Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.

[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.

[Fragony]

A tiny little bit of good news, a Jordan newspaper published the cartoons with the following message : muslims in the world be reasonable.

Now that may be too much to ask, but it is at least one man.

[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.

[Meneldil]

First of all, illustration of Hz. Muhammed is banned. That's something from the start.

Great, they are banned for Muslims. Cool. If the event happened in some thirdworldistan country ruled by [insert some muslim fundamentalist group], that would have been fine. But Denmark is, as far as I know, a tolerant country, with a christian majority, with democratic institutions. I'm fairly sure there are no law in the Danish Constitution or in the Danish law system that ban illustration of Muhammed.
Danes don't have to respect laws or rules that are totally foreign to their country/culture. If the danish muslims don't want their countrymate to draw pics of the prophet, they can try to pass a law for it.

I'm glad european country don't give a crap about rules that were decided by some desert folks centuries ago.

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.

Right, the governement has nothing to say there. Yet, apparently, the Quai d'Orsay claimed that free speech shouldn't be used to criticize religious beliefs. I couldn't find sources about that on the net, and since I heard it on TV, I guess it's to be taken with a pinch of salt, but if this is true, this is quite lame, coming from the head of our diplomacy.

[Adrian II]

Danes don't have to respect laws or rules that are totally foreign to their country/culture.

With all due respect, that is the wrong approach to the issue. Nobody should have to respect an infringement on his right to free speech no matter in which country, no matter under what regime, and no matter what the majority religion says. Freedom of speech is a human right, not a Danish right, and it applies to a couregeous Jordanian paper that publishes the Prophet cartoons just as much as it applies to France-Soir. Freedom has no national boundaries, it is not exclusively Danish or European, Muslims may (and do) exercise it just like anyone else, and it benefits them just as it benefits anyone else.

[LeftEyeNine]

Great, they are banned for Muslims. Cool. If the event happened in some thirdworldistan country ruled by [insert some muslim fundamentalist group], that would have been fine. But Denmark is, as far as I know, a tolerant country, with a christian majority, with democratic institutions. I'm fairly sure there are no law in the Danish Constitution or in the Danish law system that ban illustration of Muhammed.
Danes don't have to respect laws or rules that are totally foreign to their country/culture. If the danish muslims don't want their countrymate to draw caricatures of the prophet, they can try to pass a law for it. Period.

I'm glad european country don't give a crap about rules that were decided by some desert folks centuries ago.

Great then, brother, it is a thirworldistan-I-am-European-The-world is-mine-I-am-the-law-I-am-high-like-an-elf syndrome again. I'll leave you in peace.

Look I'll simplify the situation for you :

Islam bans Muhammed's illustration. Danish do it in a humiliating way. Muslims freak out. Some dumb fanatics go burn the flags. Danish companies whine about dramatic decrease in sales. You feel comfortable.

We may be fighting over such an issue over and over again. Neither side seems to understand, has common sense and has the willing to give up their pathetic ways of expression.

[Papewaio]

EU's Trade Commissioner is a public servant of the EU?

How many public servants get elected?

How many ambassadors?

[Meneldil]

Islam bans Muhammed's illustration. Danish do it in a humiliating way. Muslims freak out. Some dumb fanatics go burn the flags. Danish companies whine about dramatic decrease in sales. You feel comfortable.

We may be fighting over such an issue over and over again. Neither side seems to understand, has common sense and has the willing to give up their pathetic ways of expression.

I don't feel comfortable. The pic showing Muhammed as a terrorist is plain silly and pointless. Obviously, the autors knew the Muslim population wouldn't like it and would protest.

Now, as silly as it was, I just don't care about the prohibition of Muhammed's pics. Some Muslims want apologies ? Fine, but I hope no one will apologise for practising freedom of speech, even in a stupid way.

[Fragony]

Pffft, the french editor got fired bleh.

*

take me baby

[Adrian II]

Pffft, the french editor got fired bleh.

*

take me baby

Read me, baby.

[LeftEyeNine]

..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?..

