Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 12, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

SELF-CENSORSHIP....I happen to think that Andrew Sullivan's crusade to browbeat American newspapers into printing those now-famous Danish cartoons is severely wrongheaded. Freedom of speech gives Jyllands-Posten the right to run the cartoons if they want to, but it likewise gives the rest of us the right not to be bullied into doing the same just to prove we're not cowards. That kind of nonsense should be left on the kindergarten schoolyard where it belongs.

And yet....I have to admit....if you dedicate a weekly cartoon roundup to this very issue a roundup that includes examples of several cartoons mocking other religions as well as a warning that "fearing editorial censors, not to mention firebrand jihadists, U.S. cartoonists did a lot of self-censoring" it's hard to figure out any good reason not to run at least one of the offending cartoons so your readers know what this is all about.

Kevin Drum 2:06 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (216)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

The whole point of this is that all the violent Islamists in the world cite religious justification for their activity.

It's not even close to 'mocking someone's religion', it's mocking them.

Posted by: cld on February 12, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

I am 100% Westerner in this dispute and have no sympathy for Islam. Freedom of the press is at least as important to us as what this religious rule is to them, and their protests offend me much as these cartoond offend them.

Posted by: Ace Franze on February 12, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think this is so much about editorial freedom, censorship and such. Instead, it is (or should be) a matter of respecting the sensitivities of a group of people.

To Muslims, the cartoons are patently offensive. Those only real analogy would be an American newspaper running cartoons depicting black people eating watermelon while collecting welfare, or Jews robbing widows and orphans.

If an American newspaper ran such cartoons, I think most of us wouldn't be lauding their courage for printing those cartoons in the face of fierce criticism. We'd be rightly excoriating them for running such tasteless and offensive cartoons--cartoons that do nothing to advance debate or awareness, but merely reinforce racist stereotypes and are meant to offend.

So why are we even talking about editorial courage, censorship and so on when, as the editor of the Danish publication has explained in several interviews, the cartoons are intended to be offensive?

Posted by: Derelict on February 12, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin I am not surprised the liberal media refuses to print the cartoons. Liberals once again are falling into the trap of the moral equivalence the West and the Islamic Jihadists trying to impose Islamic law on us. Until liberals finally no longer have this mentality we will never be able to defeat the enemy and spread freedom and democracy to the Arab world.

Posted by: Al on February 12, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Obviously, major media outlets are under no obligation to print the cartoons to avoid charges of cowardice. But just as obviously, the American chief editors and publishers are acting out of cowardice. The major newspapers would not shrink from in-depth coverage of a major story that offended Christians or conservatives - look at, for example, the ubiquitous Abu Ghraib photos that undoubtedly offended many conservatives. But the response was that the photos were an important part of an important story, and rightly so. These cartoons are an important part of the story as well, and the only reason not to print them is out of fear of being labelled 'anti-Muslim', and the fear of inciting domestic riots (which I think is ludicrously overblown). Is this what liberals want out of the media? 'Restraint' out of abject fear? What will the media do the next time fundamentalist Christians are offended by a story or a piece of art?

Posted by: ChiSox Fan in LA on February 12, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Those only real analogy would be an American newspaper running cartoons depicting black people eating watermelon while collecting welfare, or Jews robbing widows and orphans.

That's a good analogy. There would likely be some real frustration from blacks or Jews in response to such a thing.

One question, though. Do you think they would riot, kill, injure, or threaten to behead people?

Check out this link to see the sentiments put forth by demonstrators from the "religion of peace".

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm

Posted by: sportsfan079 on February 12, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

The cartoons are offensive, and shouldn't run. Aside from that, why throw more fuel on the fire?

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

If a Danish newspaper decided to print a cartoon of a naked American president with his penis hanging out and limp (implying he can't get it up), and it causes a controversy, should all American newspapers decide to run the cartoon?

What if that cartoon is Jesus and his erectoral problems? Should all the newspapers rerun that?

What if the cartoon is something tasteless about the Holocaust? Should every newspaper in America actually run the cartoon while condemning it?

No. Mainstream media should not print marginal, offensive material, no matter how notorious it gets.

The problem is that people have conflated this issue with cartoons about Mohammed. I'm sure there have been cartoons with Mohammed before, and probably will be after, sometime, somewhere, and each will have to be judged on its own merits. But this case if first and foremost cartoon with Mohommed that are offensive and racist.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

The cartoons are offensive, and shouldn't run. Aside from that, why throw more fuel on the fire?

Jimm, that's a fair post, and I'll accept it at face value.

I have a question for you, though. And I hope you answer, because I'm honestly not trying to antagonize you.

If the cartoons depicted Jesus Christ, would you still say "The cartoons are offensive, and shouldn't run"?

Posted by: sportsfan079 on February 12, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

The reason they should be run is that they are news.

Posted by: Ace Franze on February 12, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

"threaten to behead"

Nah, I can't recall any of Ian Paisley's people ever doing that - Rioting, killing, injuring of course, but a good "Orangeman" never beheads.

Thanks for recommending the loonie tune world of michelle - the disgrace of Oberlin.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 12, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

At times in Western civilization, drawing a cartoon of Jesus or of god or Mary or whatever could have gotten you executed. Making fun of the local brand of Christianity could have gotten you burnt at the stake. All of these things were considered deeply offensive.

Now they're generally tolerated (though some people still consider them deeply offensive). Why? Because enough people ignored the sensitivities and went ahead and did it. Eventually protections of such speech were baked into things like the US Constitution.

The standard as to whether something is acceptable or not _cannot_ be simply that some group or another considers it offensive. A particular group cannot be the arbiter of what is considered acceptable to print about them.

In the west, it is considered acceptable to make fun of religious figures. See many many episodes of South Park. Mohammed cannot be exempt from that just because it makes people who follow Mohammed's teachings upset. Moslems living in the West don't get to exempt themselves from the standards of the West.

Posted by: foobar on February 12, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, notice how I speak of this as a taste issue, and a professional issue for editors, and not as a legal issue. Just as you have to pass a law in Germany saying denying the Holocaust is illegal, in order for it actually to be illegal and not just offensive, you would have to pass a law saying depicting religious icons in an offensive light is illegal in order for it to be so and not just offensive.

I actually don't think there should be either law.

In any case, we're back to the obscenity issue, and as a costume malfunction is obscene to Americans, as an exposed breast is considered obscene, as a man's penis in the public square is considered obscene (and a threat), so is a cartoon caricature of Mohammed as a violent predator obscene to devout Muslims.

Considering how many Muslims there are in the world, I should also add that only a very, very small percentage of them resorted to violence, as a result of this cartoon episode, while the rest likely registered their protest in more restrained measures, whether public or private.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

I think the issue with the media is consistency. Are those concerned about offending Muslims equally concerned about offending Christians, or even Americans in general?

