Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.

[Ice]

Give them flags with invisible ink of the Koran etched into it.

They burn the flag and condemn themselves to hell as the words become revealed in the heat... they burn holy words... should get them in trouble.

"Here's an American flag!"

*burning* ::Sees the words::

"April Fools Day!"

[Papewaio]

"Here's an American flag!"

*burning* ::Sees the words::

"April Fools Day!"

Or it changes into their own flag... a bit like those t-shirts that change colour.

[Sigurd]

I just learned from my newspaper this morning that the editor of the French newspaper France Soir has been fired over printing the Danish caricature drawings.

The situation escalates and the extremists are now burning pictures of the Danish prime minister.



I told in my initial post that the Danes have apologized. I guess I was misinformed; it is the Danish editor of Jyllandsposten that made apologies.

The extremists are burning flags with old and powerful symbols… what they don’t realize is that it is the extremists back home that consider our flags holier than holy.
They are burning the Danish and Norwegian right-extremists most prized symbol; the national flags.
The result is that the extremists are pushing their fellow Nordic Muslims in front of the raging Right-extremist steam train, which could lead to serious confrontations.



If this escalation continues I look with worry to the future. Our outer right-wing party; Fremskrittspartiet, did their all time election last year with 22, 1% of the total votes being second after the winners (Labour) that got 32, 7%.
They will continue to point out the cultural problems with our fellow countrymen and women that happen to believe in a different religion.
If Fremskrittspartiet should win an election they could form a government. That would most probably cut all foreign relief and put Norway on the isolationist wave.
Luckily the Norwegian Islamic community is a bunch of level headed and God fearing people, that understand what it is all about. So far the Norwegians have more or less nothing against ordinary Muslims.

Danish extremists are rallying support and want to burn the Koran at the town hall in Copenhagen.
Danish and unknown Muslim hackers are at war. The Danes are hacking (DOS attacks) Al-Jazeera whilst the counter team is nuking the Jyllandsposten website.

Latest in from the press, armed men have surrounded the EU office in Gaza city. They have fired their Kalashnikovs in the air and tried to climb the walls.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Well, despite how tempting it is, it's important to realize that the groups that do this are not the same as the muslim community at large. In a way these actions are a convenient way of finding out who are extremists and who aren't. They have no right to tell what should be legal and illegal in countries others than their own - we won't infringe press freedom. The question is whether the pictures are insulting and harassing in a way that could be seen as illegal by existing law. Can anyone who is good at Danish law practise comment on that? With fairly international law concepts it could be seen as threatening and generalizing in a discriminating way to imply that the Prophet would be a terrorist, on the other hand showing such a picture in a collection of other pictures means the intended interpretation of the whole is more likely intended to not be concentrated on that single picture, but instead by reading the entire message the pictures, and the accompanying text, tries to convey. No matter what, it's according to western law only a borderline case of crime, if sentenced the sentence would be very low. It's important to point out that similar insults to Christian faith have been given, and not punished, in the same countries. Therefore, it's not a case of discrimination of muslim faith, but the way our laws work. However I can understand it's difficult for the muslims who feel offended to realize that, or even obtain such information at all. It's not appropriate to react with hate demonstration so early, before even getting the full knowledge about what happened. For example some demonstrants burned flags of many other countries than Denmark, then in the afternoon the same day said "oops, we got the wrong flag, but we love your nice country so don't worry, we won't harm you". It doesn't give a very serious impression... Plus it's also not very serious to burn the flags of a nation that has little to do with a newspaper in the country publishing something. Burning the flag of a nation is to say that your hatred is directed towards that entire nation, and every human being living in it.

It could be that it's just a temporary reaction and demonstration as a form of entertainment to have something to do. It could be that the entire thing is of the same kind as "we got the wrong flag, don't worry we didn't mean it" and that it'll go away soon. Or it could be, in the eyes of some extremists, an excuse to carry out terrorist actions towards Denmark and other countries (including those whose flags they accidentally burned due to lack of proper information at first). I think it'll become apparent in a month of so from now which way it is.

[Meneldil]

Well, despite how tempting it is, it's important to realize that the groups that do this are not the same as the muslim community at large.

Looks like you're wrong here, since most muslim gvts asked for apologies to Danemark.


And with Jacques Lefranc just being fired, I'm wondering where's free speech going. That's a total shame, yet no one will bother about it. I mean, what the hell ? For once, a newspaper show its respect for freedom of speech, and poof, the editor is fired ? WTF ?
I don't even hope for a word from the gvt, since one of our minister said that Free Speech shouldn't conflict with respect of different religions.

