate, I could be held partly responsible for them running my family over with their car in retaliation, and that is simply not right.

Hmm I wonder what I have stated, something along the lines that intent applies to responsiblity.

The author of an article that is currently the subject of another Backroom thread said is best:

Goes along with exactly what I have been stating. Unfortunately I am not as clear as the author there.

However it seems that some don't understand what the esteemed Sonia Mikich is saying. Criticism of the speech implies that one can call it unacceptable.

It sounds to me like you are saying they should be prepared to meet criticism and punishment, and that they bear responsibility for that punishment, no matter how over the top or out of proportion it is.

You only have part of it right - I bolded the part you have correct. Now the part you don't have right, is that they bear the responsiblity of the actions their words their words create if they had malicius (SP) intent.

TinCow

02-08-2006, 23:08

Criticism of the speech implies that one can call it unacceptable.

Very true, but this reminds me of Catch 22. You can say that the author is responsible for the consequences, but he can't actually be responsible.... unless he's responsible?

Brenus

02-08-2006, 23:23

Goofball

02-08-2006, 23:46

You only have part of it right - I bolded the part you have correct. Now the part you don't have right, is that they bear the responsiblity of the actions their words their words create if they had malicius (SP) intent.

Okay, so let me present a hypothetical situation to see if I can clarify:

Let's imagine that I am the owner of GNN (Goofball News Network) and I post on my internationally viewed website a scathing editorial that says things like "Mohammed was a buggerist," and that I openly admit that my intent when posting the editorial was specifically to anger muslims. The next day, a crowd of angry muslims in New York (or wherever) pulls a random white guy out of his car and beats him to death while holding placards that quote my editorial, and they give their anger at the editorial as the reason they killed the man.

Am I responsible (even partly) for this guy's death?

Adrian II

02-08-2006, 23:50

Free Speech does not give one leave to state anyold thing they wish without facing the consequences of that speech.Right. I try to be as charitable to your views as I can, but this is plain nonsense. What you are saying is that the cartoonists asked for the fanatic reactions. That is like saying women who wear short skirts ask for rape. Or that the U.S. should not complain about 9/11 because they 'asked' for it.

If that is not what you meant, then what are you trying to communicate to planet Earth, Redleg?

We are not getting your message. :vulcan:

Papewaio

02-08-2006, 23:57

AdrianII what is your view on libel, slander and lies?

I like freedom of speech for the ability to liberally tell truths. I don't agree with using it to deliberately misinform people.

Adrian II

02-09-2006, 00:11

I like freedom of speech for the ability to liberally tell truths. I don't agree with using it to deliberately misinform people.'Truths', 'misinform' -- as you know, one man's truth is another man's misinformation, Papewaio. You only have to think of your debates with creationists on this forum. And can paintings lie? Can a novel tell the truth? Can a smile really launch a thousand ships, or is it the ship-owner who does the launching?

And how do you think such categories apply to this topic, where truth and misinformation are open to debate (as they are so often)? I think I have made my views on it very clear in three different threads. Views on religion are legit, incitement to violence is not.

Watchman

02-09-2006, 00:14

There's something rather dodgy about that answer, methinks.

Redleg

02-09-2006, 00:15

Very true, but this reminds me of Catch 22. You can say that the author is responsible for the consequences, but he can't actually be responsible.... unless he's responsible?

If the intent was to incite violence ......

Redleg

02-09-2006, 00:24

“Free Speech”: Easy to understand. Free, from freedom, liberty (syn.), Speech, to Speak, to talk (syn).:book:
So it is the freedom to exercise the capacity to give an opinion, a comment, a word without fear.
See, it is not difficult concept to understand.

No it isn't. However what you are not stating is that Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from responsiblity.

In a normal way, that means when I had a discussion with my religious friends, we exchange ideas, concepts and other words. We never agree, of course, but we all think we will finish convincing the other.
None of us think that the Jihad, Crusaders or Gulags are admissible way to convert or to spread a faith, or a lack of faith.
The only consequence I got when I said to people I don’t believe in a creator, whatever is his/her/theirs name(s) is a verbal counter-strike (and eternal flames if I will prove wrong).:oops:

Interesting but not relative to the discussion of Freedom of Speech and the responsibility that goes along with it.

“But in front of the mirror looking at yourself”: Well, it is true I often speak to myself, and sometimes disagree with me. But that is called dialectic.
And here, we don’t speak about image but real threats.

You misunderstood the anology.

Freedom of Speech is the key for Freedom. The Islamic Fascists know it (like their predecessors, Christians and Jews, for the monotheist one), and what they want is to stop it.
Amazingly, and perhaps I am mistaken, it seems you agree with them. There are subjects which can’t be mocked, or you accept you could be killed. Is it what you are saying?:help:

Your setting yourself up for a strawman arguement. That is not what I have stated. So yes you are mistaken.

For Freedom of Speech one must accept the responsibility that comes along with it. Criticism is part of Freedom of Speech. If your unwilling to accept that criticism, then why should you have Freedom of Speech. Violence and the threat of violence is an unacceptable alternative (which has been stated.) But that does not mean I can not criticize your speech as unacceptable. What I can not do is bring violence upon your person because I disagree with your speech. Notice that I have pointed out that both extremes of the issue are over-reacting to the issue. The Muslims for threatening violence, the second publication of the drawing by papers.

“If you know the pictures will incite violence, and you with malicous forthought print those pictures - then you are in part responsible for the violence.” I am French. Two years ago a heinous campaign against the French was launched in the USA. Some of the things said offended me deeply. Was I untitled to kill US citizens? Give me your opinion. The US media, according of what I understand in your comments, were responsible because they incite me to violence. Is it correct?:sweatdrop:

Not at all - you are incorrect. The only responsiblity for the media is to report the events accurately. If they reported it accurately then there is no malicous intent to incite violence. There intent was to publish the news. That you are upset with the reports and voice your opinion about being upset is a responsible expression of that speech. Burning of Flags, protests against governments, boycots and demanding of an apology are all in line with responsible criticism of a speech issue. Violence on the other hand is not.

Redleg

02-09-2006, 00:26

Okay, so let me present a hypothetical situation to see if I can clarify:

Let's imagine that I am the owner of GNN (Goofball News Network) and I post on my internationally viewed website a scathing editorial that says things like "Mohammed was a buggerist," and that I openly admit that my intent when posting the editorial was specifically to anger muslims. The next day, a crowd of angry muslims in New York (or wherever) pulls a random white guy out of his car and beats him to death while holding placards that quote my editorial, and they give their anger at the editorial as the reason they killed the man.

Am I responsible (even partly) for this guy's death?

Your actions then as an owner of a news network is one of irresponsiblity. The individuals responsible for the death are those who committed the act.

Redleg

02-09-2006, 00:29

Right. I try to be as charitable to your views as I can, but this is plain nonsense. What you are saying is that the cartoonists asked for the fanatic reactions. That is like saying women who wear short skirts ask for rape. Or that the U.S. should not complain about 9/11 because they 'asked' for it.

Try again - that is not what was stated. Here I will help you understand by repeating myself.

"Free Speech does not give one leave to state anyold thing they wish without facing the consequences of that speech."

If that is not what you meant, then what are you trying to communicate to planet Earth, Redleg?

Its rather simple really Adrian with Freedom comes responsiblity.

We are not getting your message. :vulcan:

Then you are not listening.

Redleg

02-09-2006, 00:30

AdrianII what is your view on libel, slander and lies?

I like freedom of speech for the ability to liberally tell truths. I don't agree with using it to deliberately misinform people.

Yes indeed at least one individual gets my point in a rather concise way.

Goofball

02-09-2006, 00:32

Okay, so let me present a hypothetical situation to see if I can clarify:

Let's imagine that I am the owner of GNN (Goofball News Network) and I post on my internationally viewed website a scathing editorial that says things like "Mohammed was a buggerist," and that I openly admit that my intent when posting the editorial was specifically to anger muslims. The next day, a crowd of angry muslims in New York (or wherever) pulls a random white guy out of his car and beats him to death while holding placards that quote my editorial, and they give their anger at the editorial as the reason they killed the man.

Am I responsible (even partly) for this guy's death?Your actions then as an owner of a news network is one of irresponsiblity. The individuals responsible for the death are those who committed the act.

Just so we are absolutely clear then: Though my remarks as the owner of the Goofball News Network (which, BTW, I like the sound of more and more every time I hear it:eyebrows: ) may have been mean-spirited, or irresponsible, or whatever you want to call them, they still do not make me in any way responsible for the innocent guy's death.

Correct?

Redleg

02-09-2006, 00:39

Just so we are absolutely clear then: Though my remarks as the owner of the Goofball News Network (which, BTW, I like the sound of more and more every time I hear it:eyebrows: ) may have been mean-spirited, or irresponsible, or whatever you want to call them, they still do not make me in any way responsible for the innocent guy's death.

Correct?

Did you deliberately set out to have the individuals kill someone else?

If you did not you acted in an irresponsible manner, but you are not responsible for the death of the innocent.

Your responsiblity for the death would fall if you advocated for an individual to be pulled from a car and beaten to death in your broadcast.

Now to take you anology one step farther and compare it to the current situation. After this event happen and I as the owner of the Redleg News Agency and report the events as they unfold. Which is acceptable and responsible journalism. And in doing so repeated the broadcast of the GNN to give the audience the complete story, I would be acting in a responsible manner.

However my brother at the Redneck News Network decides not only to report the news, but add an editorial talking about how backward and idiotic the community in question was, making slurs and libel statements toward that community to futher inflame that community and stir up others - then my brother network is acting in an irresponsible manner.

