Wishes and support to our friends in Denmark

We couldn't judge all muslims after:

- New York
- London
- Madrid
- Bali
- the riots in Paris
- the murder of van Gogh
- the statement of the Iranian goverment
- etc. etc.

But when there are a few cartoons made of a Santa Claus you get this...

 

Im really sorry for Denmark and other Scandinavian countries being punished
(embassies etc.) by a few fanatic stirrers utilizing the frustrated muslim youth
for having the freedom of press publishing some caricatures.

Reminds me of the situation in areas of eastern Germany.
With way over average unemployment you find des-illusionized teenagers & young ppl flocking to the paroles of the Nazi-ideologies, "brown ideas".

Too bad self-awareness of the own situation is the hardest way...
All you humans (morons), no matter what religion and belief.. make up your own mind!

Maybe its a clash of cultures - between the western (christian) world and the Islam..
But this conflict needs soldiers - its a fight about the minds of young ppl. (some 80% in Iran - and probably other neighbour countries are under the age of 35).
But we also have to stay alerted. - not to become a slave to the media and our own propaganda! (not only pointing to the US - Europe has enough own aims and interests)

 

No, the Danes are out of the building.

 

To be honest, I'm not who's worse; the idiots running the Danish newspaper that deliberately aggravated the Muslim world in the current highly charged situation or certain Muslim leaders using this as yet another excuse to exploit the naive to cause death and carnage and thus further their own personal political agendas. At the moment, I'm feeling less sympathetic towards the newspaper. You would have hoped they would of had some dim awareness of the consequences of their actions.

I just pray that the PR stunt of a few moronic Danes won't lead to rest of Denmark being targeted for attacks.

 

Hmmm I think you have caught in the wrong end, since I think I have seen 100´s of cartoons of JC, and I must say this well I still think they are funny, and no I am not posting the 12 images , and well I can honestly say, that they are funny.

And no, there are no picture of him engaging in sex with minors (one of the lies the society made), and no there are no pictures of the socalled pig mohammed, in the newspaper.

So there are 12 pictures in a satiric , and some of the person in the pictures are Danish actors, and some of them are Danish TV people. And some of them are just pictures made up.

every Christmas in Denmark there comes two very satiric magazines, and they are called Svikmøllen, and the other is called Blæksprutten (the octopus), and they are making fun of the politicians of what they have done through the year.

And Ekstra Bladet is giving a "new years cod", and the Danish word is torsk, and torks is also a slangword for a dork , in Danish. And the cod is given to some politician every year.

In Denmark we make fun of every thing, since that is our only weapon, and well if it stood to some people , many jokes would be removed from the entire internet, because of their "humour".

The Prime Minister of Denmark shall not say "I Am Sorry". And the queen shouldn´t either.

How can I say completely clear ?

The proud Danes have the freedom of speech, and also the freedom of press, and we can say what we want, under responsibility. And we can be punished for it, if we go head on with lies, and racist stuff , and antigay stuff.

But we have the liberty to make some homourous things, like the drawings, but the thing is, right now, Denmark is burning. Even though it is only the embassies in other countries, but it all started before the drawings of Mohammed in Jyllands Posten (The Jutlands Post).

It started back when a person wanted to make book about the life of Mohammed, and he needed a picture of him drawn, and nobody would do it. Since it is illegal to make drawings of him .

So Jyllands Posten made 12 drawings back in September last year. And now the proud Danes are fucked.

I am tired of this case, since I have seen the last months news with this case, since last September, and the Islamic Faith Society with Abu Laban in front. Lieing up in our faces, and talking with two tounges.

And he made the delegation, where all the big lies came.

So now you know, why the Danes, are very tired, and angry, and frightened.

 

Double Standard

I think they had that Laban guy on CBC Radio the other night and the interview it self was rather interesting to me. He apparently went to countries which had not been exposed to the cartoons and showed them to them although he denied doing it to cause an uproar. When they asked him if he was going to speak out against the carictures done in the Muslim countries of rabis etc. he said that he wasn't a human rights worker and it wasn't his problem. Interesting how that works...

 

This is what happens when zealots gain control (with anything not just religion) and prey on the ignorance of the masses.

 

liquitt: that drawing makes me think of the role Denmark had under WW2 , and well many of the Danish politicians were outright Traitors of Denmark, and DK was the foodchamber of Germany, and Churchill called us "Hitlers little canary bird", and if it hasn´t been for the resistance groups in DK, we wouldn´t have been a part of NATO, and UN today..

They have even found a document where different rules were layed out, if the nazis won, or if the allies won the war.

And by the way, the Danish WW2 archive is closed for at least 50 more years, because of a clause, but if it will be opened, we will really know the truth about the Danish government under WW2

And well the Danish jews ratted on the German jews, who had fled from Germany, or something like that.

And also Denmark was on their knees for the Americans , after the war, since we were close to be under Russian force(Bornholm was under Russian possesion a year after the war).

That is why the Danish government is so friendly to the American government.

Sorry for going offtopic in this thread, and I promiss, I won´t go into politics, since I know that rule. I just pointed out historical facts about my little lovely Constitunial Democracy that is a Kingdom too

 

I wouldn't say ignorance. Virtually all of their citizens in those countries are deprived of the same information. They are the shepherd and they're all the sheep. These governments won't go down without a fight if you want them to give their people access to the information we have, such as uncensored Internet.

 

It's all self-regulated

 

Freedom of Speech or Incitement to Violence?

 

Incitement to Violence or a Harmless Cartoon to anyone sensible?

