Denmark opens up a can of worms

Remove all ads!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4669210.stm

This is probably going to seriously hurt the Danish economy, seeing that they exported large quantities of dairy products to the middle east. No Arab will ever drink Danish milk, or eat Danish cheese again.

Freedom of speech is something we all cherish, but it can also backfire on us, when dealing with people who take themselves and their religeon waaaay to serious, and that's obviously what happened in this case. Apologies aren't even good enough anymore, they want the royal family and the government to crawl in the dirt before their eyes, and a Fatwah has been spoken out over the Danish military in Iraq.

All in all another touchy situation, especially now that a German and a French newspaper also published the pictures in question. If i were a Parisian, i'd park my car in a garage tonight.

 

Oh I've just been waiting for someone to post this.

Seriously is a big word, my friend . The Arab market is still a very small market, though 100 Arla workers has been fired because of this.

I think that we can all agree that what the Arab world requires ain't gonna happen. Personally I think that state minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen did exactly what he should do when he told those people that it was not in his place to apologize - because it simply isn't! But I think that the biggest problem here is that people in those lands can't understand that, as their media is edited by government representives, and that the government in the end is the one responsible for what goes in the news paper.
An even bigger problem is all the false rumours there thrives. For example there has also been posted a picture with the prophet wearing a pigs nose and ears, and that picture wasn't even amongst the 12 pictures first posted in the Juteland Post.

In my opinion even posting the pictures in the first place wasn't a very smart move. I really do believe that self-censorship should always apply. To all the people saying that that will mean that the enemies of freedom of speech would have won, I do not agree. The prophet is one of the holiest of persons to the Muslims, and their religious text specifically states that he may not portrayed in pictures in any way. I think that promoting freedom of speech is a very good thing, but I also do think that it can be done without stepping on and upsetting so many people around the world.

 

The mardy bastards. All that faffing about all for a joke.

Sometimes, supposedly adult and mature people need to step back and take a look at things.

 

Barmy, actually the reason why the pictures were posted in the first place is all but a joke. Some author has recently published a childrens book portraying the life of the prophet, and the one drawing the pictures for it did not want his name announced as he feared what it might bring along. So the Juteland Post brought those pictures in the first place to prove that nothing would come of it. Suffice to say that they were wrong, though the outcome wasn't exactly directed at the people drawing the pictures as much as it was aimed at those publishing it (and , og course, the Danish government).

 

This has been a huge case in Norway the last couple of days as well (a Christian Norwegian newspaper called "Magazinet" also posted the pictures). I can't really say I knew what it would feel like to see your flag burned by an angry mob (carrying weapons, which seems to be an important part of Islam for some). But now I'm almost at that point where I don't care that there are nice arab people (which hopefully most of them are), and my tolerance for this so called religion (or is it the people?) has almost disappeared.

The editor of "Magazinet" has recieved over 20 death threats, and the same applies to a man who appeared on our second biggest TV channel and said nothing more than "this is what freedom of speach is all about". Several leading Norwegian muslims have been on TV debate shows and supported the death threats (I quote one of them: "This is what you have to expect when you post pictures like that")! The Norwegian government has instructed our embassies in the Middle East to explain to those who ask that this is how it works in a free, democratic country, and that there's nothing the government can do about it. Many Arab people doesn't seem to understand that, but still we are being intolerant?

Freedom of speach is not there to protect the politicaly correct statements, but to protect the statements which criticize, hurt and offend people, governments or even religions.

 

Boy, they sure missed the mark then, even a blind fool could have predicted the outcome of this.

 

So much for the lie that this is a religion of peace and toleranse.

 

Well...I usually don't post in these threads and resume to the game threads only, but here it comes.

Out of anger over some cartoons, muslims in Denmark and Norway stopped purchasing Danish and Norwegian goods.
By not buying Danish and Norwegian products, these muslims in fact are boycotting their "own" national economy. Since they hate their adoptive countries so much, why don't they pack up and go back where they came from. That would be a real boycott...

Of course the level of life they enjoy here, well above anything most people in their country of origin would ever dream of having, is not as easy to abandon. In the end money are more important than principles...and Mohammed.

Seems quite hypocrite to me, but not completely surprising.

