Danish Muhammad cartoon reprinted

[Eliaures]

In a supposed effort to show their support of free speech, Danish newspapers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7242258.stm) have reprinted that cartoon that was so offensive to many Muslims.

I am a very strong supporter of free speech and I think it is the backbone of any free society. I defend these newspapers rights to print these cartoons and the right of anyone to make offensive and/or un-politically correct statements. Good grief folks, don't we hold some responsibility to wield our right to free speech responsibly though? I can imagine what would happen here if some Arabic newspaper printed a cartoon with Jesus doing something that would be considered heretical.

I can understand the first time the Jyllands-Posten printed the cartoon and it was easy to blame it on the ignorance of Muslim culture and mores. I defend their right to make a mistake and I was on their side against the backlash by the Muslim world. I am not on their side now. To print this cartoon again knowing the reaction it will get and knowing the offense you are committing is wrong.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Today I read that 4 people I think were arrested because they wanted to kill the original drawer, if I recall this correctly from my memory.

[dteowner]

@Alrik- yep, arrests were made this week.

@Eliaures- gotta agree with you from start to finish. All the things that made the first run "OK" make this reprint a really bad idea.

[Prime Junta]

Funnily enough, I feel exactly the opposite.

That is, I thought that printing those cartoons in the first place was supremely stupid -- the equivalent of doing a retrospective of Nazi caricatures on Passover. It was a mistake to print them, and the way the Danish government reacted was an even bigger mistake -- come on, how hard would it have been for the PM to say "I think they were bloody idiots to print them and I've canceled my subscription to Jyllands-Posten, but we have this thing called 'freedom of the press' which means that's about all I can do about it?"

But... but but but. Attempting to assassinate the cartoonist is another matter entirely. We *must not* put up with this kind of intimidation. Some kind of powerful gesture of solidarity with the cartoonist is very much in order -- a willingness to show that we're all in the same boat, even if we don't agree with him. I can't think of many better ways to go about this than to reprint that damn piece of garbage.

[Bartacus]

@PJ once again you posted exactly what I would like to express too. The first print of cartoons was clearly to provoke. I can not believe when they say that they didn't know the impact.
Imo the second print could have come sooner, because I recall that some extremists killed someone (a priest??) already because of those cartoons. Killing someone because of a cartoon is by far to extreme and makes the cartoon rather a just picture -> Not to normal muslims, but to the few extreme cases.

[Eliaures]

Well, the only things that changes of my opinion is that the newspapers are being irresponsible with their right of free speech in both cases. Isn't this kind of like yelling "Fire!" in an auditorium? (which is not protected speech in US at least)

I can think of better ways of expressing solidarity in the face of extremism than doing the one thing you know will provoke them again. I think a protest against extremism and for free speech would be much more productive than reprinting that cartoon. I could care less what the fanatics think about the cartoon, they are constantly looking for an excuse to commit violence anyway. I do care what moderate and reasonable Muslims think and I bet that they will see this as yet another example of Western arrogance.

[fatBastard()]

The whole point of Free Speech is that it applies equally to all even if what you're saying is garbage. Otherwise it is pointless. Start applying morals or ethics or political correctness to the concept of Free Speech and you might as well drop the whole farce straight away.

[Eliaures]

The whole point of Free Speech is that it applies equally to all even if what you're saying is garbage. Otherwise it is pointless. Start applying morals or ethics or political correctness to the concept of Free Speech and you might as well drop the whole farce straight away.

You miss my point. Free speech is a right. Rights can be wielded however the user desires. You run the risk of abusing that right and cheapening it if you use it without responsibility.

I apply my own judgment with regard to my own set of morals, ethics and sense of "political correctness" every time I post on this site. You have the right to do the same. But, the moderators of this board also can also decide whether they deem it to be appropriate. Is this wrong or an infringement on your right to free speech? Free speech is never wholly free.

[Corwin]

Free Speech is NOT a right in ALL countries. Personally, I don't believe this 'right' should allow us to offend other nations, races, or cultures (that includes religions ). That being said, wanting to kill people who write or publish such offensive material ( and yes, I realise that the whole area of defining what is offensive needs to be considered ) is WAY too extreme a reaction!!

[POLYGON]

They always taught us in school that your freedom ends once you start offending others, I wonder if what they taught us in school was garbage.
The way I see it, the editors of these papers are kids. They knew that some extreme Muslims planned to kill the original drawer, so they go like that, " Stupid muslims u wanna play this game, here eat that"....instead they could've published an article that condemns those extreme muslims..

