Muslim rage against Denmark. Trade boycotts and burning of flags

[sysyphus]

A good point Talesin, it still is basically a form of infrignement on one's right to free speech, but it's one that is VERY commonplace, though often in milder forms.

For example, the president of my company recently worte a letter to the Globe and Mail in response to (well founded) criticisms the Globe made of our company. Our president's repsonse was full of rhetoric and essentially a pile of bs. I would have loved nothing more than to have written a response to his letter poking holes in what he'd written.

Of course, if I did, I'd be sacked in no time flat, and would probably have a very tough time finding another job since I would be labelled as a rat.

Thus, my rights to free speech are infringed upon. Exercising them would cause me more grief than speaking out would be worth.

I'm sure anyone can think of such examples from their own life experience. It's a matter of picking one's battles, in light of the likely consequences.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

If you are Muslim and/or easily offended please don't click on the image below.

 

[Singularity]

Ok, I'm going to come clean out and say that untill the so called peaceloving and understanding majority of muslims IN muslim countries go out and protest against this outrage I will be forced to admit that Islam as a construct is utterly incapable to selfpolice itself of extremism.

I hear over and over again that 'this is not the true way of Allah', 'Allah is mercifull', 'Allah's way is the way of love and understanding' and ultimately - the argumentkiller 'theese confused few(extremists&terrorists) are a tiny minority that in no way preaches the true words of Allah'.

Whenever we've had some neo-nazi's or other form of extreme groups marching in Norway there where ALLWAYS tenfold counterprotests to make a point of how utterly alone they where in society. Where are theese prostests in ANY muslim country today? The whole etablishment of Islam preaching and scholarship seem paralyzed to take a decent and significant counterstance that's felt in the world; something that could lend credit to the peace and love that's at the core of Islam.

 

[ironduck]

That said, the publishers knew that publishing the cartoons would cause this kind of outrage, you's have to be a hermit to not know that.

[..]

But there is no way I will regard the publishers of these cartoons with any esteem for what they did. Their freedom of speech was not being inhibited in any way before this incident (people refusing to draw the pictures due to consequences is not a hit against free speech, the original author was always free to draw the picture himself).

First all, I'm pretty sure the publishers or anyone else in this country did not expect this level of outrage. People are burning embassies, people are being kidnapped.

You have to understand it was a domestic issue, whether you agree with the editors of the newspaper or not (I think it was a somewhat childish decision). The background for the printing was that several people in Denmark had expressed that there is self-censorship going on when it comes to islam, due to fear of repercussions from millitant muslims. The newspaper made their decision on that background, right or wrong.

 

[sysyphus]

First all, I'm pretty sure the publishers or anyone else in this country did not expect this level of outrage. People are burning embassies, people are being kidnapped.

Right, because there's been no indication up until now that fundamentalists might sink to that sort of behaviour.

You have to understand it was a domestic issue, whether you agree with the editors of the newspaper or not (I think it was a somewhat childish decision). The background for the printing was that several people in Denmark had expressed that there is self-censorship going on when it comes to islam, due to fear of repercussions from millitant muslims. The newspaper made their decision on that background, right or wrong.

Dealing with Islam could hardly be approached as a domestic issue for any western country, considering that the religion is largely practised and has it roots in the middle and far east. Any comment on Islam would surely ring out around the world with today's high tech communications.

It's fair to say that those who were worried about the infringement on their freedom of speech and a reasonable gripe. But did they deal with it by approaching members of the Danish muslim comunity, discussing the issue with them? Was there a reasonable attempt to foster understanding? No, they jumped straight to the confrontational approach.

They reap what they sew.

 

[Alone]

Lately don't have much time to hang around here, but I droped by just to send you a post my friend...

@storalex - You should apologize to your friends muslims immedietly, and kiss there ass politely.

And onother small sugestion. You guys (Danemark) should expresway recognize Kosovo as an independent islamic republic in the middle of Europe and open the ambassy there, so that guys can burn your Ambassy for fun and not anymore Christian churchs ans monasteries.

have a fun

 

[Till]

I'm listening to BBC world service right now and it appears as if the Immans not only showed the danish cartoons, but also used other, even more offending ones to rally support. (A picture of Muhammed with a pig nose was mentioned.)