 

So, you will basically do anything for money, despite your principles and moral/ethical values (which then would lead to you really not having any at all)?

I think you're missing the big picture here. The dead threats etc. are not directly associated with the religion itself, but rather the "state of the country" (i.e. cultural, historical and triditional ways of doing things). I mean, come on! Look at what Europeans has done in the name of Christianity throughout the ages!
The problem indeed does not lay in the religion, but rather that these people simply doesn't understand what it means to live in a free and democratic country. In the end, how many of you can say that you've actually read the Qu'ran (sp?); that you actually know something about the religion? Sorry, but it really pisses me off that you guys shoot down something that is, in the end (and in my eyes) unrelated, and of which you now so very little about. Not saying that I do, but on the other hand I don't judge Muslims in general based on this. Or rather I don't judge them as Muslims, but as (a) people.

A couple of years back there was a huge debate in Denmark regarding Jesus' sexual tendencies; this debate too spawned likewise responses from Christians who were outraged (and yes, there were death threats, bombing threats, etc. just as in this case). Don't fool yourself into thinking that fundamentalists only exists in the Muslim worldl; in the end religion is not as much about what it says, but rather how people interpret it. And yes, there has been Imams (not sure if this is the correct English word) out there telling Muslims not to resort to violence; to lay low and try getting a dialogue at hand instead. And how do you expect that we can even get the messages out to a people if they're governed by a government like, say, the Iranian one?

[ February 01, 2006, 21:21: Message edited by: olimikrig ]

 

I detect a certain amount of hypocrisy in the press' defence of these cartoons and their craven refusal defend the rights of historian David Irving, who has been jailed in Austria ahead of his trial next month on charges of denying the Holocaust. It is true that Irving's view of history is totally devoid of moral considerations. He is too amoral to even comprehend that his statements about the Holocaust may hurt survivors. The cartoons in question are, simmilarly, crass and equally devoid of consideration.

As for it being a joke, Irving once quipped that more people had died on the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz, and was, quite justifiably, crucified by some of the very publications that are printing the offending cartoons. Why don't they defend Irving making fun of Holocaust survivors by dressing that up as prankish humour? Every joke has its victim and it is monstrously unjust to villify Irving as a hate-figure while applauding the Jyllands-Posten's decision to print the offending images.

Freedom of speech and expression is not the preserve of the white liberal and if Muslims wish to boycott Danish goods, then they are perfectly in their rights to do so. The same is true of the fundamentalist Christians who protested against Jerry Springer: The Opera and, years earlier, that The Life of Brian was 'blasphemous'. It is unfortunate that some people feel their freely chosen beliefs are not robust enough to withstand criticism or mockery and must be defended by threatening or violent means. But it is naïve to believe that Islam has a monopoly on such barbarity; after all, the cast and creators of Jerry Springer: The Opera suffered threats and intimidation from Christians here in Britain.

Ridiculous, outmoded or hateful religious practices need to be criticised and exposed. But because you cannot criticise practices without implicating the practitioners, practitioners are bound to be caught in the crossfire and so, a certain amount of civility is always welcome.

[ February 02, 2006, 14:35: Message edited by: SatansBedFellow ]

 

I've always viewed religion as one of humanity's greatest flaws. It wasn't bad enough that factions/nations are different in terms of culture, color, language, general physical shape and other real things, but then some morons go about and invent a religion and now we're at each others' throats for reasons of fantasy.

It's like World of Warcraft players from the opposing factions of Horde and Alliance meeting each other in public and actually discriminating on those grounds. Pure and utter fantasy.

I guess the main problem here is a clash of culture combined with a religious insult. Many arab countries do not have freedom of speech, it's a concept they struggle to even believe exists - let alone understand.

However, If a country wants to boycott a type of product then it's their damn choice. They have every right to not buy a product from somewhere for whatever reason they deem appropriate - no matter how utterly stupid it is - since it is THEIR money and they can spend it how they want.

They are just shooting themselves in the foot, though. Basic rules of economics show that trade benefits both parties. Stopping trade with one country will only increase the prices of the types of goods that would be imported from that country in your country. The western world is fast running out of patience with Muslims' inability to grasp modern day political concepts. There is a reason our countries are so rich compared to yours and the standard of living is so high, think maybe it could be because we're doing things differently than you?

