OT: Muhammed-caricatyres and freedom of speach

[Ruatha]

Hi.
The Danish paper Jyllands-posten thought that the media in west had a self imposed cencurship concerning islam.
This came up since a child-book authour couldn't find anyone willing to make drawings under their own name to his book about Muhammed.
The paper sent a letter to 46 drawers associated to the journalists association asing them to make a drawing of Muhammed.
12 of these pictures were published, causing a local protest storm i Denmark in the fall 2005.
A norwegian christian paper re-published some of the pictures later on.
In the late fall some danish muslim leades went on a conference to Kairo and there told of the drawings.
Some muslim countries petitioned the danish prime minister for a meeting discussing the pictures, the danish primem minister refused the meeting saying that the danish goverment had nothing to do with the pictures and couldn't interfere with the free press.
In Januari Fatah lost the Palestinian election to Hamas, to cause trouble for Hamas (A religious organisation) Fatah(A secular organisation) started rotesting and burning danish flags threatening to kidnap all danish people on alestinian soild (If Hamas told the protesters to stop they would lose their credibiity as anislamic organization, if they didn't they would loose western aid, both ways they would seem unfit to govern).
Now the protests are spreading in the muslim world with boycot of danish and norwegian and french products.
The drawings has been republished in January in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria etc.
Last night the Danish and Norwegian embassys in Syria was set on Fire, the Swedish and Chilenian embassys where damaged.

What is the US response?
The American foreign deartments spokeperson Kurtis Cooper:
"We admit and respect the press freedom of speach, but it must be combined with responsibility. To encourage religious and ethnical hatred in this way is not accepted"
I agree that the pictures propably aren't very god, I've only seen one that depicts Muhmmed with a turban and a fuse (the turban being a bomb), but hey; What pictures hasn't been published with God,Jesus, our political leaders etc.
Don't like the pictures dut don't read the paper then! The Danish Jylland-Post doesn't have that big audiance in the middle East!

Put things into proportion!
I usually am a tolerant person but this time I think that Swedsih papers ought to publish the drawings as well to stand beside denmark in this.

What is your opinion, can we only critize our own religion and not others?

[Intimidator]

To make matters worse, today the Arabic European League (an Belgium Muslem organisatian) has posted two anti-semetic drawings on their website (one with Hitler and Anna Frank in one bed and one picture which denies the holocaust)
Their comment was : ' if you (the west) has an freedom of press, so do we..........'

So I guess that the latest word isn't discussed about this isue, probably there will be an lot of protest today in Holland and Belgium from Jewish-organisations.

As for my personal opinion, I think that it indeed the freedom of press to publish what you like, but keep in account the impact it will/can give. And consider if it is worth the trouble.
As long as those caricature's are sending out an message it is okay with me, when they are only used for insulting and offending than PLEASE don't use them.

[Ruatha]

Now the Danish Consulate in Lebanon is on fire.

I belive that the main reason to publicise the drawings was inded to insult and demonize the muslims, but that still does not justify the response.
The test of self imposed censorship is I belive a secondary construction.

I do not belive jews will burn any belgian embassy due to those drawings you refer to.

[El_Phil]

The cartoons themselves aren't actually very good or particularly clever or subtle. Printing them wasn't big or clever as it was going to cause trouble while not really making any worthwhile point.

However once someone decided to publish it I have to give much credit to the Danish government for backing them up.

Good work Denmark, keep it up.

[Intimidator]

El_Phil said:
The cartoons themselves aren't actually very good or particularly clever or subtle. Printing them wasn't big or clever as it was going to cause trouble while not really making any worthwhile point.

However once someone decided to publish it I have to give much credit to the Danish government for backing them up.

Good work Denmark, keep it up.

I agree , the pictures weren't worth the trouble, but again The paper can (thank you democracy and freedom of press) publish them if the want to.........

Indeed it's great work from the Danish Government but also a great job from dozens of European news papers to back their fellow paper and also publish the drawings.

But again , it's a lot of trouble about absolutly NOTHING

[Jack Simth]

From my perspective:
The originals weren't worth the ink to print them nor the trouble caused, and the person who decided they were probably ought to be put in charge of something less important, if not out and out fired.
The reprints made specifically to reinforce freedom of the press, were more than worth the ink to print them, more than worth the trouble caused, and those who decided they should be reprinted on that basis probably ought to be praised.
Why?
Well, I consider it important the the press be capable of printing pretty much anything they deem worthy, and although hateful and hurtful things probably ought not be said, I consider it more important that the press not be limited on what they may say in an opinion manner than that they not say hateful or hurtful things.
Does that make sense?

[Renegade 13]

I've been following this story with interest over the past week or so on the web, since the main news programs over here haven't even mentioned it (big surprise...)

I don't consider myself an intolerant person, but who can claim to represent a peaceful religion (Islam) when they resort to violence at every turn? I think the newspaper had every right to publish the caricatures, even if they were insulting, since saying/writing things that some people aren't going to like is what freedom of speech is all about. We wouldn't need laws ensuring freedom of speech if people only wrote/said/drew things that everybody liked!

As for the caricatures "encouraging religious and ethnical hatred"...well that's just a stupid thing to say. No caricature in the world is going to make the average Western person get up in the morning and suddenly decide after seeing the drawing that they hate Muslims! Most people would be amused by the caricatures or just shake their head at the immaturity of it. They sure won't incite hatred. Those feelings would have had to exist previously.

It's a classic example of something that got blown out of proportion.

Not to mention the fact that when European Muslim organizations went to the Middle East to draw some attention to this, they included in the 12 caricatures a few that were NOT published in any newspaper in Scandinavia or anywhere else...and were quite offensive to say the least. Talk about trying to stir up hatred...

Wikipedia has an article on this with a lot more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jylland...ns_controversy

[PvK]

Humans sure are a lot better at getting offended and attacking others, than they are at following their own supposed morals.

What irony to attack others in the name of a code that preaches peace, if one bothers to read it. Fear, ignorance, panic, rage, chaos, self-destruction. Humans are a pathetic lot.

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

Wasn't there also cartoons regarding other religions? You don't see see a bunch of wild eyed bomb throwing buddists rioting in the streets calling for the heads of Danes.
Boy if I went off the deep end everytime I got offended by something I would probably be looked down upon too.
Kinda reminds me of when Triumph the insult comic dog made a remark about the french speakers in Canada. Then people were saying "Your getting angry over a dog puppet"
Now it's "Your rioting and killing people over a cartoon"
Back in 1971 some gunmen fired on people in a movie theatre who went to see the movie "Muhammed: Messenger of God" because they thought the movie actually showed the image of Muhammed. It didn't!
Get a grip Abul!

[rdouglass]

I by no means condone their actions but this is what they (extremist Muslims) base their actions on:

"Islamic law, based on clerics' interpretation of the Quran and the sayings of the prophet, forbids depictions of the Prophet Muhammad and other major religious figures � even positive ones � to prevent idolatry."

I absolutely don't agree but that's what many believe.