Adrian II

02-09-2006, 00:40

"Free Speech does not give one leave to state any old thing they wish without facing the consequences of that speech."You are confused.

Facing consequences is something entirely different from being responsible for consequences
In this particular case we are not talking about 'stating any old thing' -- we are talking about legitimate criticism of a religion

Redleg

02-09-2006, 01:32

You are confused.

Facing consequences is something entirely different from being responsible for consequences
In this particular case we are not talking about 'stating any old thing' -- we are talking about legitimate criticism of a religion

Actually I think the individual confused is yourself. You made a comment about someone not being able to criticize a method of free speech as being unacceptable. That is where I entered into the discussion. Freedom of Speech requires responsiblity is something I have stated several times.

Futhermore we are talking about several things to include the legitimate criticism of the method used to legitimately criticize a religion, that with Free Speech comes responsibility, and the irresponsible actions of both sides of the issue in this matter of Free Speech. To include that Religion can be legitimately criticized. [sarcasm on]However are you now still attempting to argue that drawing Muhammound (SP) as a bomb throwing terrorists is a legimate drawing of a man that did not have access to a bomb with a lite fuze back when he was alive? [/sarcasm off]

That is were I entered into the discussion - if one goes back and review what has been stated.

If it helps you understand the concept better by all means define it as being responsible for consequences. Facing means accepting responsiblility in the way that I used the term here.

Soulforged

02-09-2006, 04:24

No I disagree with the drawing - the method was to print the drawings in a newspaper. The drawings are an unacceptable message becasue they are a distortion, and the voicing of my opinion is that the newspaper did not exercise proper responsiblity in the the publication of the cartoons. Not so much the initial paper printing of them - but the subsequent printins.Oh now I see then. I was speaking on the method of protest. But then in this case I disagree with you. You might find it unacceptable, that doesn't make it unacceptable, because I already stated that it's absolute, the only exception might come when the exercise offends other people in their honor or enters their private life. This two exceptions are not of the type that the drawings express, is not an attack to an existing, living person, but to an idol's image. Responsability has nothing to do with journalism as far as I'm concerned, is just that responsability will obstaculize with their work.

You are incorrect. Freedom of Speech is not a concept that necessarily leads to revolution. People are always free to speak their minds in a responsible manner in most free societies. No need for a revolution to increase that freedom.This kind of riots look only for one thing, create a change in society. In this case they probably search that this kind of expressions are banned, so they want a revolution and they express in revolutionary ways. So this might be reduced to, is this a revolution or not? In the case that it's, is it worth it?

*Notice that the journalist in this case don't have to respond to anybody, they could continue to publish the pictures over and over, make them even more "unacceptable" and the ones that still would have to respond will be the rioters. The journalists are free from all guilt, I'm free for all guilt for insulting your religion and everyone's religion, as the other is free from guilt for returning the insult. If someone has to face consequences only because they explicity disagree with other's belief, then we might be living in an "unacceptable society".

Papewaio

02-09-2006, 04:42

Acceptance of their intolerance - it's all part of radical Islam's plan (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/acceptance-of-intolerance--part-of-radical-islams-plan/2006/02/08/1139379570331.html)

But while we accommodate the intolerant, we seem ever more determined to ferret out any whiff of intolerance in ourselves. Witness the calls this week by a Victorian teachers union for cultural re-education of children after a survey of 551 high school students found a majority had negative attitudes towards Muslims.

An editorial in The Age even attempted to excuse the inexcusable, saying of the survey results: "Little wonder many Muslims see the 'war on terror' as a war on them. Their community is besieged by hostility and suspicion, which helps explain why they want to make their hurt felt …"

Civilised people don't usually make their "hurt felt" by torching other people's embassies, stoning churches and waving the sort of banners reported at a protest over the cartoons in London last week: "Massacre those who insult Islam", "Europe, your 9/11 will come".

...

But antagonism to Western culture appears in more subtle forms. In Melbourne recently the first training course for home-grown Islamic religious leaders was launched at the Minaret College in Springvale, funded by a reported $1.8 million of taxpayer money.

While it says it embraces a moderate 21st-century form of Islam, the college features on its website a fatwa, or official ruling, from Sheik Yusof Al-Qaradawi, professor at the University of Qutar, who is banned from entering the US and Germany because of his support for terrorist groups. The letter calls for donations because educational institutions for Muslims outside the Muslim world are "castles for jihad and shields of protection from surrounding evils".

Teaching young Muslims that Australian society is evil is not a recipe for cultural harmony.

devinemiranda@hotmail.com

Miranda Devine is a bit right wing for my liking... she tends to skip a lot of contrary evidence to fit her preconcepted ideas on the whole... but from what she does select she makes a more compelling case then her cohorts... a type of writing that is more suitable to a lawyer then a journo IMDHO.

Redleg

02-09-2006, 06:38

Oh now I see then. I was speaking on the method of protest. But then in this case I disagree with you.

That is the nature of Freedom of Speech. I don't have to agree with you and I can state so. My responsiblity is to insure that I do not call for violence in the discourse between my belief and yours.

You might find it unacceptable, that doesn't make it unacceptable, because I already stated that it's absolute,

There is no absolute in Freedom of Speech. Each individual can speak their mind as long as they accept responsibility for there statements.

the only exception might come when the exercise offends other people in their honor or enters their private life. This two exceptions are not of the type that the drawings express, is not an attack to an existing, living person, but to an idol's image.

Granted. But that wasn't the issue that drew me to this discussion. Its the statements that claim that we can not find something unacceptable - which is just another attempt at censoring people's opinions that you do not agree with. I can state something is unacceptable - that is a criticism of the other individuals free speech. What I can not do is go perform violence against the individual. This is where being responsible comes into play. To exercise Freedom of Speech one must accept responsibility for thier speech. Without responsibility there is no freedom.

Responsability has nothing to do with journalism as far as I'm concerned, is just that responsability will obstaculize with their work.

Responsibility is the cornerstone of accurate journalism. If the journalist does not report the truth then they are just editorials and they should claim only that they are editorializing, not reporting.

This kind of riots look only for one thing, create a change in society. In this case they probably search that this kind of expressions are banned, so they want a revolution and they express in revolutionary ways. So this might be reduced to, is this a revolution or not? In the case that it's, is it worth it?

And they should be squashed for rioting. Responsible Free Speech requires the individual to be civil in their discourse. Passion in the discussion is acceptable - violence is not.

*Notice that the journalist in this case don't have to respond to anybody, they could continue to publish the pictures over and over, make them even more "unacceptable" and the ones that still would have to respond will be the rioters. The journalists are free from all guilt, I'm free for all guilt for insulting your religion and everyone's religion, as the other is free from guilt for returning the insult. If someone has to face consequences only because they explicity disagree with other's belief, then we might be living in an "unacceptable society".

Difference of opinion. Irresponsible journalism has started wars before. Read up on Yellow Journalism.

Adrian II

02-09-2006, 08:10

I don't have to agree with you and I can state so. My responsiblity is to insure that I do not call for violence in the discourse between my belief and yours.OK, we are getting there. Do you accept the paper's right to print the cartoons? Do you accept that cartoonists should not have to fear for their lives for expressing their opinion? And you accept that people who burn embassies and call for mass murder should be held responsible for their crimes? If you answer yes to all three, welcome to the club.

TinCow

02-09-2006, 13:26

Adrian II

02-09-2006, 13:55

Sjakihata

02-09-2006, 15:21

As long as 'good manners' doesnt equal not to critisize Islam at all.

Redleg

02-09-2006, 17:54

OK, we are getting there. Do you accept the paper's right to print the cartoons? Do you accept that cartoonists should not have to fear for their lives for expressing their opinion? And you accept that people who burn embassies and call for mass murder should be held responsible for their crimes? If you answer yes to all three, welcome to the club.

I have been there all along Adrian, the problem is that in your statements you do not want people to criticize other's freedom of speech. As noted with the comment you directed at Soly which brought me into this discussion.

The point has always been that within the concept of Free Speech the person who makes the speech needs to be responsible for their speech. In accepting that responsibility - they must also accept that some people will find their message unacceptable and will voice their criticism of that speech. Stating that several could not state that the cartoons were unacceptable - The statement of finding something unacceptable does not deny you the right to print or say what you like, it only states that the reciever finds it unacceptable. The only time your right would be denied is if someone did by action to remove your ability to free speech. Ie the government censors your message, or someone causes harm to your person.

As stated several times Freedom of Speech is a double edge sword.

Redleg

02-09-2006, 17:56

I think Redleg is talking about a type of personal moral responsibility that is separate from a societal or legal one. That seems to me to be applying good manners to free speech and I can't see how I could possibly find fault with that.

Yes indeed - Freedom of Speech requires responsibility.

At all levels.

Personal
Community
Society
National
Legal Code.

Redleg

02-09-2006, 17:58

As long as 'good manners' doesnt equal not to critisize Islam at all.

I didn't say you had to be nice in your criticism - just that you must take responsibility for your speech.

Goofball

02-09-2006, 17:58

I think Redleg is talking about a type of personal moral responsibility that is separate from a societal or legal one. That seems to me to be applying good manners to free speech and I can't see how I could possibly find fault with that.

The only time you could find fault with that would be if journalists were to let "good manners" get in the way of printing the truth.

For example, a man getting hummer from a chubby intern outside of marriage is not typically a topic that is discussed politely over tea and scones with your local vicar, but I don't think anybody would say that the press has no business printing stories about it when the man in question is the President of the United States.

InsaneApache

02-09-2006, 17:59

Looks like the EU is looking to muzzle the press now, albeit under a 'voluntary' code of conduct.

EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini has called on the media across the European Union to adopt a voluntary code of conduct to prevent such rows in the future.

here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4697286.stm)

and guess what?.......

Meanwhile the Malaysian government shut down indefinitely a Borneo-based paper, the Sarawak Tribune, after it reprinted the cartoons on Saturday.

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi described their publication as "insensitive and irresponsible". The paper had apologised for what it called an editorial oversight.:laugh4:

If we kowtow to this pressure, then expect to see more of this is the West. Scary thought.

Redleg

02-09-2006, 18:01

The only time you could find fault with that would be if journalists were to let "good manners" get in the way of printing the truth.

For example, a man getting hummer from a chubby intern outside of marriage is not typically a topic that is discussed politely over tea and scones with your local vicar, but I don't think anybody would say that the press has no business printing stories about it when the man in question is the President of the United States.

Printing the truth is one of the fundmental truism of Freedom of Speech.

It doesn't have to be pretty, it doesn't have to be nice, and it can often be the ugliest thing you can image. But in expressing your Freedom of Speech you must accept the responsiblity that comes along with it.

Adrian II

02-09-2006, 18:05

I have been there all along Adrian, the problem is that in your statements you do not want people to criticize other's freedom of speech.I see you are still confused.

I want to preserve freedom of expression, regardless of which expression Redleg finds acceptable or unacceptable. In this whole affair, the death threats and religious hysteria are the scandal, not the cartoons. Anyone who shifts the blame is seriously misguided.

Redleg

02-09-2006, 18:39

I see you are still confused.

Again not at all - it seems you are still attempting a strawman arguement about my statements.

I want to preserve freedom of expression, regardless of which expression Redleg finds acceptable or unacceptable. In this whole affair, the death threats and religious hysteria are the scandal, not the cartoons. Anyone who shifts the blame is seriously misguided.

No shifting of blame has been done, just a pointing out the fact that criticism happens, what others find acceptable, others will find unacceptable and express that opinion.

What has been discussed is that individuals have a personal responsiblity when exercising Freedom of Speech. And within that responsibility they must accept that others will criticise their speech as unacceptable.

The blame for violence falls purely on those who do violence. The only shifting of blame in a free speech issue is if the intent of the publication was to incite violence.

Like stated before - What was the intent of the subsequent printings of the cartoons were done to inform or to incite? One is upholding the responsiblity of Freedom of Speech, the other is doing something else. The blame for the violence remains on those you do the violence. Responsiblity for those that print the cartoons in subsequent printings rests squarely on the intent of those individuals.

Speaking of the double edge sword.

One could state that the Danish Muslims touring in the Middle East are using the cartoons for the express purpose of informing others of the hostility toward muslims that happens in Denmark. One could also state that they believe that the Saudi Clerics are using the cartoons to distract others from the failures and problems of the recent holy season at Mecca. Neither method would be problem if one did not want to take responsibility for what they stated. Free Speech does not mean freedom from responsiblity.

I could safely state that I question the intent of the subsequent printings in Europe, since I haven't seen the discussion mentioned about what their intent behind publishing the cartoons are. On the surface the actions of the subsequent printings in Europe fall in line with what is happening in the Middle-East in regards to the cartoons.

Hmm I wonder if I should mention the riots in France and about the preceptions of how Europe treats outsiders especially muslims?

If the muslims in France drew a picture of Chirac with a boot on an arab boy's neck be an acceptable expression of Freedom of Speech? Would it draw responses of being unacceptable? Would it have been drawn with the intent to incite others?
[/spoil]

It seems to me that the one confused is yourself.

Lemur

02-09-2006, 19:05

Important side note, and I don't think anybody's raised it yet -- we have to stop publishing Dante's Inferno. Immediately. Or face the wrath of the Muslim world.

In Canto 28, Page 237, line 30, Mohammed must spend eternity tearing himself apart, as this is his punishment in Hell. It's safe to say that Dante was not using his freedom of speech responsibly. Or rather that Penguin and other publishers of the classics aren't respecting another religion.

Dante depicts both Mohammed and his cousin and son-in-law Ali as sowers of religious divisiveness. Dante creates a vicious composite portrait of the two holy men, with Mohammed's body split from groin to chin and Ali's face cleft from top to bottom. If that isn't insensitive, I don't know what is.

Anybody who's arguing that the original cartoons were derelict in their responsible use of free speech, please add Dante to your list. We'd better yank Inferno off the shelves post-haste.

Adrian II

02-09-2006, 19:19

Like stated before - What was the intent of the subsequent printings of the cartoons were done to inform or to incite? One is upholding the responsiblity of Freedom of Speech, the other is doing something else.Not quite there yet. You still blame the rape on the woman's unacceptably short skirt, see? Leave that part out, then you can pontificate about responsibility as much you want.

Redleg

02-09-2006, 19:32

Not quite there yet. You still blame the rape on the woman's unacceptably short skirt, see? Leave that part out, then you can pontificate about responsibility as much you want.

Once again I have always been there when it regards Freedom of Speech and the responsiblities that go with it.

Again with a strawman arguement. Did I blame a woman's rape on her short skirt? Nowhere can I find such a statement. Once you begin to resort to strawman arguements - I know that you have no understanding of personal responsiblity and freedom of speech. Says alot about the journalism profession now doesn't? (Two can play that game Adrian that your attempting here.)

Now are you attempting to quantify the intent of the cartoons is the same as the intent of the woman who express your freedom by wearing a short skirt?

A possible intent of the woman is for letting men look at the shape of her body. Her intent here is not to incite a violent act. Could she go into an unacceptable shortness with her skirt, to some she might - but that only gives them the right under Freedom of Speech to express their opinion about the length of her skirt. Nothing else.

The intent of the individual who drew Mohummand wearing a bomb as a headdress is questionable. Was it a free expression of criticism of the Islamic faith - or was it an attempt to incite those either of the faith or not of the faith? The answer is not known by the auidence because the name of the artist seems to be annoymous (but then I haven't read the article in question in its completeness. Something to do with what languages I can not read.)

What was the intent of the publication of the cartoon - was it to inform (which is what I stated I believe the intial publication was about) or was it to incite. (which is the question about the subsequent printings).

With Freedom comes responsibility.

Cronos Impera

02-09-2006, 19:32

TinCow

02-09-2006, 19:36

Yes indeed - Freedom of Speech requires responsibility.

At all levels.

Personal
Community
Society
National
Legal Code.

Ah, now this is where it deviates. The problem is that these levels have different requirements when it comes to responsibility. You can't just say "responsibility" and expect everyone to instantly pop out similar definitions of right and wrong without specifying which level you are referring to.

Redleg

02-09-2006, 19:45

Ah, now this is where it deviates. The problem is that these levels have different requirements when it comes to responsibility.

Yes there are different levels of responsibility.

You can't just say "responsibility" and expect everyone to instantly pop out similar definitions of right and wrong without specifying which level you are referring to.

DIdn't say it was easy did I?

I know that was a little harsh - but Freedom and the responsiblity that goes with it is not easy nor is it simple. I don't expect everyone to understand what I am saying because it does involve many different levels. But when the discussion comes up - everyone always assumes that Freedom of Speech means you can say whatever, however, and whenever you wish without regard to the responsiblity that goes with it.

If your unwilling to accept Freedom at a personal level and the responsiblity that comes with it, how can you expect the community, the society, the nation, and the legal profession to do the same?

Yellow journalism is alive and well in most journalistic circles - and they often refuse to accept responsibility for their irresponsable style of reporting.

For those who can't figure this statement out - do a little research on Yellow Journalism. Such drawings and the publication of those drawings fall well within the scope of what concept.

A.Saturnus

02-09-2006, 19:56

A fool throws a stone and five wisemen can't pick it up.

Those cartoons of Mohamed ware a foolish thing, foolish indeed. If that newspaper was looking for trouble, they got it. If you sit near a zerk, you don't taunt him, you don't taunt him.
Those muslims went zerkand unfortunately Scandinavia and all Western World suffered. This wasn't freedom of speech, this was a foolish mistake.
If a guy wants to mess with catholics, he draws a caricature of martyrs. If you make a charicature don't use a generally reveared religious figure.

The Western World suffered? I didn't notice anything. All people killed during the riots up to now were muslims. As always the victims of muslim fundamentalism are mostly muslims.
BTW, the sells of the Jyllands-Posten have recently skyrocketed.

Ser Clegane

02-09-2006, 22:51

An interview with Tariq Ramadan (muslim scholar, currently lecturing in the UK)

"We have to turn up the volume of reason" (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399965,00.html)

Papewaio

02-09-2006, 23:18

A possible intent of the woman is for letting men look at the shape of her body. Her intent here is not to incite a violent act. Could she go into an unacceptable shortness with her skirt, to some she might - but that only gives them the right under Freedom of Speech to express their opinion about the length of her skirt. Nothing else.

The intent of the individual who drew Mohummand wearing a bomb as a headdress is questionable. Was it a free expression of criticism of the Islamic faith - or was it an attempt to incite those either of the faith or not of the faith? The answer is not known by the auidence because the name of the artist seems to be annoymous (but then I haven't read the article in question in its completeness. Something to do with what languages I can not read.)

What was the intent of the publication of the cartoon - was it to inform (which is what I stated I believe the intial publication was about) or was it to incite. (which is the question about the subsequent printings).

With Freedom comes responsibility.

Surely those protesting the cartoons are able to express their opinion in the manner of marching and voicing it.

However I do not think the cartoons give them the right to violence. The violent perps have to take responsibility for that themselves.

