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

Monday February 6, 2006

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.

The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

The only legitimate use of boycotts agsinst nations is when their laws and official government policy are noxious. The calls for boycotts amongst Muslims against Denmark are either politically naive or evil, which is to say that they still don't understand that the Danish government doesn't control or have the right to censure a privately owned media outlet or that they think that their feeling of offense is greater than the Danish people's right to have the right to free speech in their own country, in which case they can go fuck their hypocritical selves. A mass protest to call for an apology from the newspaper or the firing of the editorial board or whatnot I can understand but the kind of collective guilt that is being ascribed to the Danes is really scary to me and as ill founded as lumping together moderate and fanatical Muslims.

The comments about revisionism and anti-semitism being illegal in the Netherlands reminds me that I think all limits on free speech are misguided and lazy. Doesn't the very use of illiberal laws to defend a liberal institution undermine it? Also, imho, the real import and utility of free speech is not only that it provides an open market of ideas but that it also requires a society to actively and openly come to terms with its worst elements and tendencies. Outlawing hate speech doesn't make hate go away, it makes it go underground and 'right thinking' people are then tempted to think that they no longer need be vigilant against its venom. I haven't noticed that anti-hate speech laws have lessened European racism or depleted the numbers in nationalistic or neo-Nazi groups. They have merely given extremely illiberal people a sense of martyrdom and a liberal weapon to weild against their enemies.

more interestingly, cole also has a round-up of muslim reactions, showing how they vary from place to place and dissecting the ways the issue has gotten bound up with local/regional politics.

Contrary to what the article wrote it is most likely that the Conservatives, in an alliance with the Center Party, The Liberal Party and Christian Democrats will win the next election. I don't know where the author got that info from. However, the only reason they have a bigger chance of winning is because they moved drasticly to the left and the only party that could be described as socially conservative is the Christian Democrats.

Also, something that rarely is mentioned when immigration to Western Europe is discussed is that a lot of these countries have only had large scale immigration in the last 15-20 years! Geez! Give it some time to work.

"he's not a suicide bomber, he's a very silly boy"

Gives a chilling new meaning to the phrase "noose of light"

Are you worried he might right poetry?

Living in a small country where religion (christianity) has almost vanished during the past hundreds of years up until recently when it's becomimg a bigger issue again due to immigrants (christians, muslims, whatever -they are more religious than the average ethnic swede anyway), I see the publishing of the drawings from a different angle than most people in this thread.

It's ok to be religious but please keep it to yourself and don't let it show in everyday life is more or less what the big majority in Sweden feels. I realise that I live in a small corner of the world but as an example, here it would be impossible for the prime minister to mention God in his speech like George Bush does. If you like me, can't see anything coming from religion that couldn't be replaced ( and in a better way) with humanity, it is important being able to question the religions and their holy gods, prophets, scripts etc. If something is forbidden for a jew, it can't be applied on me. It's their right to live according to their belief as long as it doesn't inflict on the law but it doesn't mean that I, out of respect or whatever, shall do the same.

I don't hold many things holy and I think we have a right to bring subjects in religion up to create a debate, otherwise there's a risk that we leave to priests, imams, rabbies and others to TELL people what's right and wrong instead of thinking for themselves. This is what happened in a lot of countries in the west during hundreds of years when they (priests) were looked upon as halfgods by common people.

I think it's a very good thing when the swedish church or what the bible says is being questioned. I also think it's good when it's done in a way that the church and their followers find offensive. This way of bringing shit in christianity up has helped to throughout the years make the swedish church accept female priests and the right for homosexuals to have their partnership sanctioned in a church. I believe that in the long run changes like this will make christianity less religious. (I hope you understand what I mean, my vocabulary and phrasing in english could be better I suppose). This artwork (http://www.katedral.vaxjo.se/KLASSRUM/re/Ecce.htm) that was shown in alot of places in Sweden some years ago is a good example. It made some christians furious or sad but it also made them discuss homosexuality and the different ways people might look upon Jesus.