Many newspapers and liberals have been consistent in their support of free speech and publishing such things all across the board, or on the other hand, in their position that nothing highly offensive should be published, no matter who it's about.

Others seem to have a double standard. In the worst cases, it seems that some papers in Europe seem to be more concerned about offending those who threaten violence.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 12, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

Derelict said: "To Muslims, the cartoons are patently offensive. Those only real analogy would be an American newspaper running cartoons depicting black people eating watermelon while collecting welfare..."

This analogy fails on at least two levels. First, it's almost a strawman to say that newspapers wouldn't print such a cartoon with such racial stereotypes of blacks. Of course no newspaper would or should just print that gratuitously. The question is, is there any context in which it would be appropriate? If such a cartoon became the centerpiece of a major worldwide news story, then yes, it would be appropriate. It's news. Obviously, print them with large disclaimers and an apology in advance. I'm not sure American newspapers would or wouldn't, but it would be perfectly ethical to do so.

And secondly, race and religion are fundamentally different things! Religion is a philosophy, a set of belifs and axioms. There is nothing wrong, in principle, with criticism of any philosophy or religion. Criticism of someone's race is completely different, as I would hope most people would agree that that's morally wrong. If I criticize Nazis, I'm not criticizing Caucasians. There's just no analogy here.

Posted by: ChiSox Fan in LA on February 12, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

The window has closed on approaching this simply as a free-speech issue. It still is one, of course, but a cursory review of the right-wing blogs, particularly some of the milblogs, shows that large swathes of the right (including the religious right) are now demanding that editors run these as a way of scoring points in their personal religious war.

Without in any way excusing the appalling Muslim-generated violence here, I really have to question the motivations of people who say that to fail to run the cartoons at this time is to fail to protect free speech. Yeah, there's a religious struggle going on here, and some of our countrymen are loving every second of it.

Posted by: shortstop on February 12, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Considering how many Muslims there are in the world, I should also add that only a very, very small percentage of them resorted to violence, as a result of this cartoon episode, while the rest likely registered their protest in more restrained measures, whether public or private.

Oh OK, if it was a very, very small percentage, I guess it's OK.

It amazes me how far people will go to be apologists for this behavior because it disagrees with their party line.

Posted by: sportsfan079 on February 12, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

THere could be a compromise similar to the way they deal with the "Christmas creche in the town square" controversies. In those, they deal with the issue of favoring/dissing specific religions by putting up representations of more than one religion.

In this case, they could just run cartoons denigrating more than one religion. Aside from the Mohammed cartoons, there could be a few of Jesus having sex with his mother ("Virgin Mary no more!") plus various Hindu gods eating beef jerky, as well as images of the Buddha as the Terminator.

Then we could see who the real First Amendment defenders are.

Posted by: jimBOB on February 12, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

If the cartoons depicted Jesus Christ, would you still say "The cartoons are offensive, and shouldn't run"?

Well, I think I answered this question, before I saw it, in the last few posts, but the answer is "yes...depending".

This is an obscenity issue. It would depend on the nature of the Jesus cartoon. I assure you that if there was a very offensive Jesus cartoon that had Christian evangelists marching in America and calling for boycotts and people to be fired, almost every other major media outlet, if not all of them, would stay away from publishing that cartoon like the plague. If that cartoon was Jesus and his penis, guarantee it on a few levels.

The issue is obscenity, which obviously is in the eye of the beholder.

If we respect keeping penises out of the public realm in America, in almost every case, out of a respect for sensitivities and sensibilities of a majority (but certainly not a large minority), there is no reason we cannot respect these same strong feelings, sensitivities and sensibilities of Muslims, at least in our most public, mainstream, and accessible outlets.

As far as I'm concerned, these Mohammed cartoons are "adult" material.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK


KEVIN DRUM: Freedom of speech gives Jyllands-Posten the right to run the cartoons if they want to, but it likewise gives the rest of us the right not to be bullied into doing the same just to prove we're not cowards.

Bullied? Do you have the bruises to prove that? Of course you have the right not to run the cartoons, just as others have the right to run them. But so too do others have the right to use speech to try to persuade others to run them. Apart from deliberate falsehoods, speech should be subject to curtailment only when it uses coercion or threats of actual harm in order to compel others to its will.


Posted by: jayarbee on February 12, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

This is a great post by Derelict:

I don't think this is so much about editorial freedom, censorship and such. Instead, it is (or should be) a matter of respecting the sensitivities of a group of people.

To Muslims, the cartoons are patently offensive. Those only real analogy would be an American newspaper running cartoons depicting black people eating watermelon while collecting welfare, or Jews robbing widows and orphans.

If an American newspaper ran such cartoons, I think most of us wouldn't be lauding their courage for printing those cartoons in the face of fierce criticism. We'd be rightly excoriating them for running such tasteless and offensive cartoons--cartoons that do nothing to advance debate or awareness, but merely reinforce racist stereotypes and are meant to offend.

So why are we even talking about editorial courage, censorship and so on when, as the editor of the Danish publication has explained in several interviews, the cartoons are intended to be offensive?

Had I noticed it from the beginning, I wouldn't have bothered going into penises.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

I've seen the Danish cartoons and they are really rather juvenile, silly, certainly no more offensive than the "Piss Christ" of Andres Serrano.

And if the media was so concerned about publishing images that inflamed the Muslim world, why were the Abu Ghraeb images so widely reproduced?

Posted by: Zhombre on February 12, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

The major newspapers would not shrink from in-depth coverage of a major story that offended Christians or conservatives - look at, for example, the ubiquitous Abu Ghraib photos that undoubtedly offended many conservatives.

This is a ridiculous conflation on several levels.

On just one of these levels, real conservatives likely were offended by these photos, in the sense of the actions taken by American leadership that led to them. There is only a small minority of wingbats that would be offended by learning something about their leadership they didn't want to know.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I think I answered this question, before I saw it, in the last few posts, but the answer is "yes...depending".

This is an obscenity issue. It would depend on the nature of the Jesus cartoon. I assure you that if there was a very offensive Jesus cartoon that had Christian evangelists marching in America and calling for boycotts and people to be fired, almost every other major media outlet, if not all of them, would stay away from publishing that cartoon like the plague. If that cartoon was Jesus and his penis, guarantee it on a few levels.

Jimm, thank you for your honest and earnest answer. I personally disagree - I think many papers would have no problem printing an offensive Jesus cartoon - but I have to acknowlege your consistent stance.

One more question, though. You keep mentioning cartoons showing the prophets "penis". I saw a link to the cartoons, but did not see anything like that among them. What are you speaking of with that reference?

Posted by: sportsfan079 on February 12, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Its a f@#%ing shame because the real censorship is already happening within the Corporate run media.

Its total misdirection.

