Scandinavians not welcome in Gaza

[Lukretius]

But of course the motivations are important! I mean, I'm all for free speech, but that doesn't mean I have to approve of everything free speech allows people to say, does it? I also resent having to defend idiots who used their free speech rights irresponsibly. I'm using my free speech rights to complain about it!
I do not dispute your right to complain about it at all. You're absolutely free to do so. My claim is that you're off target. The central issue here is that we have a group of people that demands that THEIR ideas must apply in the whole world. But in DK (as in many other countries) their are no laws against making sarcastic cartoons about a prophet. Hence it doesn't matter what your intentions are, if you have broken no law there's nothing more to it. I stipulate again: If you can't print an argument because you're afraid of repercussions (OR because somebody might get hurt), then you DON'T have freedom of speech.

And no, bad intentions don't justify violence. But I do believe that we can legitimately criticize the newspapers who initially printed the cartoons, and question their motivations. Lets not turn these clowns into martyrs of free speech. You can approve of the principle without supporting the message.
Of course you can criticize the paper, and I can disagree with the criticism. That's the whole point. That just doesn't make all arguments good. And the "you must not have bad intentions when you insult someone" is not a particularly strong argument in my book of reference. To me your criticism leads to self censorship that goes beyond the judicial limits and that is a slippery slope to venture down. If we can't make fun of something just because that something is important to someone somewhere in the world, then there's really not much that can be said - is there?

[Cleopatra]

I have just passed by to say hi to Capel Dodger. :)

Your e-mail doesn't work.My e-mails keep returning to Athens. Have you blocked me? I won't vote for Kadima, I promise!!! :) Write me. I miss you.Keep discussing Middle East with Orwell. Sorry for interrupting, guys.

Mooches.

[luchog]

Lets not turn these clowns into martyrs of free speech.
"The trouble about fighting for human freedom is that you have to spend so much of your life defending sons of b****es; for oppressive laws are always aimed at them originally, and oppression must be stopped in the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L. Menken

"If we are not in favor of freedom of speech for those we disagree with, then we are not in favour or freedom of speech."

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." - Salman Rushdie

"Everybody favours free speech in the slack moments when no axes are being ground." - Heywood C. Braun

[Lord Emsworth]

The Danish Ambassador in Egypt, Bjarne Sørensen, has told Ritzau that 6 of the 12 drawings were published in an Egyptian newspaper, Al Fagr, on October 17th, 2005. It was accompanied by an article condemning the drawings as insulting to all Muslims and Islam.



I don't know if this link has been posted yet - the thread is quite large - but yes some of the cartoons did appear in the aforementioned newspaper:
http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html

[Orwell]

Aw come on! You're not going to put these cartoons on the same level as, say, The Satanic Verses, in terms of intelligent usage of free speech. The level of discourse of these cartoons is of the "your prophet is a poopy head" variety. They had the right to print them, I don't dispute that. And I have the right to point out that their cartoons were tasteless, dumb and prejudiced. LePen (extreme right-wing french dickhead) got quite a lot of flack for making some very offensive remarks that were intended as jokes (he once made a pun involving cremation ovens when he was talking about the Holocaust, for instance). Only his supporters claimed he was defending free speech.

[Ryokan]

I don't know if this link has been posted yet - the thread is quite large - but yes some of the cartoons did appear in the aforementioned newspaper:
http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html



Thanks, I hadn't heard of this...

Look at the date, October 2005!!

[BPSCG]

Come on, you're not going to put these cartoons on the same level as, say, The Satanic Verses, in terms of intelligent usage of free speech. Why not? The Islamists do. Both the cartoons and The Satanic Verses are so offensive as to warrant death for their creators.

[Orwell]

Why not? The Islamists do. Both the cartoons and The Satanic Verses are so offensive as to warrant death for their creators.

Yeah, they do. But they are religious fanatics incapable of nuance. If you want to join them in their aesthetic judgements, well, be my guest!

[mbp]

Orwell, would you consider Theo van Gogh a martyr for free speech?

[Mycroft]

Aw come on! You're not going to put these cartoons on the same level as, say, The Satanic Verses, in terms of intelligent usage of free speech…

I’ve no idea if The Satanic Verses qualify as intelligent usage of free speech or not having never read the book. I suspect that designation is questionable, since it’s a novel and no matter what it says, it’s primary purpose is entertainment and not enlightenment.

But that misses the point. In western society we defend free speech, and we defend free speech even when it’s bad speech. Especially when it’s bad speech, because that’s the speech that needs defending. Does the Ku Klux Klan want to have a rally and burn a giant cross? Well, that’s their constitutionally protected right, and the ACLU is going to be with them to make sure they have that freedom. You and I don’t have to like it, but that is the price we must pay to be able to say what we want when we want.

The level of discourse of these cartoons is of the "your prophet is a poopy head" variety. They had the right to print them, I don't dispute that. And I have the right to point out that their cartoons were tasteless, dumb and prejudiced. LePen (extreme right-wing french dickhead) got quite a lot of flack for making some very offensive remarks that were intended as jokes (he once made a pun involving cremation ovens when he was talking about the Holocaust, for instance). Only his supporters claimed he was defending free speech.

The point is his critics didn’t threaten his life in order to stop him. Being afraid to speak is not being free to speak.

