I don't think we have any discussion about the Danish Muhammad cartoons....

my point is merely that the cartoon wasn't published just to annoy or agitate muslims in the middle east (hence the muslim-community who actually lives *in* europe remains rather silent about the matter), but it was a reaction to events happening in europe (and, i suppose, they happen in america today as well). we had and still have cartoons ridiculing the christian god, the christian jesus, whenever religion and politics, religion and freedom of speech, crossed paths. and i think we should respect the freedom of the cartoonists, of commentators, to use this in public debate.

The context you guys are describing is reason for a whole lot of discussion about free speech and assimilation and a whole lot of other things, but I still don't in the least see why it would call for someone to publish images that will be considered blasphemous by a whole lot of people. You know what I mean? There's not much point to this apart from cheeky blasphemizing.

I believe that lack has certainly been remedied. Big time - to quote our dearly beloved president of vice.

I would. The more people that buy it, the bigger the demoralizing message to the fundies is. Good.

i agree. i think the point would have been made better with a simple portrait of muhammad -- which still would have violated the prohibition on idolatry, but in a less gratuitous way. but as juvenile as the cartoons may be, they did have a point and it's a legitimate one. and the massive sense of injury and outrage is many times more unreasonable than the publication of the cartoons, and when i see people saying things like "No one can say a bad word about our prophet," which is what one of the new Hamas legislators said about this, i think, get a grip, lady. (the legislator actually is female, btw, i'm not besmirching someone's masculinity)

I think the one reason would be something like: because a matter of principle is at stake where one is being forbidden to use a whole particular medium of expression (visual depiction, in this case) for a particular subject.

So if I wrote to the government demanding a meeting with Tony Blair because I disagreed with a Daily Mail editorial about asylum seekers, would it be strange and wrong of him not to meet me?

Apparently the BBC are now being threatened with all kinds of unpleasantness after they showed a brief shot of one of the papers. As I said upthread, I just wish these people would just grow up. But what is beginning to trouble me more is the reaction of some supposedly 'liberal' people who are unable to contemplate any school of thought that is vaguely critical of poor, oppressed muslims.

These very same people were outraged when Christian fundies swamped the BBC with complaints about Jerry Springer The Musical without even watching it first, but they're giving their backing to a bunch of violent bigots who are utterly convinced of their own righteousness yet are unable to cope with any criticism of their views or debate the issues logically.

It's like that Sikh temple play in Brum all over again.

HOWEVER the Danish paper in question is on the right, eg. the Danish version of the Torygraph so may be guilty of a certain amount of mean-spiritedness.

The Sikh play was written by a Sikh woman and that furore boils down to a scene where there is a rape in a gurdwara. One of my closest friends is...another Sikh playwright and she was offended by it mostly because staging that scene that way was a case of cack-handed attempt at symbolism (not the expression of male power or the questioning of the religion - all that was fine).

Stewart Lee (Jerry Springer the Opera librettist) was on the radio this morning and demurred that he personally wouldn't lampoon Islam because he is not as knowledgeable about it as Xtianity.

there's offense and offense, though amirite?

i don't agree with tombot's analogy. is listening to offensive rap lyrics the same thing as calling female coworkers 'bitch'?

fundamentalists are automatically wrong.

This is part of the same continuum as the withdrawal of the Sikh play last year and the lobbying against Jerry Springer. All need to be resisted with equal vigour. If you live in a society which has enshrined freedom of expression then you accept that that elements of that society's expressions may offend you. end of. It's a moral absolute. Following a different course, let alone legislating one, is only going to enshrine inequality.

"islam" and "muslim" at this point just seem to me to be the same as "internet" and "information superhighway" or whatever in 1995 - something EVERY SINGLE MEDIA OUTLET goes on and on and on about, but has little to no impact on anything (and i live in nyc, home of good ol' 9/11, don'tchaknow). i mean, maybe if you live in a nearly homogenous society like denmark you'd feel threatened by muslims, but even with attacks against the west (9/11, 7/7, 3/11), i could give a fuck. it's a tiny, tiny, tiny majority.

See - this is why I choose to live in Europe, and not the Middle East.

Fundamentalists should also note:

Article 9
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion



1


Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.


2


Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Will be drinking Danish beers tonight in support - may even dig out my Ace of Bass CD

nabisco, I think this is precisely why the publication of the cartoons - AND the reproduction of them across europe in the show of solidarity, which I hope spreads even further - was a good thing. political satire is supposed to be offensive, spiteful and unpleasant - and its potential to be all of these things has to be protected otherwise it's useless as a medium. sure, I guess they knew that this would rile muslims - what of it? I don't understand why anyone should refrain from this sort of deliberate provocation.

(If fundamentalist Christians were going after gay pornographers, neither would I think the answer was to make and publicize gay pornography in which the apostles gangbang Jesus. Funnier than these cartoons, but not a very practical idea.)

I WANT TO MAKE THIS FILM!

ok that's dumber than the ace of bass thing.

i think y'all are missing something: the fact that the west is the most powerful hegemonic force in the world. yes, denmark ain't america, but do y'all ever think for a second that, ya know, since muslims have been defined as "other" by the west for a long fucking time now, maybe, just maybe, they have a right to object to it continuing? a lot on this thread to me reads like suburban homeslice whitebread people in america (takes one to know one, as i am one) complaining about how "black people can't just move on."

But then don't complain when your provocation actually incites violence. Post the Van Gogh murder, the Danish should know more than anyone that they're playing with fire with this sort of thing. That's all I'm trying to point out. There is a thin, possibly invisible line between Brave and Stupid with this sort of thing and its position is determined by who, why and how you pull it off. The bomb turban, as CURTIS UR HYPES pointed out, doesn't really put these cartoons in the brave category, because courage has dignity as a prerequisite.

who has stabbed anyone related to this fucking dumb cartoon?!? as for death threats, meh.

WEST WARWICK -- The Secret Service is investigating a seventh-grade Deering Middle School student who allegedly threatened President Bush in an essay describing his perfect day.

In the one-page, hand-written essay, the student says his ideal day involves doing violence to President Bush as well as executives at Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart, Detective Sgt. Fernando Araujo, the head of the Police Department's juvenile division, said yesterday.

perhaps the danish don't have massively overrun federal government budget deficits! this could be a great way to stimulate the economy - free ("free" meaning paid by the public) protection for "threatened" newspaper publishers!

there wasn't a crusade against buddha, he ain't called lawrence of the fucking yangtze, etc., etc.

...why more than anyone?

'fear of violence' is no reason to withhold this kind of criticism at all, and EVEN IF the lunatic response could have been predicted it still doesn't shift any blame whatsoever on to the people who published the cartoons.