Let's eliminate the misconceptions about Jyllands-Posten

[storealex]

Many here on CFC got the wrong idea. That this newspaper is some extreme rightwing racist paper, only trying to provoke Muslims. And that the reaction against it and Denmark, though overreacting, is somehow deserved.

But that's not the case. Jyllands-posten is centre-right in Denmark, but In the US such a paper would be on the left of the Democrats, and in the centre in UK. It is therefore not a rightwing paper, if you look at it with international standards.
It is not racist either, and didn't publish the cartoons because "they just wanted to spit in the Muslims face" as some posters here put it.

Months before the cartoons, a Jewish teacher was beaten up by Muslims, because he as an infidel dared to read from the Koran to his students. Van Gogh was killed. And an author about a book of Muhammd couldn't find any artists to draw him a cartoon of Muhammed, because they feared the responses from the Muslim community (Death as the worst case scenario)

Jyllands-Posten thought this was dangerous. Artists and teachers were restraining themselves from even remotely having anything to do with Islam, fearing death and beatings. That's not how a Democracy should work! They therefore decided to publish the cartoons because of two reasons:

- As a protest against the fear of Islam restricting freedom of speech.
- As a test. If the Muslims didn't overreact, then surely the problem would not be as big as thought. If they did, then surely we have a big problem in our society that needs to be attended to.

As it is now clear, the overreaction came and much larger than anyone could have imagined. The radical hatemongers only proved Jyllands-posten right.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Interesting. What was its stance in the 1930s like ? There have been a number of implications that it was pretty anti-semitic in those times. (And I'm not looking to deduce anything from that, just interested in knowing whether this is a slur or not)

 

[Bozo Erectus]

What I want to know is, who starts that newspaper editors car for him every morning.

 

[storealex]

Interesting. What was its stance in the 1930s like ? There have been a number of implications that it was pretty anti-semitic in those times. (And I'm not looking to deduce anything from that, just interested in knowing whether this is a slur or not)

No idea, but before WWII Nazism was not that unpopular in Scandinavia or the rest of Europe for that matter. The Conservatives flirted with nazism too, it was crazy times, but support of such things went away when Germany went to war.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

If the cartoons were merely breaking the perceived restrictions on freedom of speech caused by Islam, they need only have depicted Mohammed, not depict him as the godfather of terrorism. The not-so-subtle implication of the cartoons was that Islam is a terrorist religion and Muslims are terrorists. I don't care if Jyllands-posten advocates a worldwide communist revolution, those cartoons reflected views just as far to the right as those that got the BNP taken to court in the UK recently.

Of course, none of this means that the cartoons should be suppressed or that the absurd reaction is in any way justified. But just because you support the freedom of speech that allows Jyllands-posten to publish this trash, doesn't mean anyone should give an ounce of respect to the idiots themselves.

Whenever anything like this blows up, you get people making ridiculous generalisations. The Jyllands-posten does not speak for Denmark and Muslim fundamentalists do not speak for Islam, just as the BNP does not speak for Britain. The Jyllands-posten and the idiots who just torched the Danish embassy in Beirut are as guilty as each other of failing to make this distinction.

 

[newfangle]

Errr....what?

There is a big difference between exercising free speech in a free country and the wanten destruction of property (and most certainly human life the way this thing is headed).

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Errr....what?

There is a big difference between exercising free speech in a free country and the wanten destruction of property (and most certainly human life the way this thing is headed).

Absolutely. I merely said that both were equally guilty of failing to distinguish between ugly elements and soceity as a whole. I'd never equate the two acts in the way that you're describing. I've made a minor edit to emphasise this.

 

[Uiler]

I agree with you Enkidu Warrior. Anyone can see a decided anti-Islamic slant to the cartoons. As you said, if they just wanted to break the taboo, why not just publish a normal picture of Mohammad? Why choose the most prejudiced, hateful, biased ones possible? As I have said repeatedly it is very well known that there are very very serious tensions between Europeans and Islamic migrants throughout W. Europe. I believe that you can't simply say that this hasn't affected the actions (on either side).