[CapelDodger]

LePen (extreme right-wing french dickhead) got quite a lot of flack for making some very offensive remarks that were intended as jokes (he once made a pun involving cremation ovens when he was talking about the Holocaust, for instance). Only his supporters claimed he was defending free speech.LePen, in his last Presidential bid, tried to present himself as the French Sharon. The traditional anti-semitism of the (Catholic) French right-wing has been shelved because anti-Muslimism - a new option in France - is so much more productive. Shelved, not abandoned. Most French Jews recognise that - they have a sense of history.

[CapelDodger]

As with the other post, you're using wording that I find highly confusing and difficult to understand. I think you need to work on this. I'm not even going to try to make a good-faith effort figure out what you're saying, because that's what BPSCG did, and you basically said "wrong."I described threats of violence as a minority exercise, and BPSCG chose to interpret it as perhaps suggesting that there were no threats of violence. I fail to see how that can be done without an effort of will. Pointing that out is surely more than just saying "wrong". Perhaps your comprehension needs working on.

[BPSCG]

I described threats of violence as a minority exercise, and BPSCG chose to interpret it as perhaps suggesting that there were no threats of violence. Actually, I couldn't figure out what the hell you were talking about (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1432010#post1432010)... :p

[Elind]

Here's another moron that deserves to be slapped silly:

'It is not what I want to happen'
Young Danish Islamic scholar distributed booklets of photocopied cartoons to Muslim leaders in the Mideast, sparking a firestorm of anger around the world (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060208.wxcartooncleric08/BNStory/International)

Idiot...

"Useful idiot" is the full phrase, I believe.

[Ed]

I seem to recall Skokie. A classic example of ugly speech that was unnecessary. Being unnecessary it was, pardoxically, necessary.

[Bjorn]

I’ve no idea if The Satanic Verses qualify as intelligent usage of free speech or not having never read the book. I suspect that designation is questionable, since it’s a novel and no matter what it says, it’s primary purpose is entertainment and not enlightenment.Off topic: I'm sure we agree that some novels are enlightenment, and that it is/was the primary purpose of some novels.

But that misses the point. In western society we defend free speech, and we defend free speech even when it’s bad speech. Especially when it’s bad speech, because that’s the speech that needs defending. Does the Ku Klux Klan want to have a rally and burn a giant cross? Well, that’s their constitutionally protected right, and the ACLU is going to be with them to make sure they have that freedom. You and I don’t have to like it, but that is the price we must pay to be able to say what we want when we want.All of which is correct. But wouldn't there be occations, if you were the KKK's PR advisor, when you would tell them "it's a bit stupid right now, if you want to make friends here in Minneapolis, to burn that cross. Yup, you have a right to, but it would still be stupid."

Some times not printing is not being afraid, or giving in, just plain sensible.

[Skeptic]

Aw come on! You're not going to put these cartoons on the same level as, say, The Satanic Verses, in terms of intelligent usage of free speech. The level of discourse of these cartoons is of the "your prophet is a poopy head" variety.

Quite true... but for this "sin" they have been condemned to death by the Islamists. So when we are protecting their freedom of speech and praising it, we're not protecting the cartoons themselves; we're protecting the right not to be killed for "insulting Islam".

This right is what's the point here. They have this right just as much as Salman Rushdie does.

And I have the right to point out that their cartoons were tasteless, dumb and prejudiced.

For example, they show Islam as violent, terroristic and bullying, clearly a completely inaccurate picture with no relation to reality.

Which is why they are violently terrorized and bullied by outraged Muslims for the last two weeks. I mean, who would stand for such an insulting and inaccuate descrption?

LePen (extreme right-wing french dickhead) got quite a lot of flack for making some very offensive remarks that were intended as jokes (he once made a pun involving cremation ovens when he was talking about the Holocaust, for instance). Only his supporters claimed he was defending free speech.

Did the flack include threathining to kill him, everybody who supports him, his country, and his continent?

Did the flack include outraged jews burning down French embassies?

Did those who attack him demand the French government apologize to them and make it illegal to say anything at all insulting Judaism as a result?

No.

You see, that is the difference. Sure, often "freedom of speech" is used an an excuse for rudeness. But when people THREATHEN TO KILL YOU over it and DEMAND YOU SUBMIT TO THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR ELSE, then freedom of speech is obviously the key issue, not the quality

The cartoonists are threathened with death and go into hiding for the crime of doing something that, at most, amount to being tasteless by the tiny minority of extremists who are perverting the religion of peace.

If you do not storngly defend him, if you do not strongly support him, then the next stage will be--and is already demanded--that ANYBODY, rude or not rude, shall not be allowed to say anything these bullies don't like.

Sure, there is a difference between high-quality criticism (like Rushdie's) and jokes (like these cartoons). FOR US. Not for the Religion of Peace, there isn't. If you surrender your right to print these cartoons, you DO surrender your right to do anything they dislike.

This is the difference between this and the LePen situation.

[Orwell]

In other words, you can be as stupid and prejudiced as you want, just make sure that you annoy someone bad enough to receive death threats.

I think you guys should separate the message form the principle. The principle is sound, but the message is bollocks.

[BPSCG]

In other words, you can be as stupid and prejudiced as you want, just make sure that you annoy someone bad enough to receive death threats. The flip side of that is, you can make anyone you want shut the #$%^ up, just by claiming you're offended and threatening to kill him.

