Danish Newspaper Cartoons

[pineapple stu]

Strikes me as bizarre that I'm the first person to point out that the actions of the fanatics responsible for those events (and organisations) are not representative of Islam as a whole.

Incidentally, I would also say that it's grossly insulting to say that, because a small minority of Muslim extremists have been responsible for some atrocities, that Muslims in general have no right to act offended about anything.

That's a ridiculous comparison to make. This example is

a) an attack on a persons civil rights
b) libellous

But that's actually prving my point in a way. I said that "Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities to use that freedom appropriately." Many of those responsibilities are set out in law, as you mentioned. But the law isn't exhaustive. Common sense has to play a part as well. The pictures were clearly going to be offensive. Just because we don't take religion seriously any more doesn't mean we can insult other people's religion - it's exactly this lack of respect of other cultures that sees so many tense spots in the world today. Though obviously threats of violence have no part to play anywhere.

Incidentally, Jesus only appears twice in The Life of Brian. Once he's being worshipped in the stable in Bethlehem when he's born. Once he's being listened to reverently (largely!) when preaching on the mount. Banning that film was a complete knee-jerk reaction by the same Church authorities who banned the Boomtown Rats in Ireland when they first made it big. The Danish cartoons however are quite clearly taking the p!ss out of Mohammed and Islam. Fairly big difference.

[hamish]

But that's actually prving my point in a way. I said that "Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities to use that freedom appropriately." Many of those responsibilities are set out in law, as you mentioned. But the law isn't exhaustive. Common sense has to play a part as well. The pictures were clearly going to be offensive. Just because we don't take religion seriously any more doesn't mean we can insult other people's religion - it's exactly this lack of respect of other cultures that sees so many tense spots in the world today. Though obviously threats of violence have no part to play anywhere.

Incidentally, Jesus only appears twice in The Life of Brian. Once he's being worshipped in the stable in Bethlehem when he's born. Once he's being listened to reverently (largely!) when preaching on the mount. Banning that film was a complete knee-jerk reaction by the same Church authorities who banned the Boomtown Rats in Ireland when they first made it big. The Danish cartoons however are quite clearly taking the p!ss out of Mohammed and Islam. Fairly big difference.

I've seen TLOB three times but, whilst Jesus only appeared twice in it, isn't the entire film a p!sstake on JC anyway???

I've only see a few of the cartoons and didn't find them exceptionally offensive but then I'm not a Muslim TBF but can see that they would be offended.

But, where do we draw the line??? The German bloke from Die Weldt said that it was traditional (?) for this kind of satire to be used in Western society about anything - religion etc. Ditto the Danish folks interviewed.

Again, so what if Islam (or any religion for that matter) is being taken the p!ss out of. This is what happens in Western Europe.

Again, PS - and apologies for harping on about the horrible Ireland I remember - but if you had lived through "traditional Ireland " of the late 50s, 60s and 70s maybe you might think different. Not trying to be confrontational here but I always worry when satire is confronted - we all know what the next step is. Look at the brouhaha in the US about the cartoon on Rumsfeldt. If the fundementalists everywhere had their way, all satire would be censored.

For centuries, satire has been a way to confront orthodoxies and deny them total power. It's as vital to a free society as water, food, a good education and all the other elements we take for granted.

Where does one draw the line between satire and offensivesness? I don't know.

Help me out here.

[pineapple stu]

I've seen TLOB three times but, whilst Jesus only appeared twice in it, isn't the entire film a p!sstake on JC anyway???

Don't recall Jesus crawling through sewers to infiltrate the Roman occupation, or his father being a soldier in the Jerusalem garrison or him selling ocelot's ears to make a few bob!

There is a point to be made there, I suppose, although you could argue that TLOF was very well made and merely parodied Jesus' life in parts, while these cartoons are a bit more hard-hitting.

Again, so what if Islam (or any religion for that matter) is being taken the p!ss out of. This is what happens in Western Europe.

But who's to say this is the right way? Why should we expect everyone to think the way we do because it's the way we think? It's not what's done in Muslim countries.