I bet my all that there are bunch of sites around in the trash can called internet that has gone even worse with such religious figures. The point is that there should be a point where publicized organizations and people should show responsibility. This is an easily irritated nerve, it is obvious. Would you say the same "application of prohobition to those that are non-blah blah" statement (or BS) if a nationwide newspaper in Turkey charicaturized one wiping somewhere with some European country's flag ? Come on, you can distinguish nuances.

[Adrian II]

I bet my all that there are bunch of sites around in the trash can called internet that has gone even worse with such religious figures. The point is that there should be a point where publicized organizations and people should show responsibility. This is an easily irritated nerve, it is obvious. Would you say the same "application of prohobition to those that are non-blah blah" statement (or BS) if a nationwide newspaper in Turkey charicaturized one wiping somewhere with some European country's flag ? Come on, you can distinguish nuances.

There are many relevant considerations, but amid all these, the right to free speech comes first. Equating Mohammed's message to a call for terrorism is neither appropriate nor helpful, but it is legitimate to express this view in word or image. Deal with it. I would not print most of the Danish caricatures myself but the freedom of others to do so is inviolable.

If the Prophet objects, he can file a complaint or take the issue to civil court. So can his followers.

EDIT
And about the 'flag wiping', I for one wouldn't stop buying Turkish if it happened.

[Sjakihata]

Btw, Adrian do you enjoy the danish pølser? Since it is not really working, I hope you like them at least

[Husar]

Now, what about me trying to force some of my chrisitan values in islamic countries? What if "my heart bleeds"(free quote from a muslim on another board) everytime I hear that my saviour Jesus christ is called "just" a prophet?

[rory_20_uk]

I feel that although the pictures were in poor taste, I feel that for those that don't like seeing things like that DON'T LOOK AT THEM! Follow this "turn the other cheek" part of whatever religion you preach!

religion can make me not get to go to the shops, take my shoes off, restrict what I do and where I do it, and all of this I am supposed to accept without a word of protest. And if I argue a theological point again this isn't socially acceptable, but I have to put up with whatever religious conventions are thrown in my direction.

A few years ago a Roman Catholic friend of the family was amazed that my brother bought a film on DVD - just couldn't understand it. I was told that it was rude to tell her that my brother "believed it was the right thing to do" as that was going to be an impolite comment.

I am sure that it is not true of all followers of Islam, but significant sections are acting rather like Christinanity did about 500 years ago... then the weapons were not as powerful though.

[Fragony]

Read me, baby.

It says he got fired.

[Adrian II]

It says he got fired.

There's my boy.

[Lazul]

Great, some newpapers publishes theese picture, the muslim extremists then in turn burn the flags of Denmark and Norway (for some reason not Sweden).

haha, maybe they didnt know wich flag was danish and just bruned both the danish and norwegian.

Anyway, bruning the flags of countries that have a rather solid nationalistic far right movements isnt the best thing to do. Now they will gain support and then shit might hit the fan.

Just wait a little and some semi-nazi priest in Scandinavia will call for a crusade on the middle-east and so on.

.... humans are pathetic.

[LeftEyeNine]

Great, some newpapers publishes theese picture, the muslim extremists then in turn burn the flags of Denmark and Norway (for some reason not Sweden).

haha, maybe they didnt know wich flag was danish and just bruned both the danish and norwegian.

Anyway, bruning the flags of countries that have a rather solid nationalistic far right movements isnt the best thing to do. Now they will gain support and then shit might hit the fan.

Just wait a little and some semi-nazi priest in Scandinavia will call for a crusade on the middle-east and so on.

.... humans are pathetic.

Seconded.

[Sjakihata]

Great, some newpapers publishes theese picture, the muslim extremists then in turn burn the flags of Denmark and Norway (for some reason not Sweden).

haha, maybe they didnt know wich flag was danish and just bruned both the danish and norwegian.

They are burning Danish and Norwegian flags, because a paper in denmark printed the caricatures, and a norewegian paper reprinted the cartoons. Sweden isnt involved yet, so no need to burn your flag, yet.