"Hey Bubba, nevermind that we are keeping you blind and quietly robbing you of free speech at home. You go worry about what them rag... er crazy moozlems be doing about that cartoon."

"...and make sure to keep visiting your Corporate indoctrination centers at CNN, MSNBC and Fox. Thats a good little zombie. Next week we promise to have a story about a missing white woman for yah."

Posted by: Ten in Tenn on February 12, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

The cartoons are offensive, and shouldn't run. Aside from that, why throw more fuel on the fire?

Posted by: Jimm

The problem I have is with the hypocracy of the American press. The NYT ran a story about the mohamed cartoons but did not show one of them so their readership could see what the fuss was about. Their reason was that it was offensive to muslims(cowardice in other terms). Yet in the same paper that day they ran a picture of Mary covered in shit and surrounded with pornographic images. Which is patently offensive to christians. So I guess lefty publications can bash Chritianity while kissing the ass of muslims in the name of not offending their religion(cowardice and bias by most standards).

Fuel should be thrown on the fire. If you let radical muslims determine what is printable then you no longer have a free or reputable press.

Posted by: Fat White Guy on February 12, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

I'll repeat that in a world of over a billion Muslims, a most miniscule number of them protested with violence, while the rest, private or publicly, like registered their protest in more restrained ways.

Some of you are so easily caught up in these dueling propaganda efforts...not a single embassy should have burned down, and not because noone wanted to burn it down, but because that authorities wouldn't allow it to be burned down. Obviously, in a few cases, the rioting was so bad that security cleared out, or they were complicit, but this does not incriminate the other billion Muslims who didn't burn anything down.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

..and a war in Iran.

Posted by: Ten in Tenn on February 12, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK


JIMM: The issue is obscenity, which obviously is in the eye of the beholder.

How would your eye behold a cartoon depicting counter-protestors at a gay rally shouting "homo" and "fag" as Jesus walks hand-in-hand with an effeminate looking man? Jesus is shown looking at and obviously admiring the man's ass, while a caption has him saying, "Turn the other cheek."


Posted by: jayarbee on February 12, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

A common theme..

Fuel should be thrown on the fire. If you let Corporate Interests determine what is printable then you no longer have a free or reputable press.

Posted by: Ten in Tenn on February 12, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

"The only real analogy would be an American newspaper running cartoons depicting black people eating watermelon while collecting welfare, or Jews robbing widows and orphans."


That's a totally false analogy. Black people and Jews are not killing people and setting off bombs and using their religion to justify these acts.

Posted by: cld on February 12, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

As far as I'm concerned, these Mohammed cartoons are "adult" material.

Posted by: Jimm

If you had been paying attention you would know that the cartoons printed in the Danish press were not pornographic in any way. The most offensive of the ones they printed showed Mohamed with a turbin in the shape of a bomb. The pornographic ones were added by the Immams to stir people up since nobody got excited when the original Danish cartoons were published in an Egyptian paper.

Posted by: Fat White Guy on February 12, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

I'll repeat that in a world of over a billion Muslims, a most miniscule number of them protested with violence, while the rest, private or publicly, like registered their protest in more restrained ways.

Jimm, you need to drop this argument.

NO VIOLENCE IS ACCEPTABLE.

You wouldn't tolerate it if it were being committed by Christians.

Posted by: sportsfan079 on February 12, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Oh OK, if it was a very, very small percentage, I guess it's OK.

No, I'm just refuting the notion that this violent reaction is common or widespread amongst Muslims (or even Islamists). There are a core group of violent idiots in probably every group you can think of, including Christian fundamentalists, who engage in violent activity like burning down abortion clinics, or right wing nazis, who burn down African American churches.

There are lots of Muslims in the streets protesting these cartoons, even of these violence is not common. Their speakers are imploring them not to be violent, and excoriating those who are burning down embassies and what not. Burning down embassies was an extreme minority reaction and enabled by the authorities, either by incompetence or complicity.

Just as we have had riots over simmering issues that exploded on a flashpoint, with lots of stuff getting burned down and looted, so is the case right now over the Danish cartoons. In any large protesting crowds there are going to be hooligans, and if there is an absence of police and authority to control the gatherings then you will have riots and the hooligans will lead things to get out of control.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

If you let radical muslims determine what is printable then you no longer have a free or reputable press.

Sure. But the same goes for radical Christians, who now have taken up the reprinting of these cartoons as a crusading cause. While I'm personally moved by their recent conversion to democracy, I find it strange that they've chosen this issue to take up the banner for freedom of the press while simultaneously managing to get in still more whining about how oppressed and rudely portrayed they are.

At this point, not printing the cartoons will be intepreted as kowtowing to Islamic extremists, while printing them has to be seen as knuckling under to Christian extremists. Not exactly a win-win sitch, so thanks very much, all religious fanatics of the world.

Posted by: shortstop on February 12, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and I don't have a "party" line, so the latest wingnut to try and throw that at me should be aware of that.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

sportsfan, I'm a little slow in the thread, so just now see your last post in regards to me. we disagree, and that's cool. there is no Mohammed cartoon with a penis...I brought in the penis as an offensive example.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and I don't have a "party" line, so the latest wingnut to try and throw that at me should be aware of that.

Fair enough. I retract that statement.

It is frustrating though to so many people jump to the side of the protestors and throw the First Amendment out the window. From my point of view, it looks like apologist thinking and liberal bias. I try hard to see it from a different point of view, but it just doesn't hold up.

Posted by: sportsfan079 on February 12, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

How would your eye behold a cartoon depicting counter-protestors at a gay rally shouting "homo" and "fag" as Jesus walks hand-in-hand with an effeminate looking man? Jesus is shown looking at and obviously admiring the man's ass, while a caption has him saying, "Turn the other cheek."

I don't know, as I'm not a fundamentalist Christian, but it sounds like the cartoon is making a good point aside from the Jesus admiring ass part. If I were an editor, I wouldn't run it with the "admiring ass" part (if this is obviously suggesting Jesus likes ass), because I would figure it would distract from the more important point, and perhaps infuriate my Christian readers instead of give them something to contemplate. Thus, I would come to the conclusion as editor that the cartoon was gratuituous and borderline offensive, and therefore determine that it didn't meet the standard of my paper. Still, to do so would take away from the "cleverness" the artist intended with "the other cheek". I'm sure it would run in other less mainstream weekly newspapers or magazines, and perhaps even in a daily newspaper with a large gay readership.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

If you had been paying attention you would know that the cartoons printed in the Danish press were not pornographic in any way. The most offensive of the ones they printed showed Mohamed with a turbin in the shape of a bomb.

Um, I never said there were pornographic Mohammed cartoons. We need to start reading more closely. The point is that "adult" material is "obscene" material, not necessarily "sexual" or "pornographic".

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

For those saying it's not a fair analogy, toss out the cartoons about blacks and stick with the ones about Jews. Now it's perfect equivalence.