 

That's like saying the Inquisition or Crusades or the wars between Catholics and Protestants prove that Christianity isn't a religion of peace and tolerance.

Utterly absurd.

I've long held that criminalizing such behavior is unacceptable.

 

I think printing the cartoons wasn't the brightest idea, but this has gone waaaay too far.

If the arabs don't want to buy Danish products, it's their choice. As for the arabs living here talking about how horrible Denmark is, they are free to go home.
Oh, and pretty much all my Muslim friends don't mind the cartoons at all, and even think they're funny. People gotta stop being so serious.

Oh, and the cartoons ARE funny.

 

Who cares? At the end of the day, when all's said and done... it's a cartoon for ****s sake.
Honestly, you couldn't make this up...

They should stop with the double standards. If it was anti- Christian stuff you can bet your ass no fuss on this scale would be made, and no editors fired.

Send spliffs and beer to Muslim countries. Set up 24hr clubs and keep it real to the masses. Nobody would give a **** then.

 

What they taught me at college last year is that freedom of speech should be granted as long as there are "ulterior responsabilities". That means one is theoretically, and legally in some countries, allowed to say whatever he or she wants to say, but must later deal with the consequences. And this is what, in my opinion, should happen. Self censorship is like the worst thing in these cases. There are other ways to prevent damage, and one is warning about content. A simple advice "don't buy this, don't read this if..." and that's it. Of course it's not a very good advertisement, but it's wiser than just publishing delicate stuff without a previous check.
Those death threats are as unacceptable as the injuries. I don't think those guys understood their religious teachings, whatever their religion may be.
As a final note, the article doesn't give much information. It's seems Buchanan dude wanted to talk crap about muslims.

 

I'm not religious, so I don't find this offensive. On the other hand, wouldn't most christians be a little offended (possibly enough to warrant a boycott) if a magazine published images of Jesus doing much the same thing? In the United States, when a magazine publishes really offensive material that furthers false and derogatory stereotypes people cancel their subscriptions. The muslim world(who's understanding of the concept of free press is somewhat limited in many of their nations) is doing much the same thing.

 

Looks like those Danish publishers have already forgotten the murder of Theo van Gogh, no?

I wonder when we will get to the point where no one in Europe dares to even look at anything Islam-related. We are already having a nation under pressure and innocent people fearing for their lifes because of a comic strip in a newspaper.

... cant take that much longer til we will try to avoid that matter, I think.

On a brighter note: Then again the chairman of "Copenhagen's Islamic Federation" is considering to let the Danes off easy, or so it appears. Huzzah! How gracious of him. What a kind person he must be to pardon the liberties the Danes took so unduely. In their own nation, no less.

 

He's "considering" letting the Danes off easy ? So there's also a chance he's not going to let them get away with it then ? What's he going to do about it then ? tell them they are no longer welcome in Denmark and have 48 hours to pack their bags ?

Methinks someone is forgetting who's the guest here.

I haven't got a clue how much longer this is going to continue, or how much longer we are going to tolerate stuff like this to happen in our own backyards, but i have a strong feeling that people here are close to being totally fed up with Islam and it's short tempered followers. There were mosques going up in flames here after van Gogh was murdered, but luckily the rage faded away as quickly as it came, next time we might not be so lucky. I truly start to believe that the two groups of people were never meant to mingle. Maybe it's for the best if we got seperated again. If it's really so hard to live together, we're both better off that way.

 

I would never invite my fundamentalist in-laws over for dinner served on plates with graphic images of Jesus fellating Peter while having sex with Mary Magdalene. They would be horribly offended and that would make me a bad host. When they leave early and stop returning my phone calls, that wouldn't make them bad guests. It would be my fault for being a bad host.

 

True. So it would be OK for those fundamentalists of yours to then go and threaten to kill your neighbours, simply for living in the same street you do? Or to take their anger out on other people totally unrelated to this perceived lack of sensitivity?

It would be OK to threaten your, the offenders, life? Is it reason enough to resort to violence to begin with in your opinion?

Is it expected of anyone to accept this just because someone mentions fundamentalism?

[ February 02, 2006, 07:27: Message edited by: Dendri ]