Mind you, I do have an issue with people emigrating to a country and acting offended at anything which doesn't match their culture - the likes of not using the term "Christian name" in Ireland, or when An Post decided to take down any religious motifs in their Post Offices because non-Christians might be offended. You move to a country, you adapt to its culture - you don't expect it to adapt to you. Though there is a difference between plainly non-provocative things such as the term "Christian name" and plainly provocative things like blaspheming people's God.

Where does one draw the line between satire and offensivesness? I don't know.

Well, a good guide would be that if drawings of Mohammed are considered blasphemous, then drawings of Mohammed will probably be considered offensive.

[dahamsta]

Oops, sorry about that stu.

[hamish]

Don't recall Jesus crawling through sewers to infiltrate the Roman occupation, or his father being a soldier in the Jerusalem garrison or him selling ocelot's ears to make a few bob!

There is a point to be made there, I suppose, although you could argue that TLOF was very well made and merely parodied Jesus' life in parts, while these cartoons are a bit more hard-hitting.


But who's to say this is the right way? Why should we expect everyone to think the way we do because it's the way we think? It's not what's done in Muslim countries.

Mind you, I do have an issue with people emigrating to a country and acting offended at anything which doesn't match their culture - the likes of not using the term "Christian name" in Ireland, or when An Post decided to take down any religious motifs in their Post Offices because non-Christians might be offended. You move to a country, you adapt to its culture - you don't expect it to adapt to you. Though there is a difference between plainly non-provocative things such as the term "Christian name" and plainly provocative things like blaspheming people's God.


Well, a good guide would be that if drawings of Mohammed are considered blasphemous, then drawings of Mohammed will probably be considered offensive.

Thanks PS - you're reply is a help to silly old Hamish but isn't blasphemy only blasphemy if you're a member of the religion???

Your point about those emigrating etc kind of coincides with my earlier point/post about the West's treatment of Muslim areas over the years so I suppose we're getting payback of a sorts, I guess. I totally agree with you about adopting to a culture but I didn't know about the An Post situation TBH. Trouble is, everywhere there is an ongoing debate about multiculturalism and how all beliefs/lifestyles can coexist without us tearing the heads off one another.

What puzzles me though is the conflict between what the Danish cartoonist think is a satirical cartoon and what Muslims feel ought to be allowed.
To be brutally honest, that religion has a poor track record in places like Northern Nigeria where Christian minorities are treated terribly and in Saudi Arabia etc where women are fifth class citizens. Before they criticise the West and its openness they should put their own house in order first. Again, I remember how women were (and still are) treated by Christian churches here. Look at the way gay and women vicars are being treated by the Protestant churches in the US, Africa and in the UK.

Jesus (oops blasphemy) - the more I think about this the more confused I get,

PS - again, my opinion is coloured by my past. Here's a few things of what I've experienced in my past.

1.A priest admonishing me in the street for not showing him respect . ie I didn't say "Hello Father" - I left out the father bit. I told him to fcuk off BTW. (That was in the early SEVENTIES BTW)
2. Priests admonishing us from the pulpit about playing soccer - no kidding - the pr!ck used references like "the growth of foreign cultures in music and games which threatens our culture and way of life". I walked out of the church because at that time I and some friends were organising a footie club).
3.Threatened in Primary school for being a "shoneen" ie playing soccer (in my own time too). I got the hands flogged off me with a wavin pipe but I looked that cnut of a teacher straight in the eye and didn't flinch once I tell you.
4. Threatened in secondary school with expulsion if I didn't play Gaelic or eggball (some foreign games were ok ) Won out there too - we formed the first school footie and played in the Connacht Cup - with out help from most of the teachers.
5. Listening to reports about Tuam Councillors adopting motions about censuring RTE regarding The Riordans and the famous "Benjy in the bushes" episode LOL.
6. Tirades from the pulpit and politicians about the Pill while you had women with massive families living in dire poverty.

The above sound very mickey mouse I know Pineapple Stu but it sure colours ones opinion in matters like this cartoon brouhaha.

