Questioning the motives of cartoon publishers

[Paul Peru]

As some of you may have noticed, some not very clever cartoons have been published in several newspapers. This has caused more anger than the average not very clever cartoon you see in such papers.
:balloon2:
As many of you may know, the second "newspaper" to publish them was a rightwing religious crackpot publication in Norway with a circulation of 5000. These are the kind of people who may be happy to fan the flames and are looking forward to Armageddon anyways.
:skull: :2thumbsup:
The original publisher of the cartoons in question (I'm sure you can guess to which cartoons I'm referring) was a more mainstream, if populistically "immigration sceptical" Danish paper.
:inquisitive:
Though they seem quite surprised at what they'd set in motion, an article in the pretentious but trashy Norwegian tabloid rag Dagbladet yesterday brought some new light to this. Today I found the story retold in the Guardian.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

The illustrator told the Norwegian daily Dagbladet, which saw the email: "I see the cartoons as an innocent joke, of the type that my Christian grandfather would enjoy."

"I showed them to a few pastors and they thought they were funny."
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1703500,00.html

The illustration in Dagbladet looked a lot like this:
please only link to the cartoons instead of posting them directly (even behind tags) - Thanks, Ser Clegane
Those who would like to see the irreverent but harmless drawings of Jesus (I don't think they are funny, but they are certainly not spiteful or nasty) may go to this URL:
http://www.zieler.dk/images.asp?fnavn=1opstandelsesspalte%202004.jpg&mappe=m-images&home=m-index.asp
PP

It shows "Resurrection" - sideways, with a spin etc.

And another thing: We haven't seen many "evil jew" cartoons in Europe these last 60 years or so. Wonder why? But a terrorist Mohammed is OK.:oops:

Elsewhere I will denounce the Syrian government for their complicity in the destruction of embassies. It happened in Lebanon as well, but they tried their best to stop it, and the minister in charge stepped down afterwards. Syria needs a stern talking to, warnings of unusually strong language perhaps being used in the future etc.:no:

[Duke Malcolm]

So, we can see you didn't like the publication of the cartoons...

The newspaper appears to have a mainly Christian readership in a mainly Christian country, no surprise there. Why would it publish pictures lambasting the saviour of its readers? The Muslims did not generally read the newspaper so the editors would not see any reason for them to be offended.

No "evil jew" pictures because we leave such anti-semitism to the islamic press in islamic nations after World War 2. The picture of a terrorist muhammed is because there have been many radical muslims who blew themselves up in the name of muhammed, something said to be against Islam I think. The somewhat blinkered newspaper ignores this, considers Islam to advocate such acts and hence publishes the picture. Although, the newspaper has no need to follow Sharia law and not publish pictures of Muhammed, so it was well within its right to publish pictures. I believe that Muslims have the right to protest -- peacefully -- at Muhammed being shown as a terrorist just as when the BBC showed the Jerry Springer Opera Christian protested. If they are going to protest whenever a picture of Muhammed is published then they must reform...

[Adrian II]

As some of you may have noticed, some not very clever cartoons have been published in several newspapers. This has caused more anger than the average not very clever cartoon you see in such papers.As very few have actually noticed, the whole affair started with a writer of children's books named Bluitgen. A socialist writer of children's books who lives in the middle of Copenhagen among a majority Muslim population and who, out of multicultural solidarity, sends his children to a local school with predominantly Muslim children. Last year Bluitgen began looking for an artist who would illustrate his new book, a 'life of Mohammed as told to children'.

As it happened, the first three illustrators turned down his request because they were afraid to be killed like Theo van Gogh. Bluitgen publicly complained about this, and that is why the editor in chief of Jyllands Posten set out on his quest to find illustrators willing to take the risk.

That is what this is all about. It is about artists afraid of being killed by some crazed Muslim over a drawing in a children's book. That is how low we have been brought by the idiot section of the Prophet's followers. It is very easy and cheap, and also very unjust, to try and reduce this issue to a deliberate right-wing provocation.