[dann]

I think you guys should separate the message form the principle. The principle is sound, but the message is bollocks.
No, the principle is bollocks, too! Consider this: What is the point of freedom of speech? Does it enable you to do anything, for instance say the things that you want to say - the same way that the invention of planes enable you to cross the Atlantic? Does it actually help you say the things you want to say?
No, not really! If you want to say something, you just say it!
It order to become grateful for this magnificent freedom, you have to be afraid of losing it! I.e. you have to consider that it is guaranteed by a power that is able to prevent you from speaking your mind if it chooses to do so! But is that really reason enough to think of freedom of speech as one of civilization's great accomplishments? To be grateful because your respective state so far hasn't made it impossible for you to speak freely?
And is Jyllands Posten's freedom to piss off the Moslem populace in Denmark and the rest of the world really so valuable? (And for those of you who immediately misunderstand me: This is not an argument for forbidding anything!)
http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/state/toc.html

[Orwell]

Orwell, would you consider Theo van Gogh a martyr for free speech?

You can only be a martyr for free speech if you truly believe in free speech for everyone. I have no idea what his convictions were.

Also:
Martyr:
One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.
One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.
One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.

Too many religious connotations...

[dann]

The flip side of that is, you can make anyone you want shut the #$%^ up, just by claiming you're offended and threatening to kill him.The flip side of that is that you can justify any kind of crap by pretending that it is part of a struggle for freedom of speech!

[epepke]

I described threats of violence as a minority exercise, and BPSCG chose to interpret it as perhaps suggesting that there were no threats of violence. I fail to see how that can be done without an effort of will. Pointing that out is surely more than just saying "wrong". Perhaps your comprehension needs working on.

OK, so you want to be snooty.

But still, "threats of death and incitement to violence a minority exercise and actionable" doesn't scan. So I think you need to word it better. This isn't James Joyce.

[Orwell]

The flip side of that is, you can make anyone you want shut the #$%^ up, just by claiming you're offended and threatening to kill him.

The reasonable thing to do is to defend the right to free speech both by letting the idiots say idiotic things and then by using your own right to free speech to criticise them. Receiving death threats for exercising free speech doesn't put someone above criticism.

[dann]

You can only be a martyr for free speech if you truly believe in free speech for everyone. No, you become a martyr of free speech as soon as somebody kills you (for whatever reason) and somebody else says that you were killed, not because somebody took offence at what you said, but at your freedom to say it!!!
(And I've also not said that the murder was in any way justified!)

[dann]

Receiving death threats for exercising free speech doesn't put someone above criticism. RIGHT ON! The reasonable thing to do is to defend the right to free speech both by letting the idiots say idiotic things and then by using your own right to free speech to criticise them. Please allow me to put that a little simpler, without all the rights stuff:
The reasonable thing to do is to criticize idiotic remarks! Much shorter, and to the point!

[Skeptic]

And is Jyllands Posten's freedom to piss off the Moslem populace in Denmark and the rest of the world really so valuable?

Yes.

The reasonable thing to do is to criticize idiotic remarks! Much shorter, and to the point!

It's reasonable to criticize bad cooking, but if a husband kills his wife because his soup is cold, that isn't exactly the time to criticize bad soup.

[mbp]

It order to become grateful for this magnificent freedom, you have to be afraid of losing it! I.e. you have to consider that it is guaranteed by a power that is able to prevent you from speaking your mind if it chooses to do so! But is that really reason enough to think of freedom of speech as one of civilization's great accomplishments? To be grateful because your respective state so far hasn't made it impossible for you to speak freely?
We shouldn't be grateful that the state has given us freedom of speech. We should be grateful that our forefathers made the state give us free speech - and that there are still enough people who believe in the idea to ensure that we keep it.

It saddens me that there are people in this country who value free speech as little as you do. But I'm grateful that you're in a minority.

[zenith-nadir]

John F. Kennedy:

"The wave of the future is not the conquest of the world by a single dogmatic creed but the liberation of the diverse energies of free nations and free men."

[epepke]

I’ve no idea if The Satanic Verses qualify as intelligent usage of free speech or not having never read the book.

It's actually a pretty good book, if you get a chance. I found it similar to Pynchon.

[dann]

We should be grateful that our forefathers made the state give us free speech.My point, exactly! You cannot simply speak your mind, the state is the one that gives you the ability to speak freely! Sorry, but unlike you, apparently, I'm actually able to say the things that I want to say without considering that the state might be breathing down my neck.
It saddens me that there are people in this country who value free speech as little as you do.It saddens me that there are so many people everywhere, be they Moslems or Danish nationalists, who are unable to comprehend even the simplest of arguments.
But I'm grateful that you're in a minority. You have an awful lot be grateful about, apparently.

[dann]

It's reasonable to criticize bad cooking, but if a husband kills his wife because his soup is cold, that isn't exactly the time to criticize bad soup.It's a little cryptic, but I think I get the idea:
When is the right time to ridicule the Danish Moslems? All year round!
When is the right time to criticize Jyllands Posten? Never!

[mbp]

My point, exactly! You cannot simply speak your mind, the state is the one that gives you the ability to speak freely!

That's just semantics.
Saying "I'm glad to live in a society where my freedom of speech hasn't been taken away" or "I'm glad to live in a society where I'm given freedom of speech" means exactly the same provided that the state could potentially remove that freedom. Which is certainly the case here.

And it is something to be grateful for. That I live in such a place is nothing more than an accident of birth.


Sorry, but unlike you, apparently, I'm actually able to say the things that I want to say without considering that the state might be breathing down my neck.
You are at the moment. But you don't seem to think others should have the same privilege if what they say might be offensive to someone.