[Kanamori]

"should all those who are not Muslims respect this prohibition? Can we imagine a society in which all the prohibitions of different cultures are added up? What would remain of the freedoms of thought, speech and even movement?"

This was my big issue too. Sure, if I were a devout muslim, the pictures would make me angry. I don't care if they boycott the newspaper, but to boycott the entire country because the government won't apologize for not repressing that speech? That's just ridiculous. I hate every sort of censorship. Controlling the communication of ideas, because of their content, is the most tyrannical and unjust thing a government can ever do.

IMO, religious intolerance, as manifested in communication, and freedom of speech are totally compatible.

[Sigurd]

http://alghurabaa.co.uk/

The world has a new axis of evil... with a sleight to the godhood.

[Adrian II]

I don't even hope for a word from the gvt, since one of our minister said that Free Speech shouldn't conflict with respect of different religions.

From what I have understood the government has stated that freedom of speech should be exercised 'wisely', not that everyone's right to free speech should be curbed.

The government merely distances itself from France-Soir which is held 'solely responsible for publishing the caricatures'. And rightly so, since governments are not in the business of caricaturising prophets.

It would be a different matter altogether if Matignon or Beauvau (Interior Ministry) were to pressure papers to apologise, desist, etcetera. From what I have read in the French press this has not happened in the case of France-Soir, but maybe you have other/better info that says they did.

[LeftEyeNine]

First of all, illustration of Hz. Muhammed is banned. That's something from the start. This is intended to save the figure from being included in any means of corruption. You see how "illustration" worked out lately. This is religion, it has rules on its own that is conveyed from the superior creator, therefore it will be a more productive debate if the discussion is not about the religion. Some guy in the recently closed thread of Fragony mentioned that Christianity grew up and that it was Islam's turn. Well, if you accept the superiority of a being then it is utterly the rejection of it if humans "grow" it. The religious disciplines are built to teach to the humankind, it's not a play-dough. The "interpretion" and "retouching" are different concepts, by the way. Interpretion may shed light onto what was meant to be by the religion, but "growing" equals to "retouch" and Islam does not need it and people banned from doing such.

IIRC, the German newspaper Bild had committed such a foul, and it had been approached by negative responses from the Muslim world as well, however they had apologized for the matter and it was peaceful again, wasn't it ? Correct me if I'm wrong though, it's been some time. We need "common sense" at social level, that's not job of governments. Governments, as several patrons said in the "A Good Reminder" thread, have (and should not have) no force if there is something called "freedom of speech" over there. Anyway, didn't the related newspaper apologize for the matter ?

Burning flags ? No way. This is absolutely primitive. However considering the facts and differences between the societies, this was predictable -not rightful. Those of you who are furious towards seeing your flags burned, I share your feelings.

Though things seem a bit out of control, there is still a chance for common sense to work out -and of course the newspaper did not apologize already.

[Fragony]

Pffft, the french editor got fired bleh.

*

take me baby

[Adrian II]

I just learned from my newspaper this morning that the editor of the French newspaper France Soir has been fired over printing the Danish caricature drawings.

True. Jacques Lefranc has been fired yesterday afternoon by the owner of Presse Alliance (publishers of France-Soir). The owner is Egyptian-born media magnate Raymond Lakah. Lakah has issued an apology to Muslims for the printing of the caricatures, stating that the sacking of Lefranc was meant to be 'a strong sign of respect for the beliefs and personal convictions of every individual'.

Of course Lefranc's decision to publish the 12 cartoons was a much stronger sign of respect for the beliefs and personal convictions of every individual, as embodied in the right of free speech.

And it seems that the paper's staff are fighting back. This morning France-Soir carries a photo of three Muslims burning a Danish flag with the caption 'Voltaire help us, they've gone mad!'

In an editorial they write the following (my translation): 'Islam prohibits its believers to depict the Prophet in any way (..) the question that arises is the following: should all those who are not Muslims respect this prohibition? Can we imagine a society in which all the prohibitions of different cultures are added up? What would remain of the freedoms of thought, speech and even movement? We know such societies only too well. One example is the Iran of the mullahs. But only yesterday it was the France of the Inquisition, of the stakes, and of Saint Bartholomew.'

Meanwhile I have polser coming out both ears. Is it working?