[JemyM]

The reason to publish the cartoons in the first place was not to provoke violence.

In northern Europe, earning your own respect without using the legal system is part of the deal. Earning respect is also a part of being new. No previous immigrant group have failed so miserably as the muslims. Instead of building up respect such as paying respect to the culture, organizing themselves to condemn acts of violence in their home countries and helping newcomers to adapt quickly to a secular and liberal lifestyle, many have instead whined their lungs out about being "offended" for pretty much everything.

Liberal rights are based on respect, not using the legal system to shut other people up and oppress them. Thr continued act of sueing for discrimination, threatening and whining about being "offended", and abusing our justice system in other ways have itself been offensive and threatening.

We cannot start to censor ourselves more and more because some minority wants it. The northern countries have a tradition of treating anyone "holier than thou" with ridicule and satire, so that is what we do. We make cartoons about it. That's not the same as incitement. The cartons were not threatening like it would be to publish nazi stuff on passover, but the response was.

It's not the press here who have the responsibility to create respect for muslims. The reason with free speech is to whipe out bad ideas and those who cannot create respect for theirs have no future.

[POLYGON]

Jemy:
My sister is in Denmark and she has the Danish nationality, she studied there and was the best in her class, yet till now(2 years) she can't find a job although all her classmates found ones, so it's easy to conclude that she's not being hired because of her relegion(Islam), she's clearly trying to blend in but who's stopping her??

[JemyM]

Jemy:
My sister is in Denmark and she has the Danish nationality, she studied there and was the best in her class, yet till now(2 years) she can't find a job although all her classmates found ones, so it's easy to conclude that she's not being hired because of her relegion(Islam), she's clearly trying to blend in but who's stopping her??

I do not know. I have been unemployed longer than her and my last employee was a charlatan which eventually lead me to go to trial to get payed. The jobmarket in Sweden is quite bad and Denmark might be the same, being anything less than perfect makes it difficult to get a job. You need either good education, strong social skills or good contacts to get a one.

[Corwin]

Without trying to sound trite, could I suggest moving to another country to find a job. I did just that MANY years ago after graduating from a major Canadian university and finding that there were no jobs and unemployment was rising fast. Now I live in a wonderful country and have had a couple of great careers!!

[dteowner]

Does that include your current position on the Australian Immigration Committee? ;)

[Corwin]

Wish it did!!!! :biggrin:

[Eliaures]

Well, to play devil's advocate, I do like poking at pariahs and I can understand the Danish reaction to Muslim immigrants. I fail to understand why people immigrate to a country and then refuse all attempts to assimilate. Fine, hold your culture and traditions but don't use them to isolate yourselves from your new country, as a bludgeon against all perceived wrongs, and to set yourselves up as holier than thou.

[Corwin]

It's not just in Denmark this happens. We are a very multi-cultural country, but most first generation immigrants where English is not their first language tend to do that. However, most of their children assimilate well if they're allowed to (by their parents ). I remember one Aussie born Chinese girl who at 17 was terrified of going to China to visit her relatives, because she couldn't speak or understand Chinese very well at all. Our children are our hope for a better world!!

[Zaleukos]

They always taught us in school that your freedom ends once you start offending others, I wonder if what they taught us in school was garbage.
The way I see it, the editors of these papers are kids. They knew that some extreme Muslims planned to kill the original drawer, so they go like that, " Stupid muslims u wanna play this game, here eat that"....instead they could've published an article that condemns those extreme muslims..

I agree that it is morally objectionable to consciously offend others, but I dont think it is something that should be regulated by law since "offensive" is so very subjective. IMHO it is reasonable to draw a line that bans direct incitement, making it illegal to say "X should die" but not to say "X is stupid". Otherwise you might end up with a Singaporean situation where the government can sue opposition politicians for saying that a policy is stupid.

That said the immigration debate in Denmark has taken on a decidedly vulgar tone as the established parties coopted much of the populist Danish Peoples Party's agenda. There are strong segments of Danish society who dont mind offending muslims just for the sake of it.

EDIT: As for death threats from radical nutcases I fear that is unavoidable once you have a high profile. The world is getting smaller and those fools might as well just have targetted some other known "enemy" if Jyllandsposten hadnt printed the cartoons. There are for instance serious terrorist plots against almost every major sports event in the west even if these are totally disconnected to the real conflicts. Reducing the frequency of such crap is a matter of cooling down the hot spots of the world and cutting the recruitment base more than anything else...