 

[Singularity]

@sysyphus 'They reap what they sew?'

How could any sane person predict the width of the repricussions that page of cartoon style drawings of a holy figure would have around the world? You can't sit here seriously and say that this is what one would expect would happen? This is a micro political reaction belonging in a tiny regional area taken to a global scale all around the world via a few friday prayers where muslim clerics willingly and directly spew gasoline to the growing fire of hatred and seperatism between the western world and the 'muslim world'. And seriously, not a single person could predict that this would happen.

Jyllandsposten may be a national danish newspaper, but it is still a newspaper and not a public source of information spread by the danish goverment. And it honestly has nothing to do as a topic in a friday prayer in Indonesia, Syria or Turkey.

 

[ironduck]

Right, because there's been no indication up until now that fundamentalists might sink to that sort of behaviour.

Dealing with Islam could hardly be approached as a domestic issue for any western country, considering that the religion is largely practised and has it roots in the middle and far east. Any comment on Islam would surely ring out around the world with today's high tech communications.

You know, I replied to you courteously and gave you information that you probably don't have since you do not live here. And in return you give me sarcasm.

For your information, this WAS seen as a domestic issue by practically everyone here, and it still is by the majority of the muslims here who are saying the very same thing!

A group of fundamentalists went on a tour of the middle east to drum up support for a reaction - before they did that this was not an international issue. These people who did that live in a free democracy and they went to dictatorships for the support of those governments at the islamic conference. That was hardly to be expected.

Also, for your info this is not exactly the first time Mohammed has been carricatured in newspapers! But this time it was used as a way to channel rage in the muslim world away from the authoritarian governments and generally miserable situation towards an easy target.

 

[ironduck]

They reap what they sew.

Oh, and what the heck is that supposed to mean? If I make fun of you I should expect violence?

 

[ironduck]

I'm listening to BBC world service right now and it appears as if the Immans not only showed the danish cartoons, but also used other, even more offending ones to rally support. (A picture of Muhammed with a pig nose was mentioned.)

Yes, the fundamentalist imams who went on their tour around the middle east brought pictures that were not part of the Danish debate. Including manipulated photos of a praying muslim being copulated by a dog and Muhammed with the pig nose. They were never interested in constructive dialogue (if you are you don't leave a democratic country to get support from dictators), they were interested in making themselves seem important to the muslims at home. Why? Because they are trying to get more followers for their organisation, and by being seen as 'defenders of the faith' they figured they would get super popular. There's a lot of competition going on between imams and muslim groups here. It was very much a domestic issue and muslims around the world are being used to further various agendas.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

They reap what they sew.

To follow your logic then if I eat meat on Friday I might encourage a Catholic to punch me in the face?

Everyone has a right to practice their own religion. Nobody has a right to tell others what they can or can't print in a newspaper. Anti-Semitic cartoons were mentioned, and yes, you have a right to print those in your newspaper if you so choose as well. If you don't like what a newspaper prints then don't read it. This does not give you an excuse for violence in any possible way. Jumping to violence because you disagree with someones opinion is wrong in every possible manner.



P.S. - It's "Reap what you sow".

sow
v. sowed, sown, or sowed sow·ing, sows
v. tr.

1. To scatter (seed) over the ground for growing.
2. To impregnate (a growing medium) with seed.
3. To propagate; disseminate: sow rumors.
4. To strew or cover with something; spread thickly.


v. intr.

To scatter seed for growing.

 

[ironduck]

If you don't like what a newspaper prints then don't read it.

Actually you are free to take them to court. But for some reason the muslims here decided that rather than ask the court they would ask the dictators in various middle eastern countries.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Actually you are free to take them to court. But for some reason the muslims here decided that rather than ask the court they would ask the dictators in various middle eastern countries.

What basis could the Danish newspaper be sued for? The usual reason to take a paper to court is by celebrities suing for slander and defamation of character and seeking monetary compensation for damage to their reputations.

Who would be the plaintiff filing the lawsuit? What would be the accusation? You committed a sin according to my religion by depicting my deity isn't illegal in any civilized nation that I know of.