At a larger scale level, I don't think newspapers are publishing them to incite violence anywhere as much as they are publishing the cartoons to show that they will not be muzzled and that two essential freedoms on which Western civilisation is based on are not thrown away in a fit of PC idiocy.

The right to individual freedom of speech and the right for newspapers to print all sides of a story be they in agreement or disagreement with the government or corporations or insitutions of the day. The ability for information to freely flow is why our civilisation is advancing, it is also a requirement that citizens in a democracy make informed choices. By removing the ability to freely get informaiton we are limiting our own democratic abilities.

As for those wishing to inflame and cause riots that can be laid squarely at the Imans from Denmark that went to the Middle East with the 12 cartoons plus 3 others that they added. The extra 3 where of a far worse type... beastality, pig-human etc. All 15 cartoons where purposely taken out of context and the orginal message oblivated in attempts to make Middle Eastern Muslims angry.

So if anyone should be held up for lack of responsibility it should be these Imans. They also if Danish citizens should be done for slander and incitement to violence. And if anyone in Denmark dies from terrorist attacks then I would slap them with inciting terrorist attacks...not sure if that counts as treason... but it could be construed as such... if you are inciting violence against a country that you are a citizen of.

Redleg

02-10-2006, 00:26

Surely those protesting the cartoons are able to express their opinion in the manner of marching and voicing it.

Which is exactly one of my points.

However I do not think the cartoons give them the right to violence. The violent perps have to take responsibility for that themselves.

Yes indeed - again one of the points I have been making.

At a larger scale level, I don't think newspapers are publishing them to incite violence anywhere as much as they are publishing the cartoons to show that they will not be muzzled and that two essential freedoms on which Western civilisation is based on are not thrown away in a fit of PC idiocy.

Or are they particapating in Yellow Journalism?

Being against Yellow Journalism is not PC idiocy. The whole scenerio starting with the publication of the initial cartoons and all the subsequent news, editiorials and comments in the press smacks of Yellow Journalism.

The right to individual freedom of speech and the right for newspapers to print all sides of a story be they in agreement or disagreement with the government or corporations or insitutions of the day. The ability for information to freely flow is why our civilisation is advancing, it is also a requirement that citizens in a democracy make informed choices. By removing the ability to freely get informaiton we are limiting our own democratic abilities.

Good thing I don't advocate the removal of the ability to exercise Free Speech. All I advocate is that with Freedom of Speech comes responsiblity.

As for those wishing to inflame and cause riots that can be laid squarely at the Imans from Denmark that went to the Middle East with the 12 cartoons plus 3 others that they added. The extra 3 where of a far worse type... beastality, pig-human etc. All 15 cartoons where purposely taken out of context and the orginal message oblivated in attempts to make Middle Eastern Muslims angry.

Yellow Journalism by the papers in the Middle-east and irresponsible use of Free Speech by the Imans involved is indeed one of the issues in this thread. I find it interesting that an Iran based paper is now running the same type of contest - and will pratice the same Yellow Journalism technique as demonstrated by the Danish Paper. It seems some in the West have no problem with the Danish paper doing such an act, but are questioning the validity of an Iran based paper doing the same thing.

So if anyone should be held up for lack of responsibility it should be these Imans. They also if Danish citizens should be done for slander and incitement to violence. And if anyone in Denmark dies from terrorist attacks then I would slap them with inciting terrorist attacks...not sure if that counts as treason... but it could be construed as such... if you are inciting violence against a country that you are a citizen of.

Yes indeed those who advocate violence need to be dealt with when it comes to matters of Free Speech. Again one of my points.

One of the trademark scenerio's of Yellow Journalism is what we are seeing with the publication of the cartoons and the subsequent story following it.

Papewaio

02-10-2006, 00:41

Redleg

02-10-2006, 01:22

Its not Yellow Journalism on behalf of the Danish paper because there is easy access to other points of view. YJ really is a problem when only a limited set of media is available and that media is beholden to the owner and/or government. In an environment where there is a plethora of alternative media someone publishing a caricuture is no where in the same league as an editiorial in a monopoly media zone.

You are mistaken - Yellow Journalism happens regardless of wether there are other easy access points of view. Shall I provide some backup material - lets just to make sure.

From Wikipedia

Yellow journalism is a term given to any widespread tendencies or practices within media organizations that are detrimental to, or substandard from the point of view of, journalistic integrity. "Yellow journalism" may for example refer to sensationalized news reporting that bears only a superficial resemblance to journalism. Journalistic professionalism, as now understood, is the supposed antidote. Today the phrase media bias is often used instead of "yellow journalism", with similar but subtly different meaning.

The term, as it commonly applies, refers to news organizations for whom sensationalism, profiteering, and in some cases propaganda and jingoism, take dominance over factual reporting. Most cases tend to be related to journalistic bias, and the endemic practices of particular organizations to operate as mouthpieces, for rather limited and particular allegiances, rather than for the public trust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

No mention of government or ownership there. Okay lets try other sources.

Or how about PBS

Yellow journals like the New York Journal and the New York World relied on sensationalist headlines to sell newspapers. William Randolph Hearst understood that a war with Cuba would not only sell his papers, but also move him into a position of national prominence. From Cuba, Hearst's star reporters wrote stories designed to tug at the heartstrings of Americans. Horrific tales described the situation in Cuba--female prisoners, executions, valiant rebels fighting, and starving women and children figured in many of the stories that filled the newspapers. But it was the sinking of the battleship Maine in Havana Harbor that gave Hearst his big story--war. After the sinking of the Maine, the Hearst newspapers, with no evidence, unequivocally blamed the Spanish, and soon U.S. public opinion demanded intervention.

http://www.pbs.org/crucible/journalism.html

Now there is the mention of ownership and the desire to sell papers based upon sensationalist of the headline. So are you attempting to state that the Danish newspaper does not have an owner desiring to sell his paper? (I know a strawman, but I could not help myself.)

So the drawing of the bomb in the prophet's hat was not meant to stir the heartstrings?

And finally a third source to verify that yes indeed the Danish Paper seems to be usingYellow Journalism along with several other publications and nations.

Yellow journalism, in short, is biased opinion masquerading as objective fact. Moreover, the practice of yellow journalism involved sensationalism, distorted stories, and misleading images for the sole purpose of boosting newspaper sales and exciting public opinion. It was particularly indicative of two papers founded and popularized in the late 19th century- The New York World, run by Joseph Pulitzer and The New York Journal, run by William Randolph Hearst.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/spanamer/yellow.htm

Yep Free Speech is a double edge sword - personally I don't have a problem with papers that use Yellow Journalism because I utilize my rights under Freedom of Speech and refuse to buy their papers.

Once again the whole business show how correct Thomas Jefferson was about the news media and the people who only read the paper.

Papewaio

02-10-2006, 01:29

Caricutures are quite different from editorials.

Caricutures are very well known to be vehicles of satire. Satire of political figures is part and parcel of free speech. Showing a bomb in the turban is what I would call satirical cartoons. I don't think it was particularly witty but it certainly exposed a folly of modern adherents of Islam who are suicide bombers.

Editorials are supposed to be educated opinion on an event. If they use substandard facts or sensationalism they would be termed yellow journalism.
Editorials have problems when they are hiding the reason for the work... payed ed pieces, print or be fired, don't print or be fired, no factual evidence for back up.

Redleg

02-10-2006, 01:54

Caricutures are quite different from editorials.

Yes indeed they are - however it is a journalistic method is it not, especially when most are included on the editorial page of the newspaper.

Caricutures are very well known to be vehicles of satire. Satire of political figures is part and parcel of free speech. Showing a bomb in the turban is what I would call satirical cartoons. I don't think it was particularly witty but it certainly exposed a folly of modern adherents of Islam who are suicide bombers.

Yes indeed its not witty - but it sells papers when one publishes the material based upon a contest.

Editorials are supposed to be educated opinion on an event. If they use substandard facts or sensationalism they would be termed yellow journalism.
Editorials have problems when they are hiding the reason for the work... payed ed pieces, print or be fired, don't print or be fired, no factual evidence for back up.

Caricutures are part of the editorial process. I don't particularily pay attention to them for the primary reason that they do not offer a solution nor do they accurately protray the problem.

However maybe the Danish paper is not particapating in Yellow Journalism in a overt method. They did have a stated purpose to the contest. The contest was based upon a precieved fear of the Danes, the contest was driven to help sell the newspaper. Again while it might not be overt - it smacks of Yellow Journalism when looked at from a distance.

Their are other papers however that are definitily practicing Yellow Journalism with this story. Both in Europe and in the Middle-East.

Soulforged

02-10-2006, 04:28

Or are they particapating in Yellow Journalism?
I don't considerate this to be "Yellow" in any sense of the term.
Now Red, without reducing this discussion to meaningless observations of personal intentions and internal will: Objectively considered, are those pictures offensive? If you're reducing all the arrows of responsability pointing at the single problem of disgusting and false journalism (or with an intended purpose of bad faith), wich of course you can't be sure right now, then you're only making assumptions. In the repited actitudes of the journalists I could see simple freedom of speech, and you could argue that they've ro respond for something. But considered objectively, is there something extraordinary, or something that should be banned, in this expression? If you still think that they should respond, then in what manner?

Redleg

02-10-2006, 06:17

I don't considerate this to be "Yellow" in any sense of the term.
Now Red, without reducing this discussion to meaningless observations of personal intentions and internal will: Objectively considered, are those pictures offensive?

The one with the prophet with a bomb in his headdress crosses the line, the rest I find tasteless, crude, rather racist, and idiotic. They show the typical fear of a racist society that instead of attempting to solve the problems of conflicting personal and cultural values - they resort to petty character assissnation. (I am sure these statements will upset some European posters - but what the hell you asked my opinion of the drawings.)