In my opinion the editor of that newspaper were nothing more than drunken louts doing the equivalent of throwing nasty anti-Islamic comments at passerbys. Of course what the Islamists are doing now is hysterically overreacting and torching the entire town to the ground over a couple of louts but I still call them louts. I agree with you that they should still be allowed to publish the pictures - actually my view of free speech is closer to the US one where even the KKK is allowed to speak than the European one which actively outlaws KKK style speech - but the Danish newspaper were actively trying to incite and insult the Muslim community. They probably had no idea it was going to go this far though. In another thread I posted a link to an article which says that this would never happen in the US because the US has long experience with how touchy minorities can get (political correctness was invented in the US) and how little things can easily result in race riots.

What we had was a situation where two sides were already at breaking point due to tensions and a bunch of louts on one side who after a hard night of drinking decided it was a good idea to go the other side and scream profanities and ethnic insults at the others to "show them a lesson". They then get chased back to our side and now we have to defend them. According to our principles we have to and I accept that, but I still think they're a bunch of idiotic louts who are definitely lacking in common sense. Still, I guess this is a conflict that has been long in coming and it's time for us and the Islamic world to take sides and stake our positions. Still doesn't mean I don't want to kick the editors of the newspapers for being idiots, but still these are issues which we would have had to face sooner or later.

If the cartoons were merely breaking the perceived restrictions on freedom of speech caused by Islam, they need only have depicted Mohammed, not depict him as the godfather of terrorism. The not-so-subtle implication of the cartoons was that Islam is a terrorist religion and Muslims are terrorists. I don't care if Jyllands-posten advocates a worldwide communist revolution, those cartoons reflected views just as far to the right as those that got the BNP taken to court in the UK recently.

Of course, none of this means that the cartoons should be suppressed or that the absurd reaction is in any way justified. But just because you support the freedom of speech that allows Jyllands-posten to publish this trash, doesn't mean anyone should give an ounce of respect to the idiots themselves.

Whenever anything like this blows up, you get people making ridiculous generalisations. The Jyllands-posten does not speak for Denmark and Muslim fundamentalists do not speak for Islam, just as the BNP does not speak for Britain. The Jyllands-posten and the idiots who just torched the Danish embassy in Beirut are as guilty as each other of failing to make this distinction.

 

[Lozzy_Ozzy]

People have got to remember that you have cartoons being negative about any Religion, person, or place. Its not like everyone else goesthis mad after being degraded (is that the right word?) in a newspaper...

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I agree with you Enkidu Warrior. Anyone can see a decided anti-Islamic slant to the cartoons. As you said, if they just wanted to break the taboo, why not just publish a normal picture of Mohammad? Why choose the most prejudiced, hateful, biased ones possible?

They "chose" nothing. They invited 12 artists to draw pictures of Mohammed. Insofar as any cartoon in a newspaper can ever be considered normal, these were normal.

So what your statement becomes is this: "Newspapers, you can break religious taboos, but you mustn't be satirical at the same time, because that might be offensive."

 

[toh6wy]

People have got to remember that you have cartoons being negative about any Religion, person, or place. Its not like everyone else goesthis mad after being degraded (is that the right word?) in a newspaper...

Perhaps Muslims are particularly sensitive about this sort of thing. Or, they aren't used to it.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

They "chose" nothing. They invited 12 artists to draw pictures of Mohammed. Insofar as any cartoon in a newspaper can ever be considered normal, these were normal.

So what your statement becomes is this: "Newspapers, you can break religious taboos, but you mustn't be satirical at the same time, because that might be offensive."

They weren't "being satirical", they were equating Muslims with terrorists. How can you defend that?

 

[Winner]

They weren't "being satirical", they were equating Muslims with terrorists. How can you defend that?

They made a connection between Islam and terrorism, which isn't so shocking considering that the terrorists killing our people are doing that in the name of Islam.

It is offensive? Maybe. Does it justify this kind of violence? No way!

 

[Uiler]

Of course they chose the pictures. No-one put a gun to their heads and said "you must publish these insulting cartoons" They didn't have to publish the most insulting ones. Not all the cartoons were insulting. Some were just normal pictures of Mohammad. The OP and the newspaper claimed that they were "only" trying to break the taboo of not showing Mohammad. If that was the case why not only choose the normal ones? They could have easily achieved their "claimed" motive without the most insulting cartoons.