 

Just an an easy way for violence, except you will never hear the media say that

 

Yeah, I have to agree. It *is* an extreme reaction and an unacceptable one of course, but you have to ask what the newspapers thought would happen.

It's well known that there are certain minorities in the Islamic faith that will go to extremes to protect their faith. It is forbidden for them even to draw Mohamed or Allah, let alone in such a grossly disrespectful way. It not only angered the extremist religious nuts but it also offended every muslim in the world because it is exactly that kind of ignorant stereotype (i.e. Muslim = terrorist) that Muslims the world over are trying to fight against right now. Newspapers have a responsibility to represent all religions and ethnic groups in a respectful and equal way, and I don't think the fact they also print blasphemous cartoons about Jesus Christ an acceptable get out clause either. They should have been more responsible, and this is the outcome of their stupidity.

I'm not justifying the craziness, but I think there should be a limit on to what constitutes freedom of speech, if not by law then by the ethical framework set out by the media. I can't support what the Danish newspapers did. I know that in Britain we don't have quite the same focus as the Americans do and limits on touchy areas, especially racial remarks, is probably something I can accept more easily than others on this forum. But consider the freedom of speech people have in reality and you'll find we are not really free at all, in fact what we say is often controlled discretely behind the scenes. Even on this forum we can't post certain links or talk about certain topics without getting a thread closed. This is to ensure the forum remains respectable and legally sound. Does it work? Why shouldn't this be extended to prevent extremes like this fiasco in the future?

Another example of what I'm getting at could be that I wouldn't walk through the project shouting racial slurs about blacks. I presume I have that freedom of speech, but if I get shot would I get sympathy? Probably not and rightly so, it would be a stupid thing to do.

As others have said, I hope this doesn't make Denmark a target in the future. London is a scarier place since the bombings, and I wouldn't want the Danes looking over their shoulders all the time like I often find myself doing when I get onto the tube at Kings Cross.

Peace.

 

Unacceptable, but we are talking about the national media, not you arguing something out with your family at the dinner table or with your friends at the bar. The implications of the freedom of speech are quite different, depending on context.

The world is much smaller now thanks to the age of communication (read: the Internet) and it is also a extremely reactionary place right now - America reacted to 9/11 with extreme violence, Iraqi's are reacting to our invasion and continued presence in their country with the same thing. Granted, the newspapers were Danish and so the cartoons were aimed at an audience that is generally more tolerant, but it was offensive to all muslims and I am sure Denmark has a Muslim population, so based solely on that fact you have to ask if it was right for a national popular newspaper to print such material. It was irresponsible, and they have found out that their audience is a much larger one than they ever could have imagined it to be.

 

This is just another spit in the face of Freedom of Speech anyone remember how thats like? Freedom of Speech is almost dead like the dodo bird

 

So let me get this straight Taucias, You think we should limit free speech "if not by law then by the ethical framework set out by the media" because it might offend others. I don't think you realize just how slippery that slope you are proposing is. Where is the limit and who sets them? What gives them the right to decide what I should or shouldn't be able to say?

History has proven time and again that when you begin to limit one voice. Even if it starts out noble and is believed to be for the greater good. Eventually it gets easier and easier to limit other voices until all that's left is one voice. That my friend is never a good thing.

Finally your examples on the limit of free speech don't really work because in both cases you have ultimately chosen to limit yourself. You don't have to post here but by doing so you choose to accept the rules. You have the right to say those thing in that situation but you choose not to due to the consequences of what that course of action would bring. In both cases you made the decision. It wasn't made for you like what you are proposing. A far better example would be what is happening in China. People there don't get to decide or have a choice. The government makes the choice for you. Can you honestly say you would like to live in a society like that?

 

We are already looking over our shoulders, that is why I deleted my introduction message in the introduce your self thread, since I am living in a town, where I have to dance after their flute, or else..

 

Freedom of speech is deemed to be inviolate in the US thanks to the constitution. However, the mainstream press is generally self-censoring (e.g. pictures of US war dead, negative remarks about the President/the war in Iraq etc..) In this way, although you can technically say what you want, in the War on Terror example, actually exercising this right will often get you accused of being 'unpatriotic' and you are marginalised and excluded.

The opposite is true here in Britain. We don't have a constitution; instead the country is governed by Acts of Parliament passed and modified over the centuries as required. Whilst freedom of speech isn't guaranteed by any particular document, any attempt by the government to introduce a law restricting freedom of speech is often hotly opposed (the most recent example being the proposed Religious Hatred Bill, which although passed, was severally neutered from its initial form.) Unlike the US however, the media, politicians and society here are actively engaged in opposing the war. Supporting the war is more likely to be frowned upon than opposing it.

In the UK, we have the Racial Hatred Act and Religious Hatred Act, both recently passed, which prevent anyone saying likely to stir up hatred or violence against a group or individual based on their ethnicity or religious beliefs.

See the conviction today of Muslim cleric Abu Hamza (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4690224.stm) and the imminent retrial of Nick Griffin, the leader of the Far-right British National Party (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/4672792.stm).

Freedom of speech, therefore, is almost always restricted, whether formally or informally, thanks to what society considers acceptable under its own value system.

To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." This is my favourite quote. I do hold freedom of speech in the highest regard. Whilst the ability to abuse that freedom proves it exists, I also think that people in positions of power and influence should also realise the responsibility that comes with it.

So, should government allow papers to publish these cartoons? Of course. Should the newspaper editors' conscience allow them to do so? I don't think so.