 

[ironduck]

What basis could the Danish newspaper be sued for?

The charge would be a violation of an old blasphemy law that still exist here.

It's highly unlikely that they would win, their case would be very weak.

Personally, I think the blasphemy law should be abolished since I don't believe a religion should have special rights in that regard.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

The charge would be a violation of an old blasphemy law that still exist here.

A blasphemy law? Wow, I thought that kind of thing was left back in the dark ages somewhere.

Does it apply to all religions? If it does then it would be very easy to offend someone, somewhere with almost anything you say or print. A pork advertisement? Non-Kosher food being advertised? Alcohol ads? Almost any western ad with a non-fully covered woman depicted? The list is endless. Your poor court system could collapse due to all the lawsuits.

 

[ironduck]

A blasphemy law? Wow, I thought that kind of thing was left back in the dark ages somewhere.

Does it apply to all religions? If it does then it would be very easy to offend someone, somewhere with almost anything you say or print. A pork advertisement? Non-Kosher food being advertised? Alcohol ads? Almost any western ad with a non-fully covered woman depicted? The list is endless. Your poor court system could collapse due to all the lawsuits.

As I said, they would have a very weak case.

The reason is that the blasphemy in question would have to be 'extreme' somehow, the precedence has been set for a very liberal interpretation.

There was a case 30 years ago where christians tried to get a ruling for blasphemy against Jesus, but they lost. They had a much stronger case than the muslims would have as far as I can tell.

I'm actually not aware if there has ever been a conviction. So although I think it's a stupid law to have, there's no chance it could be used the way you describe (if it was it would immediately be abolished by the parliament).

 

[sysyphus]

Oh, and what the heck is that supposed to mean? If I make fun of you I should expect violence?

Of course not, I am not a violent person. But some people are known to be, and if you aggitate them, then you can be sure they'll react violently. Doesn't make it right, but it is still reality.

There is too much interaction in the world for there to be many issues that are domestic anymore, let alone one that crosses cultural boundaries.

The next time you happen to cross paths with a biker (or roughian of your choice, whatever is available locally) and go in and start exercising your right to free speech. Tell them what a drain on society they are, what a pitiful bunch of leeches and scumbags you see them as. Go ahead, they have no right to hurt you.

But nonetheless they will. And should you survive, the first thing you family will say to you will not be "what a bunch of jerks those bikers are, how dare they!", but rather they'll say "why on earth did you do that!?!?!?!".

 

[sysyphus]

To follow your logic then if I eat meat on Friday I might encourage a Catholic to punch me in the face?

Everyone has a right to practice their own religion. Nobody has a right to tell others what they can or can't print in a newspaper. Anti-Semitic cartoons were mentioned, and yes, you have a right to print those in your newspaper if you so choose as well. If you don't like what a newspaper prints then don't read it. This does not give you an excuse for violence in any possible way. Jumping to violence because you disagree with someones opinion is wrong in every possible manner.

If you read my original post you'll see that I clearly state that the reactionaries have no right to sink to violence, so don't bother putting words in my mouth. You miss my point completely.

And congratulations on your mastery of the english language. Now perhaps you'd like to correct the spelling and grammar of those who generally agree with your viewpoint? That should keep you busy for a while.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

You miss my point completely.

"Mahmoud Zahar, leader of the militant Palestinian group Hamas, told the Italian daily Il Giornale the cartoonists should be punished by death." - forbes.com

There is a clear line between civilized and uncivilized behavior. A biker beating you up as you described is still illegal and if you call the police he may well end up in prison on account of his behavior. Wrong is wrong. Just because it happens and is sometimes tolerated does not make it any less wrong. Embassies are being burned and people are fleeing entire regions. Free speech is a very important part of being a modern country and I for one am proud of the other European newspapers that had the guts to reprint the cartoons in support of those rights. I see things in the newspaper all the time that offend me, but it is still their right to print what they see fit.

What exactly is your point then? The newspapers are within their rights and the protesters have gone way too far. Do you really see it any other way?


P.S. - I'm surprised you take offense at my attempt to improve your English. Now you have learned something, and after all, isn't that a good thing?