If you're reducing all the arrows of responsability pointing at the single problem of disgusting and false journalism (or with an intended purpose of bad faith), wich of course you can't be sure right now, then you're only making assumptions.

Sure I am only making assumptions based upon observations and behavior exhibit by the media in this situation.

In the repited actitudes of the journalists I could see simple freedom of speech, and you could argue that they've ro respond for something. But considered objectively, is there something extraordinary, or something that should be banned, in this expression? If you still think that they should respond, then in what manner?

I see a different aspect because of the nature of the contest, the follow-up publication of the cartoons because of the up roar they created by the Yellow Journalism of several Mid-East papers, and the irresponsible free speech of the Danish Imans.

However none of those things are prosecutable in a court of law unless one can prove malicous intent to provoke and incite violence. Those that do that should have the full measure of the law thrown at them and their right to free speech removed.

Kralizec

02-10-2006, 11:10

The issue is not wether the cartoon is tasteless. The riots that have occurred because of it are the issue.

If I say something insensitive or even racist, I can expect to be rebuked and be disliked by the listeners. If a newspaper does something like that, the consequenses are potentially worse- they'll be accused of populist journalism, receive tons of hateful mail and could lose a lot of subscriptions. Assuming there was no malicious intent of course, in wich case the newspaper might have comitted a criminal offense. But I don't think that is the case.

Yillands Posten has been slandered, boycotted and flooded with angry letters over the caricatures. That this is perfectly acceptable is obvious and is disputed by no one.
Everything else that happened because of it is unreasonable. Even the most dispicable yellow journalism (let's say for example, making fun of the holocaust?) can't reasonably be considered the cause for the systematic torching of buildings and beating of foreigners, you know, like the stuff that's going on in the middle east.

That's what Adrians short skirt comparison is about. These people know no self restraint. According to some, women who don't dress themselves head to toe in conceiling clothes are free game. They cause sexual desires with men, and because of that the rape is their own fault, according to these people.
Satirical caricatures and promiscuous clothing are of course not perfectly analagous, but the point is that both call for some instinctive reaction. But acting on those instinctive thoughts is not reasonable. Yillands Posten is no more responsible for all the violence that has occurrded then the rape victim is for her own trauma. In both cases, the actual perpetrators should have shown more self restraint.

If you're a woman, knowing that there's always a chance that people will see your short skirt as a sexual provocation, should you refrain from using your freedom to clothe yourself according to your own wishes?
If you're a newspaper owner, knowing that there's always a chance, no matter how small, that a certain publication will be taken out of context, blown out of proportion and abused for the political goals of a few radical minds, should you refrain from exercising the freedom of press?

Adrian II

02-10-2006, 12:16

Redleg

02-10-2006, 13:26

Apparently you have not seen the twelve cartoons, or else you would not write this. One of the cartoons even satirizes the newspaper Jyllands-Posten instead of Mohammed. If you want to offer a worthwhile opinion on the issue you should at least know what it is about. So forgive me if I no longer respond to your attempts.

Edit: Bingo we have a winnr. I knew the statement would make you upset Adrian the cartoons exhibit all those traits in a general way. Some attempt to be cleaver but prove the overall impression as being wrong.

It seems at least one European does not want to face the issue of racism within the White European community.

Now Tell me again that I am incorrect if you can.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/danish_muslim_cartoons

You are beginning to sound just like the people you are criticising.

Redleg

02-10-2006, 13:40

The issue is not wether the cartoon is tasteless. The riots that have occurred because of it are the issue.

Again I don't condone their violence - prosecute them to the full extent of the law. Unfortunately most of it is done in the Middle-East where this behavior is tolerated because it directed at the west.

If I say something insensitive or even racist, I can expect to be rebuked and be disliked by the listeners. If a newspaper does something like that, the consequenses are potentially worse- they'll be accused of populist journalism, receive tons of hateful mail and could lose a lot of subscriptions. Assuming there was no malicious intent of course, in wich case the newspaper might have comitted a criminal offense. But I don't think that is the case.

Again one must know the intent of the paper to make a criminal case. I think from looking at the pictures and the nature of the contest the intent was not malicous but done to sell papers - that makes it questionable in its responsiblity but not criminal.

Yillands Posten has been slandered, boycotted and flooded with angry letters over the caricatures. That this is perfectly acceptable is obvious and is disputed by no one.

Yes indeed all are acceptable except for the slander.

Everything else that happened because of it is unreasonable. Even the most dispicable yellow journalism (let's say for example, making fun of the holocaust?) can't reasonably be considered the cause for the systematic torching of buildings and beating of foreigners, you know, like the stuff that's going on in the middle east.

And the people doing such activities are wrong.

That's what Adrians short skirt comparison is about. These people know no self restraint. According to some, women who don't dress themselves head to toe in conceiling clothes are free game. They cause sexual desires with men, and because of that the rape is their own fault, according to these people.
Satirical caricatures and promiscuous clothing are of course not perfectly analagous, but the point is that both call for some instinctive reaction. But acting on those instinctive thoughts is not reasonable. Yillands Posten is no more responsible for all the violence that has occurrded then the rape victim is for her own trauma. In both cases, the actual perpetrators should have shown more self restraint.

I have not stated they are responsible for the violence - I am saying the paper and its owner acted irresponsible. In order to sell papers they sunk to a base level and printed racist material based upon fear and lets face it the inablity to co-exist with people they don't understand, nor want to understand. I am willing to bet that the muslim community that migrated to Denmark are in their own little community completely divorced from the rest of the Danish Community. But I could be wrong.

If you're a woman, knowing that there's always a chance that people will see your short skirt as a sexual provocation, should you refrain from using your freedom to clothe yourself according to your own wishes?

Not a woman so I can't answer that question.

If you're a newspaper owner, knowing that there's always a chance, no matter how small, that a certain publication will be taken out of context, blown out of proportion and abused for the political goals of a few radical minds, should you refrain from exercising the freedom of press?

If its a news story - ie based completely on facts the paper has an obligation to print it. Regardless of the possiblity of offending a small percentage of people. If its yellow journalism maybe they need to think on thier actions before proceding.

InsaneApache

02-10-2006, 18:02

Well, well, well, it's happening faster than I thought.

The site's host, Levonline, pulled the plug on the website of the Swedish Democrats' SD-Kuriren newspaper after consulting with the government.

It is believed to be the first time a Western government has intervened to block a publication in the growing row.

Kuriren editor Richard Jomshof said the government was breaking the law.

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4700414.stm)

Dark days lay ahead. I especially liked this little titbit.

"I will defend freedom of the press no matter what the circumstances, but I strongly condemn the provocation by SD-Kuriren. It displays a complete lack of respect," she said in a statement.

err...no you didn't, haven't, won't, you just muzzled it. As for respect, I was brought up to believe that it is something you earn.

The politicos are shitting themselves, bending over backward to appease the backward.

Redleg

02-10-2006, 18:59

Well, well, well, it's happening faster than I thought.

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4700414.stm)

Dark days lay ahead. I especially liked this little titbit.

err...no you didn't, haven't, won't, you just muzzled it. As for respect, I was brought up to believe that it is something you earn.

The politicos are shitting themselves, bending over backward to appease the backward.

Did the government provide enough evidence to support the conclusion that the intent of the site and the publication was to advocate violence concerning the issue at hand?

If the answer is yes then the government acted according to the basic charter of any democratic government.

If the answer is no - then its just a form of censorship.

InsaneApache

02-10-2006, 19:38

Did the government provide enough evidence to support the conclusion that the intent of the site and the publication was to advocate violence concerning the issue at hand?

If the answer is yes then the government acted according to the basic charter of any democratic government.

If the answer is no - then its just a form of censorship.

To be honest I have no idea, but I do know this. If the Swedish government had any evidence why wasn't it presented in a court of law?

It's just pressure from the Government. I'm surprised at you RL, as someone from the USA, you of all people know the dangers that an overbearing state can bring.

Watch this space for more capitulations to mob rule.

:shame:

Redleg

02-10-2006, 21:13

To be honest I have no idea, but I do know this. If the Swedish government had any evidence why wasn't it presented in a court of law?

That is the problem, the information is not available. I can't find mention of a court proceeding either, which would make the governmental action questionable. But I am not fimiliar with the exact nature of Sweden's laws concerning Freedom of Speech.

It's just pressure from the Government. I'm surprised at you RL, as someone from the USA, you of all people know the dangers that an overbearing state can bring.

Yes indeed the pressure of the government to influence our daily life can be overbearing at times. Which is why the government must prove intent before it stops a Free Speech issue.

Watch this space for more capitulations to mob rule.

:shame:

Oh it will get worse from both sides because of the effects of irresponsible behavior of multiple agencies and people regarding this issue. Kinds of reminds me of what I have read concerning the lead up to the Spanish-American War.

Duke Malcolm

02-10-2006, 21:39

Watch this space for more capitulations to mob rule.

:shame:

There would be protest 'round about here if the government or courts tried to do anything like the Swedish case here...My little band of comrades would happily protest against it... And without burning down Tayside House or the Dundee Labour Parliamentary Office...

InsaneApache

02-10-2006, 22:10

There would be protest 'round about here if the government or courts tried to do anything like the Swedish case here...My little band of comrades would happily protest against it... And without burning down Tayside House or the Dundee Labour Parliamentary Office...

Steady now lads, let's put our faith in our electoral system.