Do you still think it would be an act of "courage" to run cartoons which are solely intended to offend Jews? I don't think so. I think most of us would be ripping the editor a new one for publishing such things.

So tell me again why we're framing this as "censorship" or "lack of editorial courage?"

Posted by: Derelict on February 12, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

At this point, not printing the cartoons will be intepreted as kowtowing to Islamic extremists, while printing them has to be seen as knuckling under to Christian extremists. Not exactly a win-win sitch, so thanks very much, all religious fanatics of the world.


Posted by: shortstop

A lot more people than religious extremists expect the press to print those cartoons when they write a story about them. So people can see what the fuss is about.

As far as Christians go they don't burn down the paper when it prints pictures of Christ on a cricifix in a jar of urine. Or as the NYT just printed a picture of Mary covered with shit and surrounded by pornographic images in the same paper they ran the cartoon story and did not print the cartoons lest they offend anyone.

Christians complain and protest which is their right. No one in the press seems to be afraid to offend Christians but run and hide from muslims. Looks like first rate cowardice and hypocracy to me. I love it!

Posted by: Fat White Guy on February 12, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

Um, I never said there were pornographic Mohammed cartoons. We need to start reading more closely. The point is that "adult" material is "obscene" material, not necessarily "sexual" or "pornographic".

Jimm, it think some people got confused by the "penis" references. I know I did.

For the record, the depictions of Mohammed did not depict nudity or sexual themes.

Posted by: sportsfan079 on February 12, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

NO VIOLENCE IS ACCEPTABLE.

I never said any violence was acceptable. My point was to refute the notion that this was a common response amongst Muslims, or even Islamists (most of whom do not advocate violence), and thus that the cartoons were somehow prescient.

In any large protest gathering, there is a thin line in many cases, especially when there is pent up anger and range, between orderly gathering and riot. In any such large gathering, and especially in a riot situation, there will be the chance of hooligans burning and destroying things (and I'm not talking about flags, which there is nothing wrong with burning as a form of protest).

There was a failure of the police and authorities in the most notorious cases of arson in regards to these mass public protests. Obviously, there was also a failure in judgement by some of the protesters, who let their anger get the better of them and burned down more than symbolic objects.

My point is only that the vast, vast majority of Muslims, and Islamists, did not burn down any embassies, or engage in any violence to speak of, as regards this controversy. Some of you just manipulated by events and propaganda and can't seem to figure this out.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Um, I never said there were pornographic Mohammed cartoons. We need to start reading more closely. The point is that "adult" material is "obscene" material, not necessarily "sexual" or "pornographic".

Posted by: Jimm

You are the one that mentioned penis'. There was nothing obscene in the cartoons printed by the Danish. Have you even seen the cartoons they printed? They are pretty benign by pretty much any standard other than they are pictures of Mohamed. So obscene and adult they are not!

Posted by: Fat White Guy on February 12, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

And one more time, I think it is worthwhile to see some pics of Muslim protests. Here's the link:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm


Someone above criticized them for being on michele-sombody's website. I have no idea who "michele" is, but it shouldn't matter. There's no commentary, just the pictures.

Posted by: sportsfan079 on February 12, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

The first resort of Islamic societies, in every case, is violence. Where is the Muslim Ghandi? Why has there never been anyone even close to be like Ghandi, or Martin Luther King?

Having enough respect for people who aren't Islamic to interact with them with equanimity is way beneath any school of Islamic thought.

If you are speaking to a religious Muslim, you're speaking to someone who thinks he has a religious justification for enslaving you and anything you say is the jabbering of an uppity slave.

Posted by: cld on February 12, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

My point is only that the vast, vast majority of Muslims, and Islamists, did not burn down any embassies, or engage in any violence to speak of, as regards this controversy. Some of you just manipulated by events and propaganda and can't seem to figure this out.
--posted by Jimm

Do you really think we are "manipulated by events and propaganda"?

I don't agree. I think this is a very important issue, and will become more important for the world in coming years, as Muslim immigration continues to grow in Western countries. Eventually I think we are going to have to confront these topics.

Posted by: sportsfan079 on February 12, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

"threaten to behead"

Nah, I can't recall any of Ian Paisley's people ever doing that - Rioting, killing, injuring of course, but a good "Orangeman" never beheads.

I just don't get how people get worked up about beheading in particular.

In what sense is beheading more reprehensible than blowing someone up, or shooting them? The guillotine was invented as a more humane form of execution. Frankly, I think the victim of a beheading suffers less than the victim of a bombing might, especially if they end up being burned to death.

Murder is murder, and I condemn it, in case you were wondering. But what makes beheading worse?

Posted by: Doctor Jay on February 12, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

My point is only that the vast, vast majority of Muslims, and Islamists, did not burn down any embassies, or engage in any violence to speak of, as regards this controversy. Some of you just manipulated by events and propaganda and can't seem to figure this out.

Posted by: Jimm

If they are not representative. Where are the voices of Islamic leaders and moderates trying to calm the violence? They are eihter feeding the flames, applauding or hiding. Pick one or more because all three are unaceptable.

Posted by: Fat White Guy on February 12, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

"in a world of over a billion Muslims, a most miniscule number of them protested with violence"


If there is such an overwhelming majority of Muslims who disapprove of this behaviour they could really easily put a stop to it. If there really were such an overwhelming percentage.

Posted by: cld on February 12, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

You are the one that mentioned penis'. There was nothing obscene in the cartoons printed by the Danish. Have you even seen the cartoons they printed?

You're an idiot Fat White Guy...I'm sorry. I'm not going to waste my Sunday afternoon belaboring to get you to understand the obvious. I mentioned penises, breasts, and wardrobe malfunctions in order to make a point about "obscenity", and it's being in the eye of the beholder. This is obvious in the course of posts.

I have seen the cartoons, and found them offensive from my own moral standpoint, which is opposed to rude propaganda caricature designed to stir up emnity in mass populations towards an "other". To a devout Muslim, I can very easily sympathize as to why this would be considered not only "offensive", but "obscene".

I am not a Muslim, so can't tell you. I don't worry much about the biblical "graven image" prohibitions, whether of Muslim, Christian, or Jewish divine or prophetical figures. I am not far from considering war and hate propaganda, especially in the form of art and cartoon, to be "obscene", and not fit for promotion in the public square (though I would never support banning anything outright, and "obscene" material should be available for "adults" to seek on their own), but these are my personal views, and I realize my views are "progressive" and not widely shared (or understood), and I also don't advocate that my own personal views be adopted as the societal views. I just avoid promoting obscenity myself, in my own life, and speak out against and criticize it when I see it.

I'm reading a book on Art and Propaganda (Amazon) right now. Maybe some of you would be interested in ordering a copy as well. Another good read is Faces of the Enemy: Reflections of the Hostile Imagination (Amazon).