I just look at the way the fundamentalists are fcuking up the US at the moment and I'd hate to see the same happening here again. That's why I'd be inclined to side with the Danish bloke.

Maybe I'm totally off the wall here, PS, but, again, for those of us who remembered and lived through traditional, jolly old Ireland, situations like this make our receptors twitch and alarm bells ring in the ol' head.

I hope you see where I'm coming from but maybe I'm completely wrong. I dunno.

I probably come off as a bitter old sod with a chip on the old shoulder but, honest to God, I'm not - just loving much of what Ireland/Europe is today - with all its faults.

[Closed Account 2]

Where does one draw the line between satire and offensivesness? I don't know.

Help me out here.

Agree, its a dangerous road to go down. Also offensiveness can be caused by what people would consider legitimate criticism. For example if this is the reaction about cartoons, what happens if someone critiques the Koran ? Presumably a similar reaction ? What happens if someone critiques the oppression of women or gay people that is prevalent in certain Islamic circles (eg Ayaan Hirsi Ali)?

I dont think going down the line that it is completely off limits to criticise religious doctrine is a sensible route to take, and arguably this is a step on that path.

And IMO it should not be the perogative of the Danish (or any) Government to dictate if an independent paper should print the cartoons or not, if people are upset they should be upset at the paper(s) not the goverment.

[Dr.Nightdub]

What bugs me about the cartoons is not any religious aspect, but the wild stereotyping caricatures of Muslims. The basic message of the cartoons seems to be that all Muslims are suicide bombers running around in "traditional" mediaeval costumes (look at any TV footage of Iraq or Palestine and see how many locals are actually wearing turbans - not many).

Are these any better than the grotesque Punch cartoons of the 19th Century that depicted all Irish as simian p1ss-heads? More recently, I think it was the Daily Express that had a cartoonist named Jak whose depictions of the Irish could be considered as equally (and just as gratuitously) offensive.

If we'd object to those on our own behalf, we ought to object to these Danish ones on Muslims' behalf. That doesn't necessarily mean you thereby show approval of all aspects of Islam, or Sharia law, or whatever - just that you object to racist stereotyping of ANYONE.

[hamish]

Agree, its a dangerous road to go down. Also offensiveness can be caused by what people would consider legitimate criticism. For example if this is the reaction about cartoons, what happens if someone critiques the Koran ? Presumably a similar reaction ? What happens if someone critiques the oppression of women or gay people that is prevalent in certain Islamic circles (eg Ayaan Hirsi Ali)?

I don't think going down the line that it is completely off limits to criticise religious doctrine is a sensible route to take, and arguably this is a step on that path.

And IMO it should not be the prerogative of the Danish (or any) Government to dictate if an independent paper should print the cartoons or not, if people are upset they should be upset at the paper(s) not the government.

Much more articulate than I could ever manage edmundo -thank you.

I think, yesterday, the Danish PM did say what you stated in your last paragraph though if I can recall correctly.

Many people in Western Europe are getting p!ssed of at the belligerence of ALL religious fundamentalists. Remember the Jerry Springer opera and the Sikh demonstrations that stopped that play in the UK midlands a few months ago.
And that is in a secular society??

Rowan Atkinson has been to the fore on the this kind of topic. Here it is.

http://www.indexonline.org/en/news/a...to-satir.shtml

Remember, amigos, many of our schools are still run by the religious, Tony Bliar has encouraged the growth of "faith-based" schools who have "intelligent design" on their syllabus (yes in England, not just Kansas), you have that jerk Bishop Murphy-O'Connor (the protector of that Heathrow paedophile) having meetings with senior politicians to express his concern at secular developments in the UK AND
Did anyone notice the poll last week that stated that the majority of women in the UK wished for abortion curtailed with a view to abolishment except in the case of danger to the mother.

I'm telling you folks there are people in power - and behind the scenes - who would use their influence to curtail many of the freedoms we take for granted.