The fact that they chose the most insulting ones as well points to another ulterior motive.

So they should stop trying to pretend that they are oh so innocent. "Oh we were just trying to break the taboo against depicting the prophet Mohammad. Oh we didn't mean any harm or insult. We weren't trying to cause damage." Oh course they were. That's the entire point of the type of brutal satire in those cartoons - to insult, incite and shock. It's not exactly playful friendly humour. Doesn't excuse the Muslim overreaction but the "Oh I didn't mean to offend" cries of the newspaper are complete bullfeathers. Just admit it - they were trying to incite and insult the Muslim community. They chose the cartoons deliberately to do this. Under free speech they have the right. But they were still trying to insult the religion.

They "chose" nothing. They invited 12 artists to draw pictures of Mohammed. Insofar as any cartoon in a newspaper can ever be considered normal, these were normal.

So what your statement becomes is this: "Newspapers, you can break religious taboos, but you mustn't be satirical at the same time, because that might be offensive."

 

[Aramazd]

If a person kills someone you don't call their family murderers. The muslims are definately overreacting, but that doesn't mean the cartoon is justified. I do not see how this isn't anti-Muslim. It depicts Muhammed as a terrorist, and since Muhammed is the founder of Islam and Muslims follow his teachings, it implies all Muslims are terrorists.

Perhaps Muslims are particularly sensitive about this sort of thing. Or, they aren't used to it.

It is not allowed in the religion to depict God or any of his prophets.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Useful link: Jyllands-Posten's open letter in English.

They weren't "being satirical", they were equating Muslims with terrorists. How can you defend that?

Oh, I don't know, maybe the same way everyone defends themselves when equating Jesus and Christians with {hypocrisy, bigotry, conservatism, homophobia, misogyny, genocide, persecution, stupidity, oppression, lies}. If you want a more explicit answer, ask CurtSibling how he can justify himself.
And let not forget this, either: The Arab World routinely depicts Jews in the same fashion and worse.

Of course they chose the pictures. No-one put a gun to their heads and said "you must publish these insulting cartoons" They didn't have to publish the most insulting ones. Not all the cartoons were insulting. Some were just normal pictures of Mohammad. The OP and the newspaper claimed that they were "only" trying to break the taboo of not showing Mohammad. If that was the case why not only choose the normal ones? They could have easily achieved their "claimed" motive without the most insulting cartoons.

Find me a source, then, or preferably two, because this one tells a different story:

After an invitation from Jyllands-Posten to around forty different artists to give their interpretation on how Muhammad may have looked, twelve different caricaturists chose to respond with a drawing each. Some of these twelve drawings portray Muhammad in different fashions; many also comment on the surrounding self-censorship debate. <snip>
# Muhammad as a simple wanderer, in the desert, at sunset. There is a donkey in the background.
# A nervous caricaturist, shakingly drawing Muhammad while looking over his shoulder.

I don't see any "selection of the most offensive cartoons" here. They called forty caricaturists; twelve of them answered; twelve cartoons got published.

 

[Jawz II]

according to www.aftonbladet.se the jyllandsposten is the most xenophobic paper in denmark, the most xenophobic country in europe, and also they say this paper has published similar material in the past.

i take it, they havent published any anit-jewish material since the 1930s?

 

[Jawz II]

No idea, but before WWII Nazism was not that unpopular in Scandinavia or the rest of Europe for that matter. The Conservatives flirted with nazism too, it was crazy times, but support of such things went away when Germany went to war.

not really, many scandinavians fought for the germans, maybe not many danes, since denmark was invaded.

 

[toh6wy]

It is not allowed in the religion to depict God or any of his prophets.

I know. What's your point?

 

[Gibsie]

Sigh. Maybe newspapers should test out their "freedom of speech" by posting graphical accounts of the sexlives of its local politicians, accompanied by amusing cartoons, perhaps featuring the politicans having sex with their parents. "It's satire" could be used as a defense for anything! It doesn't matter if there's truth, or slander, it's SATIRE! Have you no sense of humour?