This is a matter of principle, and like all matters of principle it presents itself under a most unpalatable aspect and we are forced to chose between options and rivals none of which appear particularly appealing. But we have to.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Eh? Are you talking about these cartoons?
https://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3226/m60yi.jpg
NOTE: The link contains a cartoon showing Mohammed with a bomb for a turban.

If you are, then you should ponder the response of Muslims*. They are trying to intimidate anyone who doesn't comply with Islamic rules-they are trying to surpress free speech.

The papers didn't print these to provoke people, they printed them to stand up to those trying to impose Islamic law over freedom of the press.

This isn't a simple matter of offending someone, but proving that freedom of speech is alive and well. It would appear that you would cast it away to be appropriately sensitive.


And another thing: We haven't seen many "evil jew" cartoons in Europe these last 60 years or so. Wonder why?

The Arab press prints more than enough for the whole world.

Crazed Rabbit

*Generalization for the Muslims rioting, 'protesting', or those supporting them.

[Watchman]

The Arab press prints more than enough for the whole world.Well, they have their reasons.

[Sjakihata]

The motives fo Jyllands-Posten was to affirm that no one should threaten the freedom of speech. A dane name Bluitgen wrote a (very poor) book about Islam - a family book he calls it. However, the book clearly has it own agenda to demonize Islam and is not at all family related, on the contrary it has a lot of violence and blood. Kåre Bluitgen wanted an artist to illustrate Mohammed, be no one took up the offer. So a annonymous illustrater does it. This causes Jyllands-Posten to publish some offensive cartoons, to make clear that they wont have their freedom of speech threatened.

Im sure if K. Bluitgen had someone to do it publicly, had taken time to find one, this would never had happened. Yet. Because the cartoons is clearly only the tip of the iceberg - something would have caused the outcry sooner or later.

I do not agree with Jyllands-Postens 'just because you can, you should do it' position. Clearly they are in their legal right to publish the cartoons, it is the same they are entilted to publish an anal rape scene on their frontpage as well, but just because you can, you shouldnt do it - why not? because it might offend someone. The context is also rather lame, if they wanted to criticize Islam fine, but they dont - they just blatantly provoke. Question Sharia, criticize violence what ever, they did none of that, just seeking to provoke, yes they are legally allowed to, but it doesnt necessarily follow that you should.

[Devastatin Dave]

As very few have actually noticed, the whole affair started with a writer of children's books named Bluitgen. A socialist writer of children's books who lives in the middle of Copenhagen among a majority Muslim population and who, out of multicultural solidarity, sends his children to a local school with predominantly Muslim children. Last year Bluitgen began looking for an artist who would illustrate his new book, a 'life of Mohammed as told to children'.
It figures some dumb liberal wanting to be multicultured moron socialist is the root of all this!!! Ohh the sweet, delicious irony that makes my nipples tingly and of great need of twisting while I spank my self with a hickory switch while Pat Robertson calls me Lucy.:2thumbsup:

[Papewaio]

Maybe people should question the 4 month delay in response to the publishing of the cartoons... by a Saudi Arabian media at the height of the latest Haji fiasco... I think SA was trying to redirect the heat it was getting and looking for a sacrificial lamb. :juggle2:

[Watchman]

:coffeenews:
A classic case of political opportunism.
:shrug:
What the heck can you say about *that* ?

[Bartix]

Why would it publish pictures lambasting the saviour of its readers?

It is probably unwise to be lambasting the saviour of readers!:inquisitive:
:idea2: I will not intentional lambast saviour of any who read this.:2thumbsup:

For ones who need more anti semitic cartoon, there is hope::no:
Iran daily holds contest for Holocaust cartoons (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020700159.html)
:skull: :skull:

A serious question for Muslims ... is this: 'Does Western free speech allow working on issues like America and Israel's crimes or an incident like the Holocaust or is this freedom of speech only good for insulting the holy values of divine religions?