Look at the influence that b@stard Rupert Murdoch has. Bliar kissed his ass to get favourable press, Gordon Browne likewise, David Cameron is kissing his ass these days and Hilary Clinton is kissing is ass in the US to get even a fair press when she runs for President.
Who elected Murdoch to dictate policy?? Who elected Murphy-O'Connor to dictate government policy. Who elected Tony O'Reilly to influence government plans? Who elected the Muslim Council of Britain ( a self promoting, dubiously representative organisation at best) to represent Muslims in the UK and who are constantly in contact with New Labour? Who elected the likes of the Federation of Irish Industry to influence government economic policy? I don't remember any of the latter calling round to the house at election time??

As in the US, is/are the electorate and church membership just "useful idiots" to rubber stamp vague policies by government and pre-agreed with these unelected business and religious organisations/representatives.

I'd better stop now - I'm getting into total rant mode and a glass of wine is in order.

[hamish]

These are some of the cartoons BTW. Taken from US website Newshounds. Number 6 I think is quite relevant. The artist takes the p!ss out himself too in the later cartoons.

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/


Here's the Rumsfeldt one that the right wing are whinging about in the States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...&date=01292006

It DOES NOT belittle US army amputees but Rumslfeld's disgraceful treatment of the US army with many vehicles not receiving proper (or any) armour plating, financial cuts in veterans treatment when they return from "Iraqnam" and misreporting by him and his department of the true picture of the dreadful injuries received by soldiers.

Make your own minds up.

[HarpoJoyce]

A lot of ranting nonsense on this thread. Maybe some secular types need an excuse to get some closeted Religious opinions off their chest.

Many, many posters asked "where do you draw the line?" (great pun) but then refused to answer or ignored their questions.

Posters stated "I don't know". Their ignorance didn't stop them expressing an opinion. But it just means, I don't have to take account of their opinion.

I ask Why were the cartoons Printed? To Insult.

Why do so many other publications take up the cartoons? An attempt to legitimise their own reasons to Insult. This forum included.

Posters insist that their society is secular but seem to have, a self-confessed ignorant, fascination with religions. I presume these same posters are voyeurs.


There are very few theocracies in the world.

There is imagery in Islam.

It is traditional for journalism to express ignorant ill-informed opinion.

[hamish]

A lot of ranting nonsense on this thread. Maybe some secular types need an excuse to get some closeted Religious opinions off their chest.

Many, many posters asked "where do you draw the line?" (great pun) but then refused to answer or ignored their questions.

Posters stated "I don't know". Their ignorance didn't stop them expressing an opinion. But it just means, I don't have to take account of their opinion.

I ask Why were the cartoons Printed? To Insult.

Why do so many other publications take up the cartoons? An attempt to legitimise their own reasons to Insult. This forum included.

Posters insist that their society is secular but seem to have, a self-confessed ignorant, fascination with religions. I presume these same posters are voyeurs.


There are very few theocracies in the world.

There is imagery in Islam.

It is traditional for journalism to express ignorant ill-informed opinion.

An awful lot of assumptions and generalisations in your, dare I say it, "rant" there Harpo. You accuse so many here of ignorance then make a raft of comments/put downs without a shred of evidence to back them up?? "secular types", "insult", "voyeurs", "traditional for journalism....opinion" etc etc. This, now, worldwide debate wouldn't take place if other opinions weren't taken into account, would it. Many in the media have not printed the cartoons also.
Have you decided what's ignorant and what's not and should we shut up because you've proclaimed that our opinions are ignorant?? Far too easy to throw the word "ignorant" at other's opinions. Far too easy.

How do you know the cartoons were intended to insult?? That is your opinion. What evidence have you that the cartoons were intended as an insult?? One person's insult is another's satire.

Your voyeur comment is unfair, unpleasant and unnecessary. How would you like it if it was stated that your use of "voyeur" represents an excuse to get some closeted sexual opinions off your chest?? That would be unfair too - just like your statement IMHO.

Of course, religion is fascinating - why wouldn't it be when it has had such an influence (both positive AND negative) on world history. Nothing voyeuristic debating that, I feel. Anyway, isn't voyeurism more to do with sexual matters? I'll check my dictionary about that TBF. LOL

Opinions and debate are not "ignorant"- I mean, we could say that about your post, couldn't we? We're just trying to figure this out if we can, using what information is available and our experiences - that's all. It's called debate.