[dann]

I am not particularly grateful for living in a society that allows me to breathe. But as soon as somebody starts telling me that the state is the institution that secures my right to do so, that's when I'll start to worry!
As far as the rest of the Danish patriotic heroics are concerned, see other thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51894

[mbp]

I am not particularly grateful for living in a society that allows me to breathe. But as soon as somebody starts telling me that the state is the institution that secures my right to do so, that's when I'll start to worry!

You should start worrying then.
If a sufficiently large portion of the population thought that you shouldn't be allowed to they could - through their elected representatives and thus "the state" - make it illegal for you to do so. And the state would also have the means to enforce this.

Our rights don't come from some god, piece of paper or the UN charter. You have the rights that the majority of the voters want you to have - as filtered through a representative democracy. Nothing more.

[Mycroft]

All of which is correct. But wouldn't there be occations, if you were the KKK's PR advisor, when you would tell them "it's a bit stupid right now, if you want to make friends here in Minneapolis, to burn that cross. Yup, you have a right to, but it would still be stupid."

Some times not printing is not being afraid, or giving in, just plain sensible.

And there was a time when it was just plain sensible for black people to sit at the back of the bus. It's people who are not sensible who force progress.

It is not sensible to stand up to a bully, but if you never do it you will always be bullied, and you will never have freedom from bullying.

[Mycroft]

In other words, you can be as stupid and prejudiced as you want, just make sure that you annoy someone bad enough to receive death threats.

I think you guys should separate the message form the principle. The principle is sound, but the message is bollocks.

When the principle is freedom of speech, it cannot be separated from the message. Period.

Freedom of "good" speech, "worthy" speech, "non-controversial" speech, or “intelligent” speech is not freedom of speech. It’s only freedom when you get to decide what you will say, not someone else.

[Mycroft]

It's actually a pretty good book, if you get a chance. I found it similar to Pynchon.

I'll add it to my list. :)

[Orwell]

When the principle is freedom of speech, it cannot be separated from the message. Period. Why not?

Freedom of "good" speech, "worthy" speech, "non-controversial" speech, or “intelligent” speech is not freedom of speech. It’s only freedom when you get to decide what you will say, not someone else.
But I'm not disputing that people are free to say stupid things, am I? People are free to say stupid things, but people are also responsible for what they say. I can defend the freedom to say dumb things while criticising the dumb things being said.

[rwguinn]

It's a little cryptic, but I think I get the idea:
When is the right time to ridicule the Danish Moslems? All year round!
When is the right time to criticize Jyllands Posten? Never!
Do you actuall read what is written, especially what you yourself write?
You have criticized Jyllands Posten, as have others. Numerous times.
How many death threats have you recieved because of it? Was your car burned? Nope.
We may disagree with you. We will attempt to show your agruments for the silly things that we believe they are. We may even, Ed forbid, call you on specifics and require that you show your work.
The Right to free speech does not automatically grant a right to be listened to.
Criticising your criticism isw exercizing our freedom of speech.

[dann]

Our rights don't come from some god, piece of paper or the UN charter. You have the rights that the majority of the voters want you to have - as filtered through a representative democracy. Nothing more.You keep supplying my argument with your own example: Since the state has the ability to take away your rights to speakt etc., you have to be grateful as long as it doesn't. I can see why you suddenly have to drag god into your argument! Christians are grateful to their god for the same reason. The wishes of the majority of the voters don't 'filter through' anything! Representative democracy enables the political leaders to take no consideration to the voters interests, bound only by their own conscience as they are: The government of Anders Fogh Rasmussen was appointed by a majority of the members of the Danish parliament which meant that he was able to send Danish troops to Iraq without having to ask anybody. That is the freedom from the wishes of the voters that democracy ensures!
How about you? Did Bush ask you before he started his war against the WMPs?
http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/state/chapter9.html

[mbp]

You keep supplying my argument with your own example: Since the state has the ability to take away your rights to speakt etc., you have to be grateful as long as it doesn't.

No. I don't have to be grateful for anything at all.
But I do realise what the ultimate source of the freedoms and rights I enjoy is. And therefore I'm grateful that I live in a society where a sufficiently large majority of the population support them - and where that fact matters. It wasn't always like that. In many places it still isn't, and there's no guarantee that it will always be the case here either.



The wishes of the majority of the voters don't 'filter through' anything! Representative democracy enables the political leaders to take no consideration to the voters interests, bound only by their own conscience as they are: The government of Anders Fogh Rasmussen was appointed by a majority of the members of the Danish parliament which meant that he was able to send Danish troops to Iraq without having to ask anybody.

He did have to ask Parliament.
And if a majority of the voters were indeed unhappy with the decision they could have ensured a change of government at the following election.
They didn't. So they either didn't actually disagree with the decision or found other matters to be more important.

The same is true for the lawmakers. There are limits to how much out of synch with the population they can allow themselves to get if they want to keep their positions. That is what I meant by the "will of the people" being filtered through a representative democracy.


How about you? Did Bush ask you before he started his war against the WMPs?

Yes, he sent me an email. I told him to go ahead just to annoy you - even though I don't know what WMPs are.

What an odd link, though. Are you a real, old-fashioned Marxist?

[DanishDynamite]

And is Jyllands Posten's freedom to piss off the Moslem populace in Denmark and the rest of the world really so valuable? (And for those of you who immediately misunderstand me: This is not an argument for forbidding anything!)
http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/state/toc.html´
Yes, the free press's ability and right to piss off anybody at all, is vital for a democratric society.