[GothicGothicness]

You guys always bring up interesting discussions. I have a lot of things to say.

First of all the man responsible for the reprinting died, the same day of the reprints it is very suspicious we are not sure about the circumstances yet. Some say heart attack, others say he was given some pill to make it look like one, the will of god that he died some such a thing... putting a spin on all of this.

Secondly, the pictures of Muhammed as a dog in the middle of a round-about that the swedish artist Lars Viks got attacked for, IS NOT offensive in anyway! It is sick to call this kind of pictures offensive. We have a freedom to joke or sketch about anything, and artistic freedom, we had a suicide bomber heavily maked up floating on a boat in a sea of blood.... much more offensive, much less protest ( except for the israelie diplomat who broke this piece ) We should have freedom to joke and freely speak about anything as long as it is not outright attacks against a group of people, this Muhammed pictures are nearly nothing. There are much worse on any other subject who none cares abot! There are a lot of muslims and isreali too, who are to sensetive and bloodthirsty! They cannot understand the difference between some harmless joke, and an insult against their religion. If it was something really offensive I would understand if they protest but these crazy killing plans just shows how afraid and unsecure they are. To take it one step futher, NO need to hire any assassins anymore,, don't like your neighbour? publish some pictures of Muhammed doing nasty things, and put his name over it, he'll be taken care of and no need for you to go to jail. I am really disgusted by all of this!


I do not know. I have been unemployed longer than her and my last employee was a charlatan

I am surprised what part are you staying?? everyone I know got a job with ease in 2007,,, harder times might be cooming now though. I had one interview and immidietly got hired, I had a lot of offers I had to turn down. So I was under the impression that it is really easy to get jobs here now.. I guess you are in a completely different sector from mine though! There are quite a few programs to help the people who have been unemployed for a longer time that our party started now ? did you try applying for one of those? how many jobs did you apply for? we want you to work!, really sorry to hear you can't find one and even considering moving?

As for death threats from radical nutcases I fear that is unavoidable once you have a high profile.

It went far above that, they found a map of Lars Viks house, and night vision googles, a plan to kill him, by Islam organisation. It is way way way above nutcases making some threats, and the columinist in the netherlands who was negative to Islam already got killed.

[Zaleukos]

It went far above that, they found a map of Lars Viks house, and night vision googles, a plan to kill him, by Islam organisation. It is way way way above nutcases making some threats, and the columinist in the netherlands who was negative to Islam already got killed.

I'm Swedish and quite familiar with the Vilks case. The difference in the fallout is that we didnt see the same large scale demonstrations in the islamic world in the wake of his picture. To some extent this is due to how Sweden handled the issue. Our local muslim organisations were much clearer in their condemnation of the threats than their Danish colleagues, and our government immediately invited embassadors from muslim countries to a dialogue where the PM explained our positions on plurality and freedom of expression.

As I said and you describe the murderous nutcases still responded, but there is a qualitative difference in the reaction of the muslim public. And it is by constructive dealing with the second that we can dry up the recruitment of the former (but not completely eliminate it, as there always will be a percentage of murderous nutcases in any population).

I do not know. I have been unemployed longer than her and my last employee was a charlatan which eventually lead me to go to trial to get payed. The jobmarket in Sweden is quite bad and Denmark might be the same, being anything less than perfect makes it difficult to get a job. You need either good education, strong social skills or good contacts to get a one.

Denmark has had a better job market (at least before 2007), but racism is definitely more of an issue (or rather overt expression of it is more accepted, we arent exactly lily-white either) on that side of the sound.

EDIT: While I dont think Vilks picture is in as bad taste as the Danish ones there is the small issue that depicting the prophets face is sacrilige in itself, and that dogs arent considered the cleanest of animals, enough to make the reaction somewhat predictable. The editorial that included the picture treated a very important topic that deserves printing though.

[JemyM]

On freedom of speech/press
The freedom of speech/press philosophy was introduced in a time when the Christian church still put people to death for speaking out against them. One should read the original books/essays on it if one wishes to understand how it works, such as John Milten "Areopatigica", John Stuart Mill "On Liberty" and Thomas Paine "The Age of Reason".

Freedom of speech means nothing unless it protects the freedom of the person who thinks different. We have freedom of speech because some people find certain ideas offensive and wants them to be silenced. Freedom of speech is now only stopped at threats and incitement.