Soulforged

02-11-2006, 03:45

The one with the prophet with a bomb in his headdress crosses the line, the rest I find tasteless, crude, rather racist, and idiotic. They show the typical fear of a racist society that instead of attempting to solve the problems of conflicting personal and cultural values - they resort to petty character assissnation. (I am sure these statements will upset some European posters - but what the hell you asked my opinion of the drawings.)Oh dear...Well I'm not entering that one.

I see a different aspect because of the nature of the contest, the follow-up publication of the cartoons because of the up roar they created by the Yellow Journalism of several Mid-East papers, and the irresponsible free speech of the Danish Imans. Then I'll need your definition of responsability. As I know it responsability refers to the capacity of response, the ability to respond. The journalists are responding, they're posting the images again and again. What you can argue, in my opinion, is if this is the correct response or if this is the wrong response. I say that this is the correct response, they show their apreciation for freedom of speech, and that nothing will hold them in their "mission" if you want. Your possition appears to portray that the journalist should respond by taking the pictures away, stop their publication and then, perhaps, apolagize. This possition only shows that when a form of expression, no matter how childish, idiotic or careless it's, conflicts with others (expressions) or with belief, then there's no more freedom of speech. I mean if my last interpretation is wrong then I really am lost with your concept of responsability.

Redleg

02-11-2006, 06:22

Oh dear...Well I'm not entering that one.

It teach you to be careful what you ask for. Blunt honesty is normally where I go when someone wants my opinion.

Then I'll need your definition of responsability. As I know it responsability refers to the capacity of response, the ability to respond.

ITs really easy to figure out. Take a look at any book that talks about responsiblity and being responsible for your actions.

The journalists are responding, they're posting the images again and again.

Yes indeed they are responding - but are they thinking. Are they acting responsible.

What you can argue, in my opinion, is if this is the correct response or if this is the wrong response.

Again its not about response but responsibility.

I say that this is the correct response, they show their apreciation for freedom of speech, and that nothing will hold them in their "mission" if you want. Your possition appears to portray that the journalist should respond by taking the pictures away, stop their publication and then, perhaps, apolagize.

And you are incorrect about my position.

This possition only shows that when a form of expression, no matter how childish, idiotic or careless it's, conflicts with others (expressions) or with belief, then there's no more freedom of speech. I mean if my last interpretation is wrong then I really am lost with your concept of responsability.

And again you are incorrect about my postion.

Ironside

02-11-2006, 11:52

Well, well, well, it's happening faster than I thought.

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4700414.stm)

Dark days lay ahead. I especially liked this little titbit.

err...no you didn't, haven't, won't, you just muzzled it. As for respect, I was brought up to believe that it is something you earn.

The politicos are shitting themselves, bending over backward to appease the backward.

Well the article forgets to mention Säpo:s involvment in this. Basically Säpo (the security police) asked for the shutdown to protect the creators of the site (and presumly also Swedes in the middle east) and then informed the goverment what had been done.
The goverment agreed to the decition after being informed by both Säpo and UD (the foregin department).

The issue will probably go up in court to consider if this was legal or not.

Duke Malcolm

02-11-2006, 15:10

Steady now lads, let's put our faith in our electoral system.

I wouldn't expect Dundee City Council to do much... They regularly kowtow to the will of the Islamic minority over the majority. My school's former Annex is to become an Islamic Cultural Centre subsidised by the taxpayer. The Dundee Central Mosque was subsidised by the Council if not paid for in its entirety by the Council. The Council prevents any follow-up of the regular complaints of Breach of the Peace and such about goings on at and around the cities 3 mosques, in day and night. The Council's Education Department now have us studying Islam more than Christianity in R.E.. And regardless of Council desires to have them integrate they rather gather themselveds into Cliques...

Adrian II

02-11-2006, 18:04

I wouldn't expect Dundee City Council to do much... They regularly kowtow to the will of the Islamic minority over the majority.That may be so, but the overall picture of Muslim demonstrations today is extremely reassuring. A few thousand in London, a few thousand in Paris, a few hundred in Amsterdam. Overall, I think European Muslims accept that they will have to live with freedom of speech, even if they don't like some of its consequences, and they certainly don't feel the urge to promote the agenda of Mssrs Mubarak, Assad and Ahmedinejad who are presently vying for leadership of the 'civilisational clash' we are witnessing (not).

Not all quiet Muslims are offended Muslims, by the way. I asked a Farsi exile in Amsterdam today whether he was going to demonstrate. His answer: 'The [insert veterinarian expletive] in Tehran killed my sister in 1984 and since that day they can stuff their [insert same] Prophet up their [insert series of famously juicy Iranian expressions].'

Heh... be well, my friend F. ~:)

Louis VI the Fat

02-11-2006, 18:42

Yes, the reactions of a vast majority of muslims here have been very calm and reassuring. No riots, mostly an acceptence of or quiet acquiesce to the liberties that a free press allows.

Viking

02-11-2006, 22:48

This is just in:

https://img154.imageshack.us/img154/4339/dronning2xart8589gd.jpg

:2thumbsup: :laugh4:

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/11/457510.html (Norwegian article)

Dâriûsh

02-11-2006, 23:28

Ridiculous... :no:

Anyway, this is an interesting article:

From King Louis to Khomeini
Absolute rulers fear cartoonists more than the hydrogen bomb

February 11, 2006

Long before there was a row over Prophet Muhammad caricatures published by Jyllands-Posten Publication there was a cartoonist in Iran by the name of Manouchehr Karimzadeh who was handed down a ten-year sentence by the Islamic Revolutionary Court in 1992. His crime was depicting a character resembling the late Ayatollah Khomeini.

The cartoon appeared in the science magazine Farad, showing a soccer player with his left leg either bent or missing, and his right hand blurred in the motion of the play, making it difficult to decipher whether one or both limbs were missing or amputated. The player’s hair resembled a turban and his face was similar to that of the late Ayatollah Khomeini.

The article that accompanied the cartoon was critical of the state of soccer in Iran. Farad Magazine was banned and all copies of the magazine were removed from newsstands.

It was apparent that the purpose of the cartoon was to criticize the Islamic Republic for the bad state of the sport in Iran. However the artist had left a lot of room for denial. He could argue that the burden of proof was upon the prosecutor to prove without any doubt that the face was of the Ayatollah Khomeini. But such arguments are only possible in free societies.

The Head of the Judiciary Ministry of Justice of Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi personally saw into it that the Islamic Revolutionary Court handled the case. Court cases are usually refereed to the Islamic Revolutionary Court when it appears that lower general courts might hand down a less severe sentence. Naser Arabha, Farad’s editor-in-chief was sentenced to six months in prison. Karimzadeh received fifty lashes, one year in prison, and a 500,000 Rials fine.

After Karimzadeh served his one-year sentence, the Islamic Supreme Court ruled that he had to be retried, and this time he was sentenced to ten years in prison. Karimzadeh was eventually released in 1994.

One hundred seventy five years before Karimzadeh there was a cartoonist in France by the name of Charles Philipon who was charged with defaming King Louis Philippe. Philipon had regressed King Louis image to a pear (La poire). At that time in France calling a person a pear was roughly equal to now-a-days calling a person a fruit, mushy, wuss, buffoon, or a crown.

A court case was brought up against Philipon in 1831 for defamation of King Louis. The case lasted several months. His cartoon was published repeatedly in European countries and created a lot of ridicule for King Louis. In court Philipon was successful in demonstrating that King Louis did indeed resembled a pear.

Philipon was eventually acquitted of all the charges, but the court also ruled that no more drawing of pears should appear in his magazine, La Caricature. By then there was so much ridicule of the King that it became accepted by the ruling classes in Europe that it is better to accept the ridicule than to challenge it.

American columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner Art Buchwad once wrote that dictators of the right and left fear the political cartoonists more than they do the atomic bomb. That’s definitely true in the case of Stalin and Hitler. In Stalin era Russia caricaturists had to produce propaganda caricatures for the benefit of the State or face demise and deportation to labor camps.

The rise of fascism in Europe changed their fate eventually when they were asked to produce anti fascism caricatures, and begin to gain popularity, but they were never allowed to poke fun of Stalin himself.

In Nazi Germany on the other hand many caricaturists were forced to produce anti Semitic caricatures or face persecution. On May 27, 1944, Hitler had a group of Polish caricaturists executed for anti Nazi drawings, and declared that the caricaturists were degenerate artists and supreme enemies of the State.

In today’s Iran it is an absolute blasphemy to portray the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei in a negative manner. When politics and religion are combined in cartoons, Ayatollahs fear it more than hydrogen bomb.

When cartoonists practice their craft many times they push the envelope too far, that’s their niche in life, they disturb the balance of humorous criticism and distastefulness. In democratic societies through, peaceful dialogues and free exchange of ideas the hateful and ill intentioned acts are rejected and sense of decency prevails.

In the eyes of the Islamic Republic of Iran only a handful of Ayatollahs are all-knowledgeable, all-knowing, and only one of them rules supreme. The rest of the people including catoonists are considered ignorant.

ScionTheWorm

02-11-2006, 23:41

:laugh:

first time they see a nudie they see that :tomato:

Lemur

02-12-2006, 05:59

Ayaan Hirsi Ali made a really gret speech about this, with which I largely agree. It's titled "The Right to Offend." (http://www.welt.de/z/plog/blog.php/the_free_west/the_free_wests_weblog/2006/02/10/the_right_to_offend) And she's correct -- we must have the right to offend. Anything less is a capitulation to Political Correctness. Worse, it's handing the reins of our civilization to a pile of backward mullahs who have no business telling us how to live.