Perhaps you are not in favor of a democratic society?

[DanishDynamite]

My point, exactly! You cannot simply speak your mind, the state is the one that gives you the ability to speak freely! Sorry, but unlike you, apparently, I'm actually able to say the things that I want to say without considering that the state might be breathing down my neck.
Why can you say what you want to say without having to fear the state's vengeance?

Could it be because you live in a free society?

And why should not everyone have this ability? Should only "nice" opinions, that you agree with, be allowed?

[DanishDynamite]

I am not particularly grateful for living in a society that allows me to breathe.
No, you don't seem to be very grateful at all.
But as soon as somebody starts telling me that the state is the institution that secures my right to do so, that's when I'll start to worry!

The state is the institution that secures your right to speak freely.

Apparently you must now start worrying.

[CapelDodger]

The Danes were the only country which, as a body, resisted the Nazi plans for the extermination of the jews. Tipped off by a German diplomat (Ferdinand Duckwitz), the Danish resistance organized a mass evacuation. The Danish people hid their jews in their homes, and fishermen ferried them across the water to Sweden, despite the fact that such action was, of course, punishable by death.Anti-semitic laws weren't applied until direct German control was established in 1943. It was relatively easy for Jews to leave before that, given the geography and the uniquely light original occupation. Most remaining Jews got away with the connivance of the Reichsminister, Best. Many Danes helped Jews, as did many people in other countries. Danes were uniquely able to make a huge difference.

Yes, some Danes--for once, really a "tiny minority of extremists"--joined the SS, to Denmark's shame. Yes, some were collaborators. But the DANES as a people were brave resisters of the Nazis and saviors of the jews. The Danish (or for that matter, the English) royalty's brave resistance to the Nazis, contrary to your dismissive sneer, WAS quite representative of that of the population as a whole.There was no sneer (but I realise that you see what you wish to see). King Christian was magnificent, as were many Danes. Others were collaborators, the majority - as is usual - kept their heads down. There is no single behaviour of "a people". I find the very concept of "a people" de-humanising and deeply suspect.

But that is merely a sign of your moral bankrupcy: supporting evil over good, or being indifferent to which side wins, because the trite truths "nobody's perfect" and "nobody's all bad" make you, for some reason, utterly incapable of passing moral judgement for either good or evil about anybody in any circumstances.I do make moral judgements, which is why I despise zionism, an example what "peoples"-based thinking leads to.

[CapelDodger]

So I think you need to word it better. This isn't James Joyce.nor am i i will try a more terse style

[CapelDodger]

No, you become a martyr of free speech as soon as somebody kills you (for whatever reason) and somebody else says that you were killed, not because somebody took offence at what you said, but at your freedom to say it!!!
(And I've also not said that the murder was in any way justified!)Orwell could have used another definition of martyr : a person whose death is exploited for religious or political purposes.

Van Gogh was certainly anti-Muslim (perhaps anti-religion), and that's what got him killed.

[CapelDodger]

John F. Kennedy:

"The wave of the future is not the conquest of the world by a single dogmatic creed but the liberation of the diverse energies of free nations and free men."
"And we're coming to make that wave for you." (Cut from original draft.) I hope that future's coming soon, because it's in a race with the Rapture.

[CapelDodger]

My point, exactly! You cannot simply speak your mind, the state is the one that gives you the ability to speak freely! Sorry, but unlike you, apparently, I'm actually able to say the things that I want to say without considering that the state might be breathing down my neck.Quite right, without the state there's the mob and no freedom.

On a smaller scale, when Sen. Glenn lumped that twat for calling him a "liar and a coward" to his face, he struck a blow against freedom of speech but burrowed deeper into my heart. :) We all self-limit our FoS when we're face-to-face with people. I don't periodically use the f-word in front of my mother just to maintain the principle that I can without being stoned to death. ("Diss your 'rents, and it's a rock-party for you" is in the Bible somwhere.) Only the state guarantees that.

[CapelDodger]

And there was a time when it was just plain sensible for black people to sit at the back of the bus. It's people who are not sensible who force progress.
What progress is being made by the publication of these unfunny, ignorant and bigoted cartoons? You cheapen the struggle against segregation by trying to associate these two issues.

[Freakshow]

What progress is being made by the publication of these unfunny, ignorant and bigoted cartoons? You cheapen the struggle against segregation by trying to associate these two issues.It has helped show the world how pathetically unreasonable the fundamentalist muslim world is. People who burn down embassies over drawings deserve no consideration for their opinions. Hopefully, more have recently come to realize that.

That is progress, in my book. The fundamentalist muslim world needs to realize that the rest of the world is not going to show such great concern over their desires. Such is life. They will just have to deal with it.

[CapelDodger]

It has helped show the world how pathetically unreasonable the fundamentalist muslim world is. People who burn down embassies over drawings deserve no consideration for their opinions. Hopefully, more have recently come to realize that.

That is progress, in my book. The fundamentalist muslim world needs to realize that the rest of the world is not going to show such great concern over their desires. Such is life. They will just have to deal with it.
You are, if you'll excuse my presumption, missing what's important.

The fundamentalist world, be it Muslim, Christian, Jewish or Hindu, is ridiculous to most of its co-religionists. It is even more obviously ridiculous to those who aren't co-religionists. The anger felt by Muslims at insults to the Muhammad - not anger at depictions of Muhammad per se, which are not a problem - is not fundamentalist. They do raise a question, just as someone calling your sister a whore raises a question (unless she is one, and even then ...). The question being, are you doing it to make me do something you want me to do, or to show that I do nothing? "Pick up the gun ...".