As regards theocracies? Maybe not 100& theocracies but, how about, Saudi Arabia, Iran (Mullahs decided who could stand for election), Kuwait to name a few. What has the theocracy argument got to do with all this anyway?? I think we're talking more about religious influence.

There is imagery in many religions......so??

Many publications printed the cartoons because they think it's matter of free speech. Are they being hypocritical? Who knows?? You might be right and then again, you might be wrong. Can you prove their intent was to insult??

What do you mean by "closeted religious opinions"?? In my case, I merely pointed out negative experiences with regard to religious people in my life which I thought were relevant to this thread - that's all. In another thread, where relevant, I can give many instances where members of the religious community have done so much good for society but that's not what's at issue.

Why not shut down Footie if we shouldn't ask questions, debate each others opinions, share knowledge, learn from each other, admit our errors and, if we don't know the answers, like me, admit it. I could make a generalised opinion that you're against free speech by the tone of your post but then I would be wrong, wouldn't I?? That's the trap you're falling into, I think.
No one is refusing to answer anything - we're debating, analysing etc - nothing more, nothing less and if we're totally wrong so be it.

It also can be argued that is traditional for journalism to express well-informed opinion but I do agree that some journalism I have read is dreadful - poorly researched etc. I wouldn't paint all journalism as ignorant in the same way I wouldn't paint all religion as repressive. However, where wrong has been done/attempted, it is fair to point it out. Where BTW is your proof about that statement about journalism?? Any references? Might those references come from.....eh....the media??

Debate, opinions and counter opinions is what a free society is all about. Without it, we would live on unproven generalisations, "self-evident truths" (to use one expression I heard) and be truly ignorant.

Think about it.

[HarpoJoyce]

I would have more sympathy for posters on this thread if new information was sourced to inform the debate.

voyeur - was used because many posters insisted on seeing the slighted community suffer through the arguement of free expression.

Ignorant - was used because Posters self-confeesed that they 'did not know'. Did they use their freedom to enlighten themselves through source material. I don't see it on this thread.

Theocracies - was used as an opposite to 'secular country'.
(Kuwait is not a theocracy - Israel is though.)

Imagery - It was expressed in the thread that there is no Imagery in Islam.

closeted religious - not referring to your own specific experiences sirhamish, but to posters who would not consider themselves religious but were happy to take a dig at religions.

Please find some source material which all posters have the freedom to ignore and remain ignorant.

Churces Media Council
http://www.churchesmediacouncil.org.uk/home.htm

National Consultative on Racism and interculturalism
(I have no idea what that means ) Further websites.
http://www.nccri.com/cdsu-religions.html#1

Irish Islamic Cultural Centre - ( Most posters had an opinion on this religion and its adherents)
http://www.iccislam.org/

After Edit 13:00
I wish to lighten my tone about other posters on this thread. To qualify "ignorant" I mean that posters should seek out the info they need and return to the discussion to improve the debate. I do not wish to offend any one member here.

[Marked Man]

A lot of ranting nonsense on this thread. Maybe some secular types need an excuse to get some closeted Religious opinions off their chest.

Many, many posters asked "where do you draw the line?" (great pun) but then refused to answer or ignored their questions.

Posters stated "I don't know". Their ignorance didn't stop them expressing an opinion. But it just means, I don't have to take account of their opinion.

I ask Why were the cartoons Printed? To Insult.

Why do so many other publications take up the cartoons? An attempt to legitimise their own reasons to Insult. This forum included.

Posters insist that their society is secular but seem to have, a self-confessed ignorant, fascination with religions. I presume these same posters are voyeurs.


There are very few theocracies in the world.

There is imagery in Islam.

It is traditional for journalism to express ignorant ill-informed opinion.

So how is your freshman year going, then?

[hamish]

Great reply Harpo and thanks for taking the time to reply _ I do tend to bloviate a bit, don't I - BTW what the hell are we doing chatting at nearly 5am??