I think I'm understanding Redleg's argument, although that's hard to say through the haze of extreme stomach flu. He seems to be arguing that with rights go responsibilities. Can't argue with that and wouldn't want to. But if we have to engage in a major war to defend our way of life, I'm all for it. No capitulation. No appeasement. The mullahs of Iran are living in the modern world, whether they like it or not.

Gawain of Orkeny

02-12-2006, 06:03

Freedom of speech is only needed to protect the things we dont want said.

Anyway heres an article that I think puts some real light on the topic.

Pursuing mayhem
Feb 10, 2006
by Tony Snow ( bio | archive | contact )

Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Q: Why aren't angry Muslims in the United States torching buildings owned by Danes, Norwegians, French, Spanish and other Cartoon Infidels whose newspapers have printed cartoons, first published in Denmark, bearing the likeness of the Prophet Muhammad?

A: Because American Muslims have better things to do.

Here lies an important fact, too little mentioned or explored. The recent outburst of righteous arson in the Muslim world has been described as a warning to the West, a sign that radical Islam has become a force of considerable sweep and power, an indicator that terrorists have mastered propaganda techniques capable of sending raging hordes into the streets in a matter of minutes.

But another explanation fits the facts. The mayhem has centered in four nations: Afghanistan, Lebanon, Pakistan and Syria. Each has a double-digit unemployment rate, and poverty rates between 32 percent and 52 percent. All have large pools of idle men who can show up for a mob activity at a moment's notice. In short, they're havens for losers, uniquely equipped to stage such spectacles.

Even so, it took Danish Imam Abu Laban and a handful of other inciters five months to foment the riots. Laban began touring the Middle East last fall, bearing a dozen cartoons -- many of which were sloppy and amateurish -- first published in a Danish paper. They contained unflattering depictions of Muhammad.

Nobody cared.

So then Laban and company got creative. First, they grabbed a photograph taken at a French hog-calling contest, and claimed the fellow wearing a plastic snout and ears actually was posing as a porcine Prophet. They tossed in another bad drawing of a character saying, "I'm a pedophile," along with a photo-shopped tableau of a dog having its way with a Muslim bent in prayer.

Then they put together a list of fake charges against the dastardly Danes. They accused Danish papers of publishing 120 anti-Muslim cartoons and photos. They warned Danes were planning a movie that mocked Muhammad. They charged the Danish government with burning, desecrating and banning the Quran, prohibiting the construction of mosques and outlawing Islam.

It took a lot of effort -- aided and abetted by Syria, Iran and al Jazeera -- but the lie-mongering finally worked. Mobs in Lebanon and Syria set fire to Danish embassies. Riots broke out elsewhere, claiming more than a dozen lives. Iran organized an international boycott of Denmark and renamed Danish pastries, "Muhammad pastries."

The ringleader, Abu Laban, is affiliated with the Egyptian terror group the Islamic Brotherhood. He told Western reporters he never desired to see Denmark hurt, but then crowed in Arabic to al Jazeera that the boycott was working!

Yet, the central "crime" -- the mere depiction of Muhammad -- is neither a crime nor an anomaly. It has been commonplace in parts of the Muslim world for centuries. Indeed, a prominent Egyptian newspaper published the offending cartoons a week after their original appearance in Denmark. Nobody uttered of word of complaint at the time.

The episode reveals the weakness of hotheads who pursue mayhem in the name of Islam. Laban's quest to conjure fire took months to produce results and managed mainly to make the rioters look foolish or, in selected cases, dead.

An enterprising shopkeep in Gaza told Reuters that he saw an opportunity for commercial geld the instant the story broke. He bought Danish flags from a Taiwanese vendor and sold them at a premium. He knew locals would want pennants to burn. The man counted on his neighbors to behave like emotional fools.

Equally telling has been the weakness of those who always capitulate pre-emptively when hotheads kvetch. Jordan fired and arrested two newspaper editors for publishing a couple of the controversial cartoons. A Dubai university fired American-born Professor Claudia Keyboars for showing students what the fuss was about. Virtually every newspaper in the United States declined to publish the cartoons for fear of giving "offense."

Abu Laban is to Islam what David Duke is to Christianity: a bigoted joke. He appeals to the ignorant and dispossessed, and mistakes pointless rage for righteous passion.

And yet, his moment of "glory" teaches valuable lessons. Guys like him fail utterly in places where people have hope and prospects -- like the United States.

Furthermore, the most reliable vaccine against idiotic rage is faith -- the soulful conviction that the Creator is not the Destroyer; that religion directs us not toward the torch, but toward charity; and that God is not petty, vain, small-minded or humorless. He leaves that to the likes of Abu Laban.

Redleg

02-12-2006, 06:16

I think I'm understanding Redleg's argument, although that's hard to say through the haze of extreme stomach flu. He seems to be arguing that with rights go responsibilities. Can't argue with that and wouldn't want to.

You may have a beer and a cigar on me. After you get over the flu however.

:laugh4:

But if we have to engage in a major war to defend our way of life, I'm all for it. No capitulation. No appeasement. The mullahs of Iran are living in the modern world, whether they like it or not.

Yes indeed.

Soulforged

02-12-2006, 07:21

ITs really easy to figure out. Take a look at any book that talks about responsiblity and being responsible for your actions.I fear it's not that simple. Your use is ambigous and vague.

Yes indeed they are responding - but are they thinking. Are they acting responsible.The thought is a metaphysic phenomenum usually hard to stablish as a fact. Besides it doesn't matter to the definition of responsability.
About that let's see:"Responsability"-1. Quality of responsable. -2. Obligation to repair the consecuences of a crime. -3. in Law: Capacity of the persons to foresee and accept the consequences of their actions.---Now I'll suppose that we agree on the meaning of different terms included in the definitions, and I'll move on to the key terms. "Responsable" (lat. "responsum") -1. adj. Forced to respond for something or somebody. -2. Conscient of ones obligations and dispossed to operate in consequence. -3. Head of a job or group, etc. -4. adj. & s. Guilty of some event or situation. "To respond" (lat. "respondere") -1. tr. To answer, satisfy what is asked. -2. To answer a call or a letter. -3. To correspond with their voices the animals to others of their same species. -4. To sing or recite in correspondense with what others sing or recite. -5. To retort an allegation. -6. intr. To repite an eco. -7. Show gratitude. -8. To have something the desired effect. -8. Correspond with ones actions to those realized by other. -9. To keep proportions one thing with another. -10. Be subject to a penalty or reparair correspondents to the caused damage.
I will only try to analize those of "responsabilty":
1- If by responsability you refer to a quality, then we also must refer to the quality in question. Now this definition could include all the four provided for "responsable". But I think that we can reduce them to only two aspects of the property "responsable": one objective- Am I forced to respond for something or to somebody or for somebody for any given reason? -and one subjective: Am I conscient that I'm the one who should respond for this something or this someone? If you only mean the objective part then we can accept it, though it has no relevance because it doesn't determine wich is the object of the response, what should be the content of it. If this content is legal, however, then there's no legal ground to establish any responsability, therefore we can dismiss that arguement. If you care for the subjective aspect, then the first obstacle will be that you don't know if the journalists in question knew of their actual responsabilities when operating, but let's suppose they did, again if it's based on legal obligations (refered to a penalty and attonment in moral ground is you like) then there's none, if this is meant to be only a response to anothers action then there was one and they were conscient, we suppose that. Notice that if you don't take into account the conciousness as something given, then your arguement is also unsubstantiated. The problem in general with this sense of the term is that you've no object that determines the response, generally such the content of such object (such pack) is determined by law, if you can find another credible ground then be my guest.
2- This can be dismissed a priori, exercise of freedom of speech is no crime, so it can be a crime at the same time.
3- This concept is a technical one, it refers to the capacity of foreseeing in a given situation and not exactly the acceptance of the consecuences, it's more related with being able to guide ones action in base to that foreseeing or any comprehension of the situation and the part taken in that situation, the guilt related to it. I suppose that this is not the one you're using, I believe you're with the first one right. I'll try to respond to this anyway. In this sense any person wich has no alterated physical or mental properties is in complete state of responsability (and also other legal determinations if you want) wich is effectivelly the case of the journalists in question until prooved otherwise. So yes they were responsable in this sense, because they could forsee the consequences of their actions and comprehend a situatuation of fact, and they acted in consequence.

Like you see the fact that they "thought" or didn't "thought" is irrelevant to the definition of "responsable". Beyond that I think that it's a little extreme to derivate the scale of value of freedom of speech considerating internal will. The actions are the only thing that matter, for they are proovable, and in this case the actual actions, the drawings, are only that, emptied from intention they cannot be either "bad" or "good", and the intention that everyone gives them might differ, as it did. They accepted criticism, so I suppose that you refer to other forms of "response", in wich case is not reasonable to ask. In case I'm still confused then point what is this responsability you're talking about.

rory_20_uk

02-12-2006, 19:28

I was looking up something completely different (the apocrypha of the bible) when I cam across this.

Very elightening... http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/1/index.htm

Loads of ready linked references for the "heretics" out there. Same for the Bible. :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

Adrian II

02-12-2006, 20:28

Very enlightening... http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/1/index.htm

Loads of ready linked references for the "heretics" out there. Same for the Bible. :thumbsup:Good stuff. Makes you wonder why some of our members of the prophetic persuasion reason with us at all. It's no use, is it? One look at those phat suras should convince them:

2:6 As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not.
2:7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.
2:10 In their hearts is a disease, and Allah increaseth their disease. A painful doom is theirs because they lie.Oh, t3h awful doom. I feel it already. :coffeenews:

Redleg

02-12-2006, 21:51

I fear it's not that simple. Your use is ambigous and vague.