The fundamentalist world, what is that? Even in the Islam camp? Shi'ite Iran, that turfed out the US-approved regime? Sunnis like Zarqawi? (Bin Laden is a Saudi pussy who cowers in caves reading Time magazine and dreaming, Zarqawi's da man. Way to go against Muslim fundamentalism, dudes.)

The world doesn't need to be shown how chaotic the Muslim world is at the moment. Had these cartoons never been published, what would have been different? The US government position is that the cartoons are being exploited by Syria and Iran for their own nefarious purposes. Nobody has a handle on what's going on in Indonesia, aka the Javan Empire created by the departing Dutch (who are not as squeaky-clean as their post-imperial projection implies).

In Europe, the publication of the cartoons has brought on embassy-burnings in other parts of the world, but such incendiarism is being attributed to Muslims per se, including European Muslims (a recent phaenomenon) by some people. The cartoon issue, just as Satanic Verses, is being exploited in entirely regional issues outside Europe. No surprises there. Malaysia bides its time ...

[Elind]

What progress is being made by the publication of these unfunny, ignorant and bigoted cartoons? You cheapen the struggle against segregation by trying to associate these two issues.

I agree that segregation is not comparable to humoring, or insulting, someones religion', but do you really think it's a matter of publication of these cartoons?

Actually not all of them were unfunny, and one or two were kind of to the point; but I never saw them until some people, Muslims, decided to play the hate card. That is what this issue is about.

[Elind]

The world doesn't need to be shown how chaotic the Muslim world is at the moment.

I'm surprised to hear that. Censorship from you? Certainly the Muslim world needs to be shown, otherwise what chance is there of any change? Seems to me it is they who are showing everyone, not "us".

I am not a Muslim, but if I were I'd like to think that I would follow the advice of one of the prophets and turn the other cheek, or just turn away as most of us do when we see something distasteful.

[Freakshow]

You are, if you'll excuse my presumption, missing what's important.

The fundamentalist world, be it Muslim, Christian, Jewish or Hindu, is ridiculous to most of its co-religionists. It is even more obviously ridiculous to those who aren't co-religionists. The anger felt by Muslims at insults to the Muhammad - not anger at depictions of Muhammad per se, which are not a problem - is not fundamentalist.I don't care if people are angry. Lots of people get angry. The only important question is this: "Are the actions proportional and justified to the offense?" If they aren't, then nothing else matters. If I say you are wearing an ugly shirt, you have the right to tell me to f*** off. You do not have the right to kill me, kill my family, and burn my house down. In both situations, you are angry. But in one of them, your response was proportional to the offense against you. In the other, it wasn't. Is that a difficult concept for you to understand?

They do raise a question, just as someone calling your sister a whore raises a question (unless she is one, and even then ...). The question being, are you doing it to make me do something you want me to do, or to show that I do nothing? "Pick up the gun ...". Maybe neither.

The world doesn't need to be shown how chaotic the Muslim world is at the moment. Had these cartoons never been published, what would have been different?There are people posting on this board who have admitted that this incident has shown them that the fundamentalist Muslim world is even more absurd than they previously thought it was. The incident has changed some people's opinions. In my not-at-all-humble opinion, it has changed their opinions in the correct direction.

In Europe, the publication of the cartoons has brought on embassy-burnings in other parts of the world, but such incendiarism is being attributed to Muslims per se, including European Muslims (a recent phaenomenon) by some people. Who says that? Certainly not me.

[CapelDodger]

People who burn down embassies over drawings deserve no consideration for their opinions.The US position appears to be that the Syrian regime is behind the embassy-burnings in Damasus and Beirut. In both cases they would have been riding the demonstrations provoked by the cartoons that were published in Europe. In Damascus, the regime would be passing the message apres nous le deluge Islamique. In Beirut they'd be passing the message "Lebanon is unstable without a Syrian presence". Olmert, the Voice of Sharon, doesn't know how to react. Hezbollah stayed distanced from embassy-burning and Maronite-stoning. It's all very confusing ...

[Mycroft]

What progress is being made by the publication of these unfunny, ignorant and bigoted cartoons? You cheapen the struggle against segregation by trying to associate these two issues.

If collectively the world takes a stand against Islamic bullying and radicalized Muslims learn they cannot evoke the specter of mob violence to get their way and instead will have to learn to get along with others, then the progress will be tremendous.

[Freakshow]

The US position appears to be that the Syrian regime is behind the embassy-burnings in Damasus and Beirut. In both cases they would have been riding the demonstrations provoked by the cartoons that were published in Europe. In Damascus, the regime would be passing the message apres nous le deluge Islamique. In Beirut they'd be passing the message "Lebanon is unstable without a Syrian presence". Olmert, the Voice of Sharon, doesn't know how to react. Hezbollah stayed distanced from embassy-burning and Maronite-stoning. It's all very confusing ...What is confusing to you?

[CapelDodger]

I don't care if people are angry. Lots of people get angry. The only important question is this: "Are the actions proportional and justified to the offense?"
The only action is the deliberate provocation of ordinary, non-extremist European Muslims by publication of insulting cartoons. The reaction that matters is the reaction of European Muslims. Has the reaction of European Muslims been proportionate? Was zero reaction justified? I don't think so. Have European Muslims burned embassies? No. They've demonstrated lawfully in the main, and some wankers have made arses of themselves. Are European Muslims to be damned just because they're Muslims and other Muslims far away have done bad things, or perhaps have demonstrated peacefully while Syrian-backed agents provocateurs have done violence?