I must state that I take no pleasure to see any community suffer from these cartoons. But, I'm trying to figure out how can one criticise anything without hurt being an end result. To give a petty example, I go bananas when I read sports journalists write crap about football here (particularly in the Turbine ) but I accept their right to do so and only wish that there were more opportunities to answer back. Let's face it, the many demonstrations and TV programmes (Newsnight etc) I've seen in the media today has shown that the Muslims have had the opportunity to show their vexation (too soft a word?). I was annoyed. though, by so many of the posters stating "Death to..." Let's agree, for now, that the cartoons were an insult but threatening death as a reprisal? Who was in charge of these demos - did they not think that it's even more insulting to threaten death to the media who showed the cartoons? Bit of an own goal there, I think.

I did give some sources in the cartoon post I mentioned and some debate with those cartoons.
I promise I'll post more later today when I've had a little rest - saw lots but I'll wait to read a few more before I bang in any more references. But, you're right , I should have used more of the sources I read and put them in. I think I've read about 43 newspaper and various blogs so far on this matter. even the Danish papers English translation ones on this but many media are all over the place thus far and I want to read a little before I plump for a few "fors" and "againsts"

TBH I readily admit a lot of ignorance of the situation but am using this thread to learn more about all this and put forward my own opinions/experiences to work through it, so to speak. I thought you were being a little hard on us on this TBH.

Now that you've explained your use of the voyeur bit - excellent. Reminds me of the Mourinho/Wenger episode. You see - I'm learning here.

I didn't mention the imagery bit alright but I'd forgotten someone else had mentioned the lack of it in Islam. No excuse for that whoever said it.

Isn't Kuwait as near to a theocracy as makes no difference? Didn't the Kuwaiti royal family promise to implement a more open democracy after the Gulf War and then went right back to using (verb intended) Islam to curtail womens' rights etc??? Nice Israel example, didn't think of that one - yet it's cited as the only democracy in the Middle East.

Thanks for your comment about my experiences and the closeted religious but maybe my very experiences have clouded my judgement on the matter so your point might be very relevant in my case?? I can only ask you to believe that I'm not anti-religious but do, sometimes, have a tendency to get angry at the behaviour of some religious on these matters. I'll develope that argument later after some sleep or I'll be here until 8am.

Here are a few sources I used - more later - and have a good rest Harpo. I'm absolutely knackered right now and I won't make any sense (nothing unusual there LOL) at all if I keep going.

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissin...=1138998430000

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...891671,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4445579.stm

With regard to that latter source remember all the brouhaha in the Netherlands about the murder of the Van Gogh guy and that ex-Muslim MP who's under 24 armed guard because she criticised the treatment of women in her former religion?
There has been a swing to the right in both Holland and Denmark - traditionally very tolerant countries in the past few years and many criticisms of Muslims in those countries and their reluctance to blend (horrible word) into Dutch and Danish society.
I wonder are those cartoons/newspapers reflecting Danish society's changing attitudes towards Islam??
In any case, I've heard counter arguments (as in France) that Muslims cannot assimilate because they live in ghettoes, get the worst housing, get the worst jobs (if any jobs) and are generally discriminated against and it's hard to assimilate when one is in that situation.
I can't find out if the Danish paper that contained those cartoons is also a supporter of the right wing Danish government - kind of Danish Daily Telegraph, if you follow.
If it is, then that would blow away any pretence of Danish cultural liberalism and I could totally agree with you that it WAS intended as an insult.

See what I mean about exploring this issue and debating it. The more I delve, the more I learn.

Jesus, it's like peeling a bloody onion.

Christ, I gotta get some sleep - talk to you later HJ.