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Murder is murder, and I condemn it, in case you were wondering. But what makes beheading worse?

I can personally guarantee that anyone who makes a statement like that has not seen the Nick Berg execution video.

And I'm not encouraging you to seek it out and watch it. Don't do it. There are some things you see that you can never 'unsee'.

Posted by: sportsfan079 on February 12, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

It is frustrating though to so many people jump to the side of the protestors and throw the First Amendment out the window.

I actually do consider it abhorrent that embassies were burned down, and I'm not reflexively siding with protesters (or defending burning down embassies). I'm just explaining the phemomenon of mass protest, and the need for security and law enforcement to prevent angry masses from getting out of control (pushed by hooligans), while also pointing out that the burning down of embassies is in no way representative of Islam, Muslims, or Islamists.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Mohammed image archive,

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Only some schools of Islam consider visual representation a bad thing.

Posted by: cld on February 12, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

You're an idiot Fat White Guy...I'm sorry. I'm not going to waste my Sunday afternoon belaboring to get you to understand the obvious. I mentioned penises, breasts, and wardrobe malfunctions in order to make a point about "obscenity", and it's being in the eye of the beholder. This is obvious in the course of posts.

Posted by: Jimm

What an asshole! Call me a name and then think you made your point. The cartoons printed by the danish are NOT obscene. They may be offensive to some uneducated radical muslim fundamentalist but they are NOT obscene by any standard. So get a grip on reality.


Posted by: Fat White Guy on February 12, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Fat White Guy, if you read any of the in-depth stories, you will find that nearly every leader and speaker who has addressed mass protest gatherings has condemned violence and burning down embassies (or any other non-symbolic objects). In every story I've read, this has come out if you actually take the time to read it.

These leaders and speakers also agree with the gatherings that their rage is righteous, but have condemned the cases where this rage has been channeled in destructive ways in the course of the gatherings.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

My only serious gripe is not the cowardice of the editors who "choose" not to run the cartoons, but their disingenuousness in ascribing it all to editorial judgment: they simply did not think that the cartoons were any good. (Sniff. Just not good enough for our rarefied pages.) Doesn't matter that it's THE major news story in Europe at the moment.

They should admit that they are afraid. Afraid that "someone" will figure out where their editor-in-chief, executive VP, or whatnot live in the suburbs. Afraid of the consequences if that happens.

For us, the readers, it seems like that would be useful information, no?

Posted by: peanut on February 12, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, I called you an idiot Fat White Guy not to make a point, but in frustration at your inability to understand what I clearly wrote. It was just an observation, not an argument.

I love it!

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

I think these protests are ginned up by and large, and reflect more anger at disrespect and hostility against Muslims as a whole -- manifested in the form of an unprovoked attack on a Muslim country (Iraq), the humiliations of Abu Ghraib, and the constant beating of war drums when it comes to Iraq, Syria -- than at a bunch of cartoons alone. They were just a little more gasoline on a fire that's burning pretty well on its own.

Something else that gets lost in the chest-thumping about free speech, which many of the conservative posters here wanted to throw out the window when it came to NEWSWEEK Abu Ghraib stories, for example, is the fact that the cartoons are not simtply offensive to Muslims -- they're LITERALLY blasphemous.

There's a strict prohibition about creating an image of Mohammed, period, which makes these cartoons a little different than the thousands which routinely denigrate Muslims or the photos of live Muslims in the most humiliating situations possible. It's actually breaking one of their religious precepts, in a way that satirical depictions of Jesus, Moses or Buddha do not -- unless you can show me the passage in the New Testament that says "Thou shalt never create images of the Savior, in drag, smoking a joint, or whatever!"

Are the rioters barbaric and backwards? Yeah. They're fundamentalists, and all fundamentalists are backward. When our fundies didn't have a foothold in the White House we had abortion clinic bombings and Timothy McVeigh.

We should never retreat from freedom of speech in any arena. But It seems to me that part of living in a non-homogenous society is at least a basic respect, if not embrace, of the beliefs of others.

Posted by: mercury on February 12, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

If we respect keeping penises out of the public realm in America

But I want to put my penis into the public realm again and again and again...OOOOHHHH...I love you public realm:)

Posted by: blueperiod on February 12, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

I find the "free speech" argument inconsistent. I am not aware of a campaign under the name of "free speech" to get photos of caskets returning to Dover published. Outcry, yes, but we still don't see the pictures. In the case of cartoons, there can be a lot of other considerations as why not to publish them when a description suffices. I would be troubled if I couldn't read about it, but I don't need to see the images.

Posted by: Phyllis on February 12, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

peanut, no mainstream american newspaper would likely have run this cartoon in the first place, with or without controversy. it is in extremely bad taste, and offensive. to devout fundamentalist muslims, surely "obscene". it was designed to offend, and only found publishing through lax editorial standards far different from our own.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Jimm, as usual, misses the point:

"If a Danish newspaper decided to print a cartoon of a naked American president with his penis hanging out and limp (implying he can't get it up), and it causes a controversy, should all American newspapers decide to run the cartoon?"

Well, if the limp-dick pictures cause not just "controversy" (couldn't find a better euphemism, Jimm?) but large scale rioting, the deaths of more than a dozen people, the torching of embassies, international boycott threats, not to mention newspaper editors in hiding and under 24 hour police protection because they are afraid for their lives -- then you can BET that most US papers would print the pics.

You can bet your last dollar on that.

Posted by: peanut on February 12, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Would these cartoons be more appropriate if they depicted Mohammed hanging his head in grief over the vulgar behaviour executed in his name? To some, perhaps, but in that case they wouldn't be true. Conversion by the sword was Mohammed's singular political insight, and these people are carrying on explicitly in his tradition.

Posted by: cld on February 12, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

You can bet your last dollar on that.

No way. A penis in our mainstream newspapers is unthinkable. Think about that, and then imagine what is unthinkable to print for devout fundamentalist Muslims.

In my mind, neither prohibition makes sense, but it's a crazy world, and whether I agree with others or not, I should respect them, and respect should not be based upon their closeness of agreement to me.

Mutual respect and reciprocity is the very foundation of classical liberalism, if not humanity. Justice, liberty, freedom, etc. all follow.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Conversion by the sword was Mohammed's singular political insight

If so, it was apparently adopted by the Bush Doctrine, neocons and PNAC.

Of course, this is not Mohammed's singular political insight.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

It's surprising how often quotes from the little seen "Tequilla Sunrise" have proved useful. (Or at least pertinent.) There's a scene where Kurt Russell dumps some soft drinks on (the ever-present in Kurt Russell movies) JT Walsh who's playing a snarky DEA agent. "This is my backyard, Hal. I don't plant weeds in it so that I can pull 'em."

Why on earth would someone be deliberately offensive to make a vacuous point?