What would Europeans have lost if these cartoons had never been commissioned? The post-imperial Muslim world is in post-imperial turmoil anyway, and Islam as a crowd-puller is a recent phaenomenon in all of it. The cartoons themselves are nothing, but they are a European product. Muslims in Europe is a new phaenomenon, but Europeans in the Muslim world is an old song. Muslims in Europe don't deny the Holocaust, they can see just how possible it is.

The Greatest Generation (and I subscribe to that) didn't resolve the issue. A multi-cultural Europe in Europe (rather than in a multiplicity of non-European places) is yet to prove itself viable. The original cartoons, and their re-publications, seem designed to bring on a crisis before it has the chance.

[CapelDodger]

What is confusing to you?What seems simple to you? If you can keep your head while all around are losing their's, it could be that you haven't grasped the situation.

[Freakshow]

The only action is the deliberate provocation of ordinary, non-extremist European Muslims by publication of insulting cartoons. The reaction that matters is the reaction of European Muslims. Has the reaction of European Muslims been proportionate? Was zero reaction justified? I don't think so. Have European Muslims burned embassies? No. They've demonstrated lawfully in the main, and some wankers have made arses of themselves. Are European Muslims to be damned just because they're Muslims and other Muslims far away have done bad things, or perhaps have demonstrated peacefully while Syrian-backed agents provocateurs have done violence?
Why do you continue to focus on the entire Muslim world, when I am only talking about a tiny minority? I fail to see what point you are trying to make. We are talking past each other. Do you understand that I am only talking about the actions of those that burn down embassies over cartoons? And I don't care about the rest of the Muslim world?

People get upset. People don't like some things that other people do. That's life. If the moderate Muslims want to get upset, and write letters, and have peaceful marches, etc., that's fine. But that is not at all what most of the rest of us have been discussing the past few days.

[Freakshow]

What seems simple to you? Don't burn down embassies over cartoons. VERY simple.

[CapelDodger]

If collectively the world takes a stand against Islamic bullying and radicalized Muslims learn they cannot evoke the specter of mob violence to get their way and instead will have to learn to get along with others, then the progress will be tremendous.Islamic bullying is a major problem for women born into the Muslim world, and I'm very much in favour of getting women out of there. I'm OK with corralling Pashtuns in their mountains where they can bother goats and engage in blood-feuds over pretty boys, but there should be an underground railway to get the women out of it. More than that, I'd fund agents to persuade women to get out of there.

Day after day I find myself untouched and unthreatened by Islamic bullying. How scary are they? 9/11, Bali, Madrid, London. Lame, I calls it. (No offence meant to personal loss. I was lucky, as it happens.)

Why do you think you're more au fait with Muslim extremism than average Muslims? (I know you said "collectively the world", but we all know what you mean.) Why do Danish artists who won't illustrate a chidren's book about Muhammad feel the need to provoke Muslims? Because they're being bullied by them? Were I a second-generation European Muslim, with the Holocaust as an example, I'd be looking to get out. The problem being, of course, who'd have me?

Europe is soooo not a place to be a minority in.

[Freakshow]

Europe is soooo not a place to be a minority in.Maybe you should try moving to the US? :D

[CapelDodger]

Don't burn down embassies over cartoons. VERY simple.You did catch that stuff about Syrian culpability, entirely unconnected to the cartoons as such, as claimed by the US gumment? European Muslims have no influence over that. Say a billion Muslims world-wide, Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Druze, whatever. A tiny proportion of them in Europe. Some sort of Muslim authority that could dictate behaviour across the Muslim world could not accomodate free speech - there's a trade-off between free speech and authority.

I appreciate that it seems simple to you : Muslims are Muslims and the sins of any are applied to all. I just don't buy into that kind of thinking.

[Mycroft]

Day after day I find myself untouched and unthreatened by Islamic bullying. How scary are they? 9/11, Bali, Madrid, London. Lame, I calls it. (No offence meant to personal loss. I was lucky, as it happens.)

That's very well and good for you, but others may not feel the same.

Why do you think you're more au fait with Muslim extremism than average Muslims?

I don't recall making that claim.


(I know you said "collectively the world", but we all know what you mean.)

No. Why don't you explain?

Why do Danish artists who won't illustrate a chidren's book about Muhammad feel the need to provoke Muslims?

I don't believe they're the same artists.

Why would you assume they expected to provoke Muslims?


Because they're being bullied by them? Were I a second-generation European Muslim, with the Holocaust as an example, I'd be looking to get out. The problem being, of course, who'd have me?

:oldroll:

[Skeptic]

Islamic bullying is a major problem for women born into the Muslim world, and I'm very much in favour of getting women out of there.

Oh c'mon. Surely you know it's just a tiny minority of extremists that are opressing women in the Islamic world.

Just like they're responsible for everything else wrong with it.

Day after day I find myself untouched and unthreatened by Islamic bullying.

And, since it doesn't touch you personally, that settles it. It's not REALLY a threat.

Were I a second-generation European Muslim, with the Holocaust as an example,

...to fear, or to copy? Certainly the guys with the "prepare for the REAL holocaust" signs don't seem to fear the holocaust--they want to perform another one.