[Paul Peru]

So, we can see you didn't like the publication of the cartoons...:oops:
I'm sorry my English is so bad. What made you "see" that?

I was trying to put on my paranoid glasses for a while and speculate about the motives of the publishers. I am very much in favour of freedom of speech, and will gladly stand in public places uttering the name of Gd, depicting his messengers and lambasting the saviours of passers by if I think it's worth my while.

Now, the Bluitgen angle was not known to me, and it seems Jyllands-Posten may be more or less off the hook. As Pape mentioned, it also took ages from the original publication until the faeces hit the ventilator. Once "Magazinet" had printed them, though, all heck broke loose toot-sweet. I :inquisitive: imply that one bunch of religious crackpots is catering to the needs of the other.

MTW event style:

Blasphemous cartoons
Someone has drawn the Prophet! No, really!

zeal increases in all moslem provinces

Embassies and flags burned
Arab governments are complicit

zeal increases in all protestant provinces
Repeat and escalate, and you soon get far more powerful jihads/crusades to do your bidding.

Fundamentalists/zealots are quite similar whichever religion has brought them beyond the edge of reason. And the guys in green are useful to the guys (pulling the strings of the guys) in orange and vice versa, because the feeling of "us" looses most of the magic without an opposing "them" to hate/fear/resent.

We liberal secular humanists are not an ideal enemy. We can be accused of being "soft on" or "not sufficiently intrumental to the righteous smiting of" the enemy, but because we're calm and peaceful and responding to every ridiculous attack with reasonable, lucid answers, it's just not worthwhile to spend too much energy on hating us. (We are sure to get our comeuppance though. Second against the wall, come the revolution.)

[Adrian II]

We liberal secular humanists are not an ideal enemy (..) because we're calm and peaceful and responding to every ridiculous attack with reasonable, lucid answers, it's just not worthwhile to spend too much energy on hating us.Heh.. Sounds like you are a member of my right-wing Socialist party after all.

And yes, we're damn good. ~D

[Sasaki Kojiro]

As very few have actually noticed, the whole affair started with a writer of children's books named Bluitgen. A socialist writer of children's books who lives in the middle of Copenhagen among a majority Muslim population and who, out of multicultural solidarity, sends his children to a local school with predominantly Muslim children. Last year Bluitgen began looking for an artist who would illustrate his new book, a 'life of Mohammed as told to children'.

As it happened, the first three illustrators turned down his request because they were afraid to be killed like Theo van Gogh. Bluitgen publicly complained about this, and that is why the editor in chief of Jyllands Posten set out on his quest to find illustrators willing to take the risk.

That is what this is all about. It is about artists afraid of being killed by some crazed Muslim over a drawing in a children's book. That is how low we have been brought by the idiot section of the Prophet's followers. It is very easy and cheap, and also very unjust, to try and reduce this issue to a deliberate right-wing provocation.

This is a matter of principle, and like all matters of principle it presents itself under a most unpalatable aspect and we are forced to chose between options and rivals none of which appear particularly appealing. But we have to.

Oooh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the information. This is a tricky topic.

Edit: Actually, I'd like to know where you got that. Were the 3 illustrators who turned him down afraid or did they think it offensive? Doesn't the fact that 12 artists were willing to draw the cartoons negate the "artists being too afraid of being killed" bit?

Now that they've been printed it has become a matter of freedom of speech. I'm not convinced they should have been printed in the first place though.

[solypsist]

on a so-so similar issue (ie. didnt want to start a new thread)

Ted Rall is a cartoonist (http://www.rall.com/). He was invited to be interviewd on Fox tv show (http://www.rall.com/2006_02_01_archive.html#113902422070617488). video here (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/04.html#a7009).

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oooh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the information. This is a tricky topic.

Edit: Actually, I'd like to know where you got that. Were the 3 illustrators who turned him down afraid or did they think it offensive? Doesn't the fact that 12 artists were willing to draw the cartoons negate the "artists being too afraid of being killed" bit?