The primary reason to be angry when questioned is when you do not know how to make good arguments for believing what you believe. Insecurity is usually the reason someone actually takes offense for being challenged on their beliefs. Eventually ideology that have been tamed can go on to live in a free society because it's contents have been challenged, questioned, tested and thus "cleaned up" from it's most unwelcome ideas while it's best ideas was supported by good arguments.

In a liberal environment every idea needs to be challenged, but whenever you challenge a sacred idea you put your own reputation at risk, but not your life. The beauty of Freedom of Speech is that it goes both ways. It is the right to speak freely and be heard, but it's also the right to hear. For an idea to survive it needs good arguments, not pulling laws and regulations. In this environment, everytime a good idea is challenged, it grows stronger. Everytime a bad idea is challenged, it grows weaker. Thus the good idea survives and the bad ideas die out. This is the most effective and fastest way for a society to improve, and good ideas really survives. One do not need to think long for widely popular ideas in the past that is now in the scrap heap of history due to the right to speak out against them... slavery... racism... women as 2nd rate citiziens... the idea of classes... etc. etc.

When an idea that is known to be good is challenged it's revealed that some people are against it. This rise the question why?

There can only be two answers to this, the first is that the system is not working as intended and school have failed to learn this person the truth about what he speaks about. In that case we benefit from hearing what he/she have to say because we can fix whatever gave him/her such opinions. When the person is instead silenced we have denied ourself to hear what people think. Such views might burn underground for a long time and eventually end up as a bloody revolution or worse.

The second answer is that the person might in fact be on to something that we really should know, because reality might not always be what it seems. There is a reason why someone with the most outrageous opinions reach their conclusions. Crazy ideas that might put someones entire reputation at risk does not come from nowhere. They might contain a grain of truth or historical facts that we are not commonly aware of and such ideas needs to be heard. Even if the overall opinion was wrong, we still benefit from hearing the grain of truth within.

My feelings on Islam
Fundamentalism is wrong no matter religion. Fundamentalism will never earn respect in the west. However, people here are more used to Christianity in it's tamed form than it's untamed form and they are more used to Islam fundamentalism than they are to moderate Islam. This makes it easy to take side with Christianity instead of Islam even when it's wrong to do so.

Moderate Islam is currently mistrusted and feared and it's also challenged by xenophobia. Most people do not know anything about Islam except for whats going on in the middle east. They cannot distinguish different branches of Islam, many cannot even distinguish the arab people from Islam. Every time the traditions of the west is challenged by muslims (even when done by extremists within the middle east) it will put fuel to the fire and will effect the innocent that try to adapt.

There are branches within Islam in the secular west that have adapted to it's new society, paying extra attention to the "good stuff" while skipping the "bad stuff". This community have started to become more vocal in speaking out against the horrible acts done by others of their community and this is a good idea. They are working with society instead of against it. This is the way to go. I have faith that Islam when treated right, can be just as positive as some branches of christianity is today. I also believe that there will always be bad eggs in Islam just like Christianity have KKK and Westboro Bapists. Right now Islam is judged by it's bad eggs simply because people do not know about the good ones.

Assimilation is a tricky business and there are no fast track on getting respect as a newcomer. I do not believe muslims benefit from being in separate faithschools. People of the west needs more exposure to Islam and muslims needs more exposure to western traditions. Having a religious apartheid is just a way to breed segregation and intolerance and will ultimately prolong the issues rather than fixing them. The more people who can say "Hey, I know a muslim, and he/she is not that bad" the more accepted Islam will be.

[Eliaures]

Your post provoked a lot of thought JemyM. I won't comment on all of it, but your statements about free speech displayed logic and common sense. Free speech is most valuable when it defends the rights of those with contrary ideas. The freest societies are those that entertain new ideas and avoid dogma, which shows that Americas founders were on to something in promoting free speech and the separation of church and state.

As regards to assimilation, I value integration. We in the US went through a period of forced integration and affirmative action to achieve a better assimilation of the races, black and white. While the methods were sometimes crude and painful to both, I think it achieved the greater good. Racial integration is barely an issue now and though equal rights has not been fully achieved, it is far better than it was due to the efforts made to enforce integration.

[ffbj]

I wonder how they can even look at the cartoons, Muslims that is. Isn't it a sin to even look at them? It's a clash of cultures, but somehow people will find a what of defending their viewpoint. I am right and everyone else is wrong. Arguing about this sort of thing, though of interest, is rather pointless. For I doubt either side will have the least interest in the perspective of the other, for by definition they are wrong.