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 12, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Another lame analogy:

"Those only real analogy would be an American newspaper running cartoons depicting black people eating watermelon while collecting welfare, or Jews robbing widows and orphans."

Please. Those are disgusting racial stereotypes without basis in reality. On the other hand: It is a fact that islam - yes, the words of the prophet - is being used (perhaps by a minority) to justify bombings and suicide missions. The cartoon of muhammed saying "hold it there boys, heavens running out of virgins" is not just funny but has a very good point. It's a good editorial cartoon.

The analogy would be if some playwright put up a show in New York that had Jesus having sexual intercourse with Judas. Oh wait, that DID happen. Did the NYT write about it? Why, they applauded the play for its "provocative" blah blah blah.

They are not afraid of giving offense when doing so is unlikely to cost them. On the other hand, if the offended party is likely to actually DO SOMETHING - to do violence against the offending party - they are not so brave.

They should stop pretending otherwise.

Posted by: peanut on February 12, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure why we keep talking about "freedom of speech" as if it's the same in every Western country either. We do not have the same legal tradition as Denmark, though we have similarities.

Prior Restraint

European and US Constitutionalism

If average Europeans were asked which fundamental right is much more protected in the United States than in Europe, most people would probably give the answer: freedom of speech. Rightly so: hate speech, in particular Nazi propaganda, is not only tolerated but even to a large extent constitutionally protected in the United States. The same is not true in Europe. Most European states have enacted special legislation, in conformity with international human rights requirements, to ban incitement to racial hatred, and even to ban certain right-wing insignia and propaganda.13 The European Court of Human Rights has accepted such legislation in principle, as have the national Constitutional Courts in Europe. The two leading cases of the European Court of Human Rights in this context are characteristic. In Jersild v. Denmark14 the Court declared that a journalist who had conducted an interview with right-wing youths which was then broadcast on television could not be punished for dissemination of prohibited hate speech. A closer look at the judgment shows, however, that the Court has very much restricted its holding to the particular facts of the case. The Court found relevant the obvious informational and non-associative nature of the programme and that it was viewed by informed recipients.15 Therefore, the judgment is rather a confirmation of the rule that the media can be restrained when covering racist or extreme right-wing activities than an affirmation of media freedom...

This stark contrast in the free-speech jurisprudence between European and US courts is not necessarily predetermined by the respective instruments themselves. It is true that the American free-speech clause is phrased in absolute terms while the European provisions usually contain limitation clauses. At the same time, however, one must remember that until the First World War the judicial understanding of freedom of speech in US law was rather limited.19 It was not until 1968 and the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio20 that the clear and present danger test was firmly established.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

You know, all that mockery about "the 101st Fighting Keyboarders" applies perfectly here. It's warbloggers, who don't work for (for instance) the New York Times, demanding that outlets like the Times publish the cartoon to prove that they won't be intimidated. How nice of the bloggers to refuse to allow the Times to be cowed by threats of violence! Tell me, when is National Review going to run them? I don't think I see them on their site.

Posted by: DonBoy on February 12, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Doctor Jay,

Good point about the beheading - Perhaps Ian Paisley will recommend that to his fanatics in Northern Ireland - have them be more humane.

Sportsfan(Patton-Alice-Norm), perhaps you missed craigie's link to the cartoons when Kevin first posted on this earlier in the week - Why should any of us want to demean ourselves by linking to Michelle Malkin and her garbage?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 12, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

"There's a strict prohibition about creating an image of Mohammed, period, which makes these cartoons a little different than the thousands which routinely denigrate Muslims or the photos of live Muslims in the most humiliating situations possible. It's actually breaking one of their religious precepts, in a way that satirical depictions of Jesus, Moses or Buddha do not -- unless you can show me the passage in the New Testament that says "Thou shalt never create images of the Savior, in drag, smoking a joint, or whatever!""

- Not that it's important, but this, too, is wrong. There is not one single word in the Koran that prohibits pictures of the prophet or anything else for that matter.

In fact, the only justification for the ban on pictures is from the Old Testament (which has been sort-of adopted as a holy text by the muslims).

The prohibition against images stems from later (post prophet) contacts between islam and certain christian sects in the area that were militantly iconoclastic.

But whatever the justification, it is a fact that if making pictures (graven images, or whatever) of things in nature, or people, or just the prophet, is a sin, then it is so even more in jewish and christian holy texts.

Posted by: peanut on February 12, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

Jimm, if "These leaders and speakers also agree with the gatherings that their rage is righteous", there's no going back from that, that's a call to action.


One of the things that has really impressed me in this is that these cartoons are pretty plain by editorial cartoon standards. What would they have done if the cartoons had been any good, like, say, these,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/archive/0,,1284265,00.html


Or, actually, this,


http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1701293,00.html

Posted by: cld on February 12, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

"all that mockery about "the 101st Fighting Keyboarders" applies perfectly here"

DonBoy thats a good point about national review - theres hypocrisy here on both sides of the aisle. But these are opinion magazines though. Shouldnt major papers have more of an obligation to inform their readers about the major events of our time?

Posted by: lip on February 12, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

In fact, the only justification for the ban on pictures is from the Old Testament (which has been sort-of adopted as a holy text by the muslims).

Not "sort of" peanut, the Old Testament is a primary foundation of Islam, since Mohammed is a Prophet in the Old Testament tradition.

Same God.

Posted by: Jimm on February 12, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

"Same God." --who's a jerk.

Posted by: cld on February 12, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever. The point is that the statement that these pictures are "actually breaking one of their religious precepts, in a way that satirical depictions of Jesus, Moses or Buddha do not" is simply false.

There are many different ways of interpreting the holy texts and not all muslims agree with the iconoclastic view. This is not some kind of "unique" outrage. That's simply a myth.

Posted by: lip on February 12, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Correct. And there are jewish and christian sects that do not allow images of deities also. Should we stop all printing of all gods, prophets, jesus, etc etc etc, just for them?

Posted by: peanut on February 12, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

I'm starting a new religion with some friends. We worship Romaine Lettuce. All hail to the Holy Lettuce.

And if we hear any more of people engaging in this disgusting and offensive habit of eating "caesar salads", we're going to come around where you live and break your knees.

Posted by: loof on February 12, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

In Western society we have been inundated with Muslim protests, beheadings, Jihads, bombings, kidnappings, riots, demands for ransom, etc. and have had very little we as a people could do. These cartoons have struck a note of childish revenge that seems to cloud the issues of offensiveness. Peo0ple are looking for a way to thumb their nose at the Muslim terrorists and tell them to go to Hell. Thus, the juvenile uproar......More importantly, Dick Cheney has taken up skeet shooting using Washington Lawyers according to the latest news.

Posted by: murmeister on February 12, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

"It is often said in the media that Islam prohibits images of the Prophet," Seesemann said. "This is not correct. Muslims themselves have portrayed the Prophet.