EDIT - LOL - I see Marksman's got a dig in - I just knew someone was going to come up with a slag exactly like that against you.
Admit it Harpo, it's not a bad one. Now, is it satire or an insult.
Marksman, you're a right pup. LOL

[hamish]

Godammit Harpo, why did you have to post so late at night. I'm like a dog with a bone on this topic now and have been mulling it over since I hit the sack at 5.55am. I turned on BBC Radio 5 live news at 6am and, coincidentally, my point above about a possible Danish right wing newspaper was raised by a BBC correspondent from Copenhagen. He mentioned that one of the 10 cartoonists who was working on that feature last September had opined that one of his cartoonist colleagues had tried to "see how much he'd get away with" and he also mentioned something about a right wing Danish newspaper. Again, this report was anecdotal so I can only do like wise vis-a-vis that report too. Interesting coincidence though??

About 6.35am John Humphries, on the Radio 4 Today programme interviewed a US cartoonist who had drawn a similar cartoon about Muslims and he said he had got 20,000 emails to his email, another 20,000 to his newspaper email containing death threats along with fair criticisms but also many abusive ones.. This guy stated that many of the threats and emails were "organised" in that the grammar and nature of the email content was very similar. He stated that he felt it was very immature for Muslims to react in such a fashion given the more serious atrocities against the Muslim world in Iraq and so on. He also stated that he got exactly similar threats from Christian fundamentalists (he cites that word and Catholics and Protestants) when he satired their religions also. I think this might be possible to load later from the BBC internet and I'll do so if I can.

Back to Radio 5, the reporter also mentioned the swing to the right in Denmark and the attitude that Muslims were making no attempt to assimilate. Again, see my point above regarding discrimination in jobs, housing etc so I'm not sure I buy that argument.

Another thing that came to mind was that, a few years ago, literally millions of people joined hands with our Muslim brothers to protest the, then, upcoming war in Iraq by the Bush Crime Family and poodle Bliar (deliberate transposition there). Why are Muslims so uptight about a few poxy cartoons when their brothers have been exploited for eons for raw materials and bombed and murdered in Iraq and Pakistan?? To be quite honest, many people who are revolted by the atrocities visited on the Islamic world by Bush and his fellow murderers will be truly p!ssed off by these many threats - far too many threats of violence too - at the many demonstrations throughout Europe. Here's an interesting blog and it appears to be connected so it comes with a health warning, if you follow. So, you've an insult on one side balanced by many threats of violence on the other??

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/o...ixopinion.html

Before I forget, the US cartoonist mentioned that the images were not of Muhammad but focusing on radical Muslims. Sounds like weasel words to me so I Googled "Mohammad pictures".This is the best I could get TBH - the middle picture. Then again, there should be no Muhammad pictures should there? To be mischievous, if there are no pictures of The Prophet then how could any cartoons of him be.......eh...him?

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=...ctures&spell=1

Here's a Die Weld blog on the matter

http://www.welt.de/z/plog/blog.php/t...--a_chronology

Here's some stuff from today's Guardian - a paper which usually gives any topic a fair shake.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/S...702087,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/S...701985,00.html

One of the writers, Gary Younge, is one of my favourite journalists and he seems to agree with you but he does ask the question
"The question has never been whether you draw a line under what is and what is not acceptable, but where you draw it." Sound familiar??
The counter point is also there too by Paul Hensher

Yeah, Harpo, I'm seeing where you're coming from and I'm beginning to see you're point is valid.

Finally, regarding your initial post, were you indulging in a bit of brilliant psychology in hammering" us as "ignorant" to give us a tiny insight of what Muslims might be feeling? If so, my compliments.

However, all this kinda validates my posts of us debating this topic and thrashing it out so to speak and debate can never be ignorant...no??

The worry about this is it reminds me of the many occasions I have seen where a criticism of Israeli policies is automatically termed anti-Semitic by Jewish advocacy groups.

http://www.dafka.org/NewsGen.asp?S=4&PageID=1091

http://www.adl.org/ADL_Opinions/Anti...p_09032002.htm

Here's a mesh of the two

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstor...20060203c.html

Wonder what dcfcsteve thinks about all this - he lives and works in a London area and might give us a perspective of what he has heard there from Muslims in his area.

Before I forget Michael Buerk has a Moral Maze programme on this Monday about this topic - I think this will also be available to download from the BBC site at some stage - 24 hours after the programme broadcast I think.