Jyllans-Posten published 12 different cartoons with different meanings (as you already know, one of them was very critical to the newspaper itself) and they published them in a context: are muslim taboos something a non-muslim has to follow in fear of bodily harm? Of course they could have just ran a text about it but would there be a debate then? Because beside all the demonstrations, flagburning, embassyburning and all, there is a big debate going on in the world.

Europeans would do well to take a page from the way immigrants are assimilated and incorporated into American culture. This would hardly even be an issue here with American Muslims.

Also because Americans, with the notable exception of the Native Americans are all immigrants who had to make some assimilationist changes and where national identity is at least partly predicated on allegience to an ideal. What does one say to a native Italian, in whose country the last major wave of pre-modern immigration dates to the 6th century, when he wishes to be a fascist or a monarchist? Un-Italian is not really readily available in the way it would be here.

hate answers hate, jews screwed per usual, europe up to same old tricks shockah

Ah, Iran in extreme disingenuousness non-schocker, since they were ALREADY saying offensive things about the holocaust.

So, Iran is trying to make a point about "freedom of expression" by ... er, demonstrating their govt's stranglehold on the total content of all Iranian media. The mind boggles.

I don't think it falls under hate speech and even if it did I think "hate speech" should be legal. Anything excepts direct threats are "okay" with me.

Frankly, I hope any preacher in Western countries spouting this sort of shit (by which I mean incitement to violence) is thrown in jail. And I'd gladly support the same treatment for any Christian preacher telling people to bomb abortion clinics (though I don't know of specific overt examples.)

xpost

That's for sure.

of course. but, to keep circling back to a tiresome point, i think it's an oversimplification to say that what the newspaper did was an act of hate. the context, which is clear but still somehow keeps getting steamrollered in a lot of the discussion, is much more complicated than that. i know it simplifies the discussion if we just make the newspaper the voice of intolerant european xenophobia, but even if that voice was one of the things that came through in those cartoons, it wasn't the only thing and wasn't, as far as i can tell (from a distance, obviously) the primary motivation.

If Iran had "challenged" Europe with some other sensitive issue that pushed the envelope of decency (one that wouldn't involve law-breaking), then we might have learned something about what a free media is or isn't willing to publish.

not really, though. the point isn't what any individual newspaper will or won't publish, it's the reasons they will or won't publish things.

I think the cartoon was stupid. I don't think they should have printed it, and I think it was also stupid of the other papers to reprint it -- sort of thumbing-one's-nose-as-free-expression. But I'd say judging from the disproportional reaction, that's pretty moot at this point.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailheadlines.asp?fileid=20060207.A05&irec=4

along the same lines, the indonesian article you linked is interesting and makes some good points, but this bit bothers me:

Embarrassingly, it was European diplomats who had to remind the press of journalistic ethics, which basically state that publication of offensive material is to be avoided.

that's not what journalism ethics states. nothing of the kind. and it's certainly not what "freedom of the press" means. and i'm sorry for going on about the journalism aspect of this, but i guess it's the perspective i feel most the instinctive affinity for.

It's doesn't even go so far as hatemail usually. This is a crucial point too many people seem to miss in this thread. My mom thought The Life of Brian was blasphemy and she would probably have it removed from video stores if she could. That being said, not she or anyone else in America or the Western world threatened to kill anybody over that movie or ever rioted. Enough of this, "B-b-but we have soccer moms in America who don't like Jesus being mocked!" relativist bullshit. Those soccer moms don't put on Raw Power and light cars on fire, do they? Most of them just write letters if they do anything at all.

That being said, some people thought that none of these cartoons were funny. I agreed until I found this...

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/917/muslim7nc.jpg

Then a load of arguing ninnies, so I switched over for Little Britain.

SOME OF US JUST FIND THAT (A) DEPRESSING ENOUGH THAT WE DON'T GET BONERS EVERY TIME WE POINT IT OUT, PLUS (B) SO TOTALLY OBVIOUS THAT THERE ARE MAYBE MORE COMPLICATED AND INTERESTING ASPECTS OF THIS TO TALK ABOUT