Not at all - it must be the language barrier my friend.

The thought is a metaphysic phenomenum usually hard to stablish as a fact. Besides it doesn't matter to the definition of responsability.

Again you are not attempting to utilize the term correctly.

I will only try to analize those of "responsabilty":
1- If by responsability you refer to a quality, then we also must refer to the quality in question. Now this definition could include all the four provided for "responsable". But I think that we can reduce them to only two aspects of the property "responsable": one objective- Am I forced to respond for something or to somebody or for somebody for any given reason? -and one subjective: Am I conscient that I'm the one who should respond for this something or this someone?

Nope respond does not fall in line with the concept of personal responsiblity.

If you only mean the objective part then we can accept it, though it has no relevance because it doesn't determine wich is the object of the response, what should be the content of it. If this content is legal, however, then there's no legal ground to establish any responsability, therefore we can dismiss that arguement.

Its not a legal arguement.

If you care for the subjective aspect, then the first obstacle will be that you don't know if the journalists in question knew of their actual responsabilities when operating, but let's suppose they did, again if it's based on legal obligations (refered to a penalty and attonment in moral ground is you like) then there's none, if this is meant to be only a response to anothers action then there was one and they were conscient, we suppose that. Notice that if you don't take into account the conciousness as something given, then your arguement is also unsubstantiated. The problem in general with this sense of the term is that you've no object that determines the response, generally such the content of such object (such pack) is determined by law, if you can find another credible ground then be my guest.
2- This can be dismissed a priori, exercise of freedom of speech is no crime, so it can be a crime at the same time.
3- This concept is a technical one, it refers to the capacity of foreseeing in a given situation and not exactly the acceptance of the consecuences, it's more related with being able to guide ones action in base to that foreseeing or any comprehension of the situation and the part taken in that situation, the guilt related to it. I suppose that this is not the one you're using, I believe you're with the first one right. I'll try to respond to this anyway. In this sense any person wich has no alterated physical or mental properties is in complete state of responsability (and also other legal determinations if you want) wich is effectivelly the case of the journalists in question until prooved otherwise. So yes they were responsable in this sense, because they could forsee the consequences of their actions and comprehend a situatuation of fact, and they acted in consequence.

Jumbled thoughts here - but again I am not talking about legal responsibility.

Like you see the fact that they "thought" or didn't "thought" is irrelevant to the definition of "responsable". Beyond that I think that it's a little extreme to derivate the scale of value of freedom of speech considerating internal will. The actions are the only thing that matter, for they are proovable, and in this case the actual actions, the drawings, are only that, emptied from intention they cannot be either "bad" or "good", and the intention that everyone gives them might differ, as it did. They accepted criticism, so I suppose that you refer to other forms of "response", in wich case is not reasonable to ask. In case I'm still confused then point what is this responsability you're talking about.

Then maybe you should research the concept of responsibility and freedoms some more. Some reading of interest about the concept of responsiblity and rights.

http://www.worldinvisible.com/newsltr/yr1997/nov/9711mart.htm

http://www.unicef.org.uk/tz/resources/assets/pdf/little_book_rights.pdf

Soulforged

02-13-2006, 04:13

It has a lot to do with the response. If it's the capacity to respond or the obligation, then the response is esencial to the concept.
[QUOTE]http://www.worldinvisible.com/newsltr/yr1997/nov/9711mart.htmFirst link, first text:Rights and Responsibilities

Recently the British Government announced it was scrapping it's old National Health Service Patients' Charter and drafting a new one. A new charter was deemed necessary because patients who thought they understood their rights under the current charter were abusing and assaulting hospital staff when the patients felt their rights weren't being met. The emphasis in the new charter will be that patients have responsibilities as well as rights. It will seek to point out that damage is done to others when patients act inconsiderately. Among other things, the new charter will emphasize the need for patients to be on time for appointments, and for patients to allow emergency patients to go before them, even if this makes it impossible for the hospital to keep its commitment to see every patient within 15 minutes.Notice how it establishes a set of responsabilities, situations in wich certain people have to respond in certain way. You haven't established that yet, at least not clearly, unless you consider that taking the pictures away and banning them is the response you're looking for, or simple apology perhaps. Also notice that this talks of rights, in general, the concept of rights implies the contrary form, the obligation or responsability.

First link, second text:The Importance of Our Responsibilites

One of the points the new Patients' Charter highlights is that life in society today goes on in an orderly way when there is a right relationship between rights and responsibilities. For the National Health Service to work well patients' rights need to be respected and met. But patients also need to be responsible, by being willing to let other patients with life-threatening injuries go before them in the waiting room queue. The good that often comes when responsibilities supersede rights can be seen throughout society.

For example, a father may feel he has a right to a good night's sleep. But he voluntarily gives up this right when he has a sick child who needs his caring attention. In many ways such as this one, performing our responsibilities and voluntarily deferring our rights brings stability, graciousness, and dignity to society. Meeting our responsibilities in this way is really just expressing love to others.Again notice how in the bolded part a kind of response is setted up, so the subject X knows what should be the object of responsability. It even gives an example of responsable action in the second paragraph.

The third one is a little cheese and adds nothing relevant. The fourth is practically the same.

http://www.unicef.org.uk/tz/resources/assets/pdf/little_book_rights.pdfThis seemed like a joke. But all right, I get your point. Nothing new there Red, with every right a responsability. Move on.

You only gave me this response:
However none of those things are prosecutable in a court of law unless one can prove malicous intent to provoke and incite violence. Those that do that should have the full measure of the law thrown at them and their right to free speech removed. So what happens with the others? What should be the response? Are you saying that it's not the reasonable and just and moral thing to do, to stand for freedom of speech when it's attacked? Are you saying that this journalists have other responsabilities above the respect to the very foundings of their work wich is freedom of speech? I just want to satisfy my curiosity, so I can answer accordingly, there's no sarcasm there, neither "strawman", I just need simple answer to everyone of those questions if you've the time (and please don't redirect me to cheesy links).

Incongruous

02-13-2006, 08:28

It teach you to be careful what you ask for. Blunt honesty is normally where I go when someone wants my opinion.

Wait wait, you're offended by the cartoons?

Redleg

02-13-2006, 14:51

Wait wait, you're offended by the cartoons?

The one with the prophet with a bomb in his headdress crosses the line, the rest I find tasteless, crude, rather racist, and idiotic. They show the typical fear of a racist society that instead of attempting to solve the problems of conflicting personal and cultural values - they resort to petty character assissnation. (I am sure these statements will upset some European posters - but what the hell you asked my opinion of the drawings.)

Take it how you will. But where does it say I am offended?

Redleg

02-13-2006, 15:08

t has a lot to do with the response. If it's the capacity to respond or the obligation, then the response is esencial to the concept.
First link, first text:Rights and Responsibilities
Notice how it establishes a set of responsabilities, situations in wich certain people have to respond in certain way. You haven't established that yet, at least not clearly, unless you consider that taking the pictures away and banning them is the response you're looking for, or simple apology perhaps. Also notice that this talks of rights, in general, the concept of rights implies the contrary form, the obligation or responsability.

You missed it completely Soulforged. Your not focusing on the personal responsiblity that is inherient in Freedom. Notice the beginning of the article where it talks about rIghts as mentioned. It seems your focusing on the legal definition for court about responsibility but not on the ethical.

To meet the standard of legal responsibility one has to prove intent is linked to the consequence of the free speech. Ethical issues do not have to meet that same standard. Acting irresponsible does not always have legal consequences.

Your bolded the part about response but not responsibility.

The Importance of Our Responsibilites

One of the points the new Patients' Charter highlights is that life in society today goes on in an orderly way when there is a right relationship between rights and responsibilities. For the National Health Service to work well patients' rights need to be respected and met. But patients also need to be responsible, by being willing to let other patients with life-threatening injuries go before them in the waiting room queue. The good that often comes when responsibilities supersede rights can be seen throughout society.

For example, a father may feel he has a right to a good night's sleep. But he voluntarily gives up this right when he has a sick child who needs his caring attention. In many ways such as this one, performing our responsibilities and voluntarily deferring our rights brings stability, graciousness, and dignity to society. Meeting our responsibilities in this way is really just expressing love to others.

First link, second text:The Importance of Our Responsibilites
Again notice how in the bolded part a kind of response is setted up, so the subject X knows what should be the object of responsability. It even gives an example of responsable action in the second paragraph.

The third one is a little cheese and adds nothing relevant. The fourth is practically the same.
This seemed like a joke. But all right, I get your point. Nothing new there Red, with every right a responsability. Move on.

Actually you don't get it. Every right has a responsibility, Freedom requires an individual to be responsibile for his actions. Personal responsiblity is not a legal definition but a ethical situation.

You only gave me this response: So what happens with the others? What should be the response? Are you saying that it's not the reasonable and just and moral thing to do, to stand for freedom of speech when it's attacked?

Not at all. Notice what I have stated - not what you think I am stating.

Are you saying that this journalists have other responsabilities above the respect to the very foundings of their work wich is freedom of speech?

Journalists must have a code of ethics to insure they are reporting factual information as news. Everything is else is editorials. Journalists have an ethical responsibility. Yellow Journalism is irresponsible journalism.

I just want to satisfy my curiosity, so I can answer accordingly, there's no sarcasm there, neither "strawman", I just need simple answer to everyone of those questions if you've the time (and please don't redirect me to cheesy links).

THe cheesy links actually give you the answer you are looking for. However it seems you are unwilling to learn that responsibility is something that everyone must face when exercising everyday life, and yes even when exercising the Freedoms that you cherish.