Now, just have to try and get some sleep.

[Hither green]

Maybe some secular types need an excuse to get some closeted Religious opinions off their chest.

I agree with you there. This whole story has been used for secular society to give religion and the religious a good kicking. The religious aspect is almost irrelevant, it's about something that's sacred to a particular part of society.
It's easy to insult people as we all have sacred things that we don't want ridiculed and they're often not religious at all. I'd liked to see all the freedom of speech bunch's reaction to the press if they'd printed cartoons mocking the holocaust or famine in Africa or something. How would we react if Britain started mocking something touchy like the famine? There is a difference between making a satirical point and deliberately goading people.

[HarpoJoyce]

So how is your freshman year going, then?

You don't know how accurate that question is.
Yes, I promised myself to hit the books this weekend.
(I'm not studying Media Studies, Politics, European Studies, Middle East Studies or Theology).

Sirhamish I was very strong earlier and have added an extra edit on a previous post. I also notice you qualify your agruements with links to other material on most of your sensitive posts. You should work in the Diplomatic Corps.

With regard to the media reporting aspect of the discussion, I'm not suprised by the the hunger to continue the debate.
The Star is defending there right to provide information to its readers
or "we are journalists, we are victims"
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/stor...30&p=y7y597536

Another thing that came to mind was that, a few years ago, literally millions of people joined hands with our Muslim brothers to protest the, then, upcoming war in Iraq by the Bush Crime Family and poodle Bliar (deliberate transposition there). Why are Muslims so uptight about a few poxy cartoons when their brothers have been exploited for eons for raw materials and bombed and murdered in Iraq and Pakistan??

The anti-war marches were a political debate and the anti-war protests continue to be political. Some of the newspaper articles in your previous post appear to criticise muslims for organising protest. Which brings the freedom of expression discussion full circle.
Sure the most extreme reactions will be discussed in the media but it doesn't excuse the initial action of publishing the material.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstor...20060203c.html

One of the more sanctimonious articles. And some very divisive language by people who know better. The terms "Semitism" and "Anti-Semitism" are attempted to be excuslively owned by one community.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm
(US State Department)
"The definition of anti-Semitism has been the focus of innumerable discussions and studies. While there is no universally accepted definition, there is a generally clear understanding of what the term encompasses.

For the purposes of this report, anti-Semitism is considered to be hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity. An important issue is the distinction between legitimate criticism of policies and practices of the State of Israel, and commentary that assumes an anti-Semitic character. The demonization of Israel, or vilification of Israeli leaders, sometimes through comparisons with Nazi leaders, and through the use of Nazi symbols to caricature them, indicates an anti-Semitic bias rather than a valid criticism of policy concerning a controversial issue."



A reminder that the more things change the more they stay the same.
Images of the Prophet almost.
Irish Times
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/fro...TERBEATTY.html
Chester Beatty Library
http://www.cbl.ie/imagegallery/galle...?sec=2&order=8



Now just so long as no hack starts quoting the life or works of Voltaire
http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95nov/voltaire.html
" I disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it".

[Condex]

There was a pretty big demonstration in London today by Muslims about it.
Pic 4[/url]

Yip, the religion of peace is comming to a town near you soon!!

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/sou...%7c0&p=1&tag=1

[HarpoJoyce]

Yip, the religion of peace is comming to a town near you soon!!

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/sou...%7c0&p=1&tag=1

Caption for image #56742735 is
"LONDON - FEBRUARY 04: Muslims brandish banners as they protest outside of the Danish Embassy......."

Enlightened Western Press strikes another BLOW for freedom of speech and impartiality.

[Condex]

Caption for image #56742735 is
"LONDON - FEBRUARY 04: Muslims brandish banners as they protest outside of the Danish Embassy......."

Enlightened Western Press strikes another BLOW for freedom of speech and impartiality.

56737401
56737375
56737392

Certainly look like brandishing!!!
This lot should be shipped back from whence they came!!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we've had Jack Straw apologising, for what and for whom I don't know, this sort of appeasement led to the rise of Nazi Germany in the 30s...