"The problem here is not the image but the way it has been published -- as a terrorist with a turban shaped like a bomb. This is what Muslims direct their outrage against."

Translation: it's not picturing the prophet, it's the criticism they can't take.

Posted by: loof on February 12, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

I'm partial to this theology, myself,

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/welcome_home/

Posted by: cld on February 12, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Danish Cartoon Editor on Indefinite Leave
E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Save Article


By DAN BILEFSKY
Published: February 11, 2006
COPENHAGEN, Feb. 10 Flemming Rose, the Danish editor whose decision to publish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad helped provoke weeks of fury in the Muslim world, said in an interview on Friday that he was leaving his newspaper on indefinite vacation.

Skip to next paragraph

Forum: The Middle East
Mr. Rose, 47, stood by the decision of the newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to publish the caricatures, citing freedom of the press. And he refused to apologize for the drawings, which were seen by many Muslims as sacrilegious and have prompted widespread protests, boycotts of Danish goods and the burning of Danish diplomatic missions in the Middle East.

He said in an interview, however, that the stress of recent events had given him sleepless nights.

"I am thankful that the newspaper has given me the chance to recover," said Mr. Rose, who is the newspaper's culture editor. "I am tired. In the middle of a crisis, you do not always recognize the tensions placed on you. I'm glad someone on the paper had the guts to make the decision to give me a break, because sometimes you want to keep on fighting."

The vacation announcement comes after weeks of violent clashes in Europe, Asia and the Middle East over the cartoons. At least 11 people have died.

After a brief lull on Thursday, demonstrations resumed as thousands of Muslims emerged from Friday Prayer and took to the streets in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, The Associated Press reported. The protests were mostly peaceful, but in Nairobi, Kenya, the police shot and wounded one person as officers tried to keep about 200 demonstrators from marching to the residence of Denmark's ambassador, The A.P. reported.

In Tehran about 60 protesters threw stones, firecrackers and firebombs at the French Embassy, shattering nearly every window on its street front, even after a prominent cleric urged people not to attack diplomatic missions.

Egypt had its largest protests yet, with demonstrations in most major cities. In El Mahalla el Kubra, security forces used tear gas and water cannons to break up a march of about 15,000 people after protesters threw rocks and attacked shops and cars.

Posted by: hrmng1 on February 12, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Off topic, but this one is pretty much on target,


http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1570441,00.html


The face George Bush presents to the world.

Posted by: cld on February 12, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

Can't we all at least agree to "Buy Danish"?

Posted by: ing on February 12, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

Here's some things yall can buy. If you want to counteract the muslim boycott of a friendly little nation that has done nothing wrong:

Food:
Arla Foods is Europe's second-largest dairy company and the leading Danish exporter to Saudi Arabia, where it sells an estimated 328 million dollars worth of products every year
Brands
Rosenborg
Lurpak
Dofino
Denmark's Finest
Mediterra

Danish Crown (meat)
Emborg
Beautiful Denmark (Butter Cookies)
Famous Dane (Butter Cookies)
Danish Bacon
Thor Fish
Danisco Food

Candy:
Toms (chocolate)
LAgermann
Galle & Jessen
Ingeborgs Chocolate

Beverages:
Tuborg Beer
Carlsberg Beer
Aalborg Aquavit (snaps)
Danish Distillers (Swedish Company some products produced in Denmark)

Medicine:
Novo

Audio Equipment/Home Theater
(Theatre for those across the Pond):
Audio Vector
B&O (Bang & Olufsen)
Cilo
Dali
DynAudio
Eltax
Jamo
Tangent
Vifa

Cigarettes:
Prince (Do not start smoking because of this fire!)

Clothing:
H2O
Hummel
Per Reumert
Munthe plus Simonsen
Bruuns Bazaar
Veromoda
Only
IC Companies
In Wear
Matinique
Noa Noa
Sand

Shoes:
Ecco (USA Site)
Jaco
Dansko

Software:
EarMaster (for musicians)


Toys:
Brio (oops Swedish will remove this weekend)
Lego (toys)

Furniture:
Fritz Hansen

Danish Design:
B & G Porcelain
Georg Jensen
HTH- kitchen
Morsoe (Fireplaces)
Lindberg (Glasses)
PH-lamps
Pipes
Raadvad (knives etc.)
Royal Copenhagen
Royal Danish Porcelain
Skagen (Watches)
Stelton
Trip Trap
Vesta (Windmills)

Other:
Danish Yarn
Nexo Fireplaces
Nilfisk Vacuum Cleaners (USA site since I do not speak Danish)
Watco Danish Furniture Oil
Leitech (USA Site) Special "thread gage" used in quality control in the following areas of manufacturing; automotive, aerospace, medical, hydraulics, small and large engine manufacture.
Leitech (Danish Site)
Grund Foss ( Pump solution maker)
Dan Foss ( Valve manufacture )
GN ( Hearing aid, headsets and mobil headsets )
X-Yachts

More here:

http://buydanish.home.comcast.net/

Posted by: ing on February 12, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

And I'm sure everybody knows this already, but Carlsberg really IS the best beer on the planet.

Posted by: ing on February 12, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, that should have said "best lager" - but you know what I mean...

Posted by: ing on February 12, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop
At this point, not printing the cartoons will be intepreted as kowtowing to Islamic extremists, while printing them has to be seen as knuckling under to Christian extremists. Not exactly a win-win sitch, so thanks very much, all religious fanatics of the world.

Hey shortstop, get a mind of your own and stop building your life around reacting to right wingers. By your own reasoning, should they be published or not? They sure as hell are news. They aren't porn to us. They're pretty mild, in fact. South Park long ago had Mohammed on their show doing something embarassing and disgusting.

I'm buying Danish.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 12, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you, Red State Mike. Perhaps, we could have a small competition or poll here among the readers. Two questions:

1. What Danish products have you bought in the past two weeks?

2. What Danish products are you planning to buy over the next month or so or until this boycott ends, whichever comes later?

Posted by: ing on February 12, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

My answers:

1. What Danish products have you bought in the past two weeks?
- Tuborg (couldn't find Carlsberg) and Lurpak butter.

2. What Danish products are you planning to buy over the next month or so or until this boycott ends, whichever comes later?
- More Tuborg. Oh, and Carlsberg, too. (mmmmm, beer). Cookies. And there's a Matinique store in my hood so I'll go there.

Posted by: ing on February 12, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

Tell me, when is National Review going to run them? I don't think I see them on their site.

Posted by: DonBoy

I don't know about the National Review but the Weekly Standard is running the cartoons in the next issue. The story is also on the cover.

Posted by: Fat White Guy on February 12, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

ok, fatty (do you mind if I call you fatty?) - what products did you buy. you might want to stay away from the beer and butter, but there's plenty of good stuff on that list for all shapes and sizes.