Now that they've been printed it has become a matter of freedom of speech. I'm not convinced they should have been printed in the first place though.

I've read about the book illustration too, and the artists declined out of fear. The cartoonists are now in hiding and in fear for their lives.

The cartoons needed to be printed. It is essential that it is shown that the western world is not afraid. Silence, self-imposed through fear, is no different than the end of freedom of speech.

Crazed Rabbit

[Adrian II]

I've read about the book illustration too, and the artists declined out of fear. The cartoonists are now in hiding and in fear for their lives.

The cartoons needed to be printed. It is essential that it is shown that the western world is not afraid. Silence, self-imposed through fear, is no different than the end of freedom of speech.

Crazed RabbitAarrr! Well said, brother Rabbit! Three cheers and a barrel 'o' rum for that man!

Meanwhile 'ere's a shanty for ye:


Then beating up their colors,
The fight they did renew;
And turning to the Spaniards,
A thousand more they slew

[AntiochusIII]

Now, I can't help but comment on this. The world (at least around the .org) has certainly gone wrong with this event escalating. We see people like AdrianII "outraged" (for lack of better terms I could think of) at the Muslim outrage and agreeing with Crazed Rabbit and others and Redleg defending the outrage on a fundamental basis, agreeing with, for example, Paul Peru's viewpoint--of course, he's not advocating the violence itself. What's more, the European newspapers reprint the cartoons to, depending on your viewpoint, me being the former, stand up for Freedom of Speech or fanning the flames (or both?) and administrations like our gung-ho White House mumbling about how offensive that is.

And so on and so forth... :dizzy2:

What's best, everyone's fundamental beliefs don't seem to really be affected at all, save for the part that deals directly with the practical applications of the real world view of Islam.

[Fragony]

As very few have actually noticed, the whole affair started with a writer of children's books named Bluitgen. A socialist writer of children's books who lives in the middle of Copenhagen among a majority Muslim population and who, out of multicultural solidarity, sends his children to a local school with predominantly Muslim children. Last year Bluitgen began looking for an artist who would illustrate his new book, a 'life of Mohammed as told to children'.


Buhahahaha and kids, what have we learned today at school, what a **** :laugh4: Well dad, the kids are at least one head taller then us :laugh4:

somebody patch me up my belly exploded :laugh4:

/edit: language

[Adrian II]

somebody patch me up my belly exploded :laugh4:Must be the thin air at your intellectual height.

The book has been published and some of the illustrations are available on the Web.

https://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c308/kimpolita/Kaare%20Bluitgen%20Mohammed/01-kaare-bluitgen-mohammed-book-S-3.jpg

[Fragony]

Must be the thin air at your intellectual height.

The book has been published and some of the illustrations are available on the Web.

https://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c308/kimpolita/Kaare%20Bluitgen%20Mohammed/01-kaare-bluitgen-mohammed-book-S-3.jpg

Thin air? Intellectual height? Hmmm thin air you can find at great heights! Are you sure you aren't giving me a compliment, I couldn't bare it as I am a modest person :inquisitive:

[Duke Malcolm]

:oops:
I'm sorry my English is so bad. What made you "see" that?

I was trying to put on my paranoid glasses for a while and speculate about the motives of the publishers. I am very much in favour of freedom of speech, and will gladly stand in public places uttering the name of Gd, depicting his messengers and lambasting the saviours of passers by if I think it's worth my while.

Now, the Bluitgen angle was not known to me, and it seems Jyllands-Posten may be more or less off the hook. As Pape mentioned, it also took ages from the original publication until the faeces hit the ventilator. Once "Magazinet" had printed them, though, all heck broke loose toot-sweet. I :inquisitive: imply that one bunch of religious crackpots is catering to the needs of the other.


You seemed to be critical of the newspapers, suggestive that they had should not have published the pictures, especially after the "no evil jew pictures, but a terrorist mohammed is okay?" ditty. And the above seems somewhat sarcastic. I apologise if I misconstrued what you said...