[Mycroft]

The only action is the deliberate provocation of ordinary, non-extremist European Muslims by publication of insulting cartoons.

Except it doesn’t seem like much of a provocation.


The reaction that matters is the reaction of European Muslims. Has the reaction of European Muslims been proportionate?

Why limit yourself to European Muslims? That’s an artificial limitation if ever I saw one. You don’t think the Danish mind the loss of a few embassies?

Besides, at least one European Muslim’s reaction was to create a portfolio and take it on tour of the Middle East, just in case he could provoke a little anger himself.


Was zero reaction justified? I don't think so.

I do. Or at least very close to zero. They’re just cartoons, after all.

[Freakshow]

You did catch that stuff about Syrian culpability, entirely unconnected to the cartoons as such, as claimed by the US gumment? European Muslims have no influence over that. Say a billion Muslims world-wide, Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Druze, whatever. A tiny proportion of them in Europe. Some sort of Muslim authority that could dictate behaviour across the Muslim world could not accomodate free speech - there's a trade-off between free speech and authority.

I appreciate that it seems simple to you : Muslims are Muslims and the sins of any are applied to all. I just don't buy into that kind of thinking.Not at all what I think or said. But can't type any more tonight. Maybe tomorrow.

[CFLarsen]

Maybe you should try moving to the US? :D
The land where minorities are not discriminated against?

Want to rethink that one?

[Elind]

The land where minorities are not discriminated against?

Want to rethink that one?

Is this what's called a strawman?

[Freakshow]

Is this what's called a strawman?No, that is called "Claus is so stupid, he doesn't know what a smilie is and what it is for. Hence, his dumb a$$ couldn't recognize the significance of: :D"

[Freakshow]

I appreciate that it seems simple to you : Muslims are Muslims and the sins of any are applied to all. When did I EVER say that? In fact, I have explicity said just the opposite, many times.

[epepke]

Why limit yourself to European Muslims?

He said that he only cared about what happens in Europe.

I think it's pretty ad hoc, but I'm going to remember it. I don't think it will be too long before it can be used.

[Elind]

No, that is called "Claus is so stupid, he doesn't know what a smilie is and what it is for. Hence, his dumb a$$ couldn't recognize the significance of: :D"

Now now. Got to treat your elders with respect. He does have 10 times your experience; in posts.;)

[CapelDodger]

Maybe you should try moving to the US? :DAs a mongrel, I'm in the majority over here, so no worries. Also I'd have to take my garden with me - I'm very attached to it - which would cause all sorts of problems at US Customs. (Fruits and vegetables, not drugs :).)

[Elind]

As a mongrel, I'm in the majority over here, so no worries.

Your picture isn't a mongrel. Ours is prettier though, but it's a girl.:)

[CapelDodger]

Why do you continue to focus on the entire Muslim world, when I am only talking about a tiny minority? I fail to see what point you are trying to make. We are talking past each other. Do you understand that I am only talking about the actions of those that burn down embassies over cartoons? And I don't care about the rest of the Muslim world?I'm concentrating on Europe, I thought I made that clear at some point but I may well be mistaken. I allowed myself to be side-tracked by the embassy-burning theme, mea culpa. Were embassies burnt in Damascus and Beirut because of the cartoons, by enraged mobs, or because otherwise peaceful demonstrations provided a cover for more organised and nefarious actions? In short, have any embassies been burnt by Muslim mobs enraged by insulting cartoons? You referred to proportionate actions in response to the cartoons, but have you perhaps credited the embassy burnings to the wrong account?

You said "don't burn embassies, it's simple" but if Syria was behind the embassy-burnings we've yet to see whether they prosper by it. I find it hard to believe that the (Ba'athist) Syrian security forces were unable to prevent the Damascus burning. Those people were shelling towns to dust, with the people in them, for their Islamist sympathies way before anybody else. The Beirut burning is a little more nuanced (always a Lebanese theme). I still don't think it was because of the cartoons.

The current situation in the old Mandate territories is very complex, therefore confusing. The "It's all very confusing" (Goon Show reference, mea maxima culpa) was really prompted by Olmert's quandary. On the one hand Israel wants to promote the Crazy Muslim theme, but on the other hand they want to promote Syria as a Ba'athist eminence gris. What's a guy to do? Sharon would have taken command and invaded Lebanon, but Olmert hasn't got the pull. He can't shift debate in the IDF like Sharon could. Nor can the Likud lounge-lizard.

People get upset. People don't like some things that other people do. That's life. If the moderate Muslims want to get upset, and write letters, and have peaceful marches, etc., that's fine. But that is not at all what most of the rest of us have been discussing the past few days.I've been trying to arouse interest in the European situation. The Muslim response there has been as you describe. Only a sliver has acted differently.

The cartoons weren't published in a political vacuum, and the publishers were very aware of that. They weren't re-published in a political vacuum. Italian footballers aren't making fascist salutes in a political vacuum, and they know it - "I'm a fascist, not a racist". If you only notice Europe when a Muslim does something egregious there, you're missing the bulk of what's going on.

European Muslims know that there isn't a political vacuum. I think this affair will turn out well for the UK Muslim community, as it happens. It's marginalised the extremists by making them look like losers.

The US is coming out of it very well up to now as well. I've always rated Condi Rice. I rate Powell as well, but he was outside the beltway. With Condi in charge the State Department is back in the loop, no longer an agent of foreign powers (but still a bit, y'know, gay?).