Posted by: ing on February 12, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know about the National Review but the Weekly Standard is running the cartoons in the next issue. The story is also on the cover.

Fair enough, then.

Posted by: DonBoy on February 12, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

stop building your life around reacting to right-/b> wing crybabies.

[sound of crickets chirping. In the distance, a dog barks.]

Posted by: shortstop on February 12, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

What target are you "on", cld? What do what you linked have to do with anything, except that it says you don't like Boooosh.

Good questions, ing. Answers:

1. Nothing so far, I am embarrassed to say.

2. Definitely Carlsberg and the chocolate if I can find it. Are those cookies available most places? I will look for them.

I have noticed that Danish producers often put the flag on the packaging (red w/white cross) so I guess I will just look for it whenever shopping.

Posted by: peanut on February 12, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

Peanut,

The target in question is the face George Bush presents to the world, which, as shown clearly in the drawing, is his giant ugly asshole, now representing our nation at the UN.

Posted by: cld on February 12, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

whoopsie. Since I messed up the non-reacting tag, I might as well say:

When you say right-wingers, you're referring to both the Muslims and the Christians in this case, whether you know it or not, Red-State Mike.

Who cares whether every single editor publishes or doesn't publish them? I can't condone violent protest under any circumstances; neither can I respect local yokels who use this as some sort of illustration that Christianity ROX! and Christians are SO PERSECUTED in the U.S.! Grow the hell up, everybody.

The point I was making, which nobody but you and Fats missed, is that it's ridiculous to be held hostage by violent Muslims or hysterical Christians. If I were making an editorial decision on this, I'd probably run half a cartoon just to piss off everyone who's turning this into a personal crusade.

And I bought a hunk of Danish blue the other day, purely out of a love of good cheese. The campaign to buy Danish is a seventh-grade reaction to a grownups' problem. It is, however, typical of the way the freedom fry-loving Americans have been behaving since 9-11. And it's working so well for us.

Posted by: shortstop on February 12, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

You wanna see it? Google image and then Mohammed.

Posted by: Mimi Schaeffer on February 12, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

I happen to think that Andrew Sullivan's crusade to browbeat American newspapers into printing those now-famous Danish cartoons is severely wrongheaded.

I disagree. I is important to report what the disturbances are about, so it is necessary to publish the original 10 fairly mild cartoons as well as the 3 disgusting cartoons that were drawn by Moslems intentionally to inflame Moslems. Christians and Jews, as well as supporters of Presidents Clinton and Bush have had to endure peacefully much worse stuff.

This isn't about respect for religions, it's about fear of being murdered.

Posted by: contentious on February 12, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

cld has it exactly correct: The whole point of this is that all the violent Islamists in the world cite religious justification for their activity.
****
It's not even close to 'mocking someone's religion', it's mocking them.

Posted by: contentious on February 12, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for getting back to my point, contentious. I would actually not want to "push" someone to publishing something they don't like or don't feel comfortable with.

But when they don't publish - solely because they are afraid - then I want to know that. At least don't make up rationalizations about how "editorial judgment" necessitated not printing the items that represent the number one news story in the world for two weeks running.

Posted by: peanut on February 12, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

Islamics, high strung, a little deranged.

There is something to the idea that a single, unknown individual can cause such havoc in the world by mentioning Muhammed's syphlis, caught during an intimate moment with his camel.

Posted by: Matt on February 12, 2006 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

I was out breaking in new Ecco hiking boots the weekend this story became big. When I came home and saw what had been going on, my first thought was that if I had been in the wrong place at the wrong time those boots could have gotten me lynched.

Living in California, we are used to lots of decadent liberals who've lost their traditions and faiths being snowed by "exotic" foreign religions and cults. But this sudden piety about Islam is really ominous. Though not surprising. Western Stalinists sided with the Soviets in 1956 and 1968. They hated the "provocateurs" and considered them tools of right-wing Americans.

I'd like to know where those of you who find the cartoons so disrespectful and so offensive stood on the publication of The Satanic Verses, or Susan Sontag's public readings at the 92nd Y.

[Note: Rushdie was a lefty and hated Thatcher, if that helps]

The same people that are telling you how disrespectful the cartoons are considered that book an even worse offense.

Posted by: Bob on February 12, 2006 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

California indeed. Three words: John Walker Lindh

Posted by: side on February 12, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

About Sullivan's site: This is a good email from Denmark. If you're worried about making "controversial" or "offensive" statements, there really is reason to worry...

On Oct. 4, 2004 (a month before Theo Van Gogh was murdered), a professor at Copenhagen University's Middle East Studies program (the Carsten Niebuhr Institute) was lured into a car by 3 Arabic-speaking men. He was then verbally abused for reading aloud from the Koran in his classroom (with the reason given that he is a Jewish "infidel") and viciously beaten. As they threw him out of the car, his attackers threatened to murder him and his family if he went to the police.

In the aftermath, the university's head of department gave the following telling account:

"We have members of Hizb ut-Tahrir (an extremist group that on its Danish website has advocated the murder of Jews "wherever they are found") that are trying to solicit new members. They never let themselves be known, but suddenly a poster will appear with a veiled incitement to kill Jews, or pamphlets will be pushed under someone's door. We have apparently been subjected to a form of infiltration (...) So there are several reasons, independent of one another, that have made me change my opinion on the university as an open place, where all can come and go. The world has changed. Today, we simply have to know who we are letting in."

Posted by: side on February 12, 2006 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

Woah, the Islamophobes have taken over this thread the way they took over the last one on this subject.

Heh, I should re-post my last response here :)

Helpful hint: The Satanic Verses was a work of literature. IOW, it had redeeming social value. The West has every interest in standing up for it, and for the rights of Salman Rushdie to live unmolested.

The Danish cartoons were nothing more than a juvenile provocation.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 12, 2006 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, this thread certainly has been taken over by Islamophobic
trolls -- good thing it'll be in archive soon. It was a real
drag when you couldn't openly support the KKK anymore -- but thank
the Christian god we now have the Muslims to hate with impunity!

It's it *fun* hating an entire cultural group? No responsiblity
for shading your opinions. Just pure, balls-out *bile* :)

You guys are just as morally degenerate as the Muslims you claim
to hate. No, worse -- because none of you have a valid excuse.

> Bob/rmck1, you got owned. Peanut schooled you, but good.

He corrected a factual mistake, big deal. At least I was man
enough to admit it. Peanut, being a racial ideologue, would,
of course never spend one second ever questioning his own views.

> Publishing a book as a rebuttal can't fix it.

I'm posting to a bunch of asshole Islamophobes. Do you think
I'm under the slightest delusion that I could change *your*
views? I'm writing for the lurkers -- the ones who wouldn't
dare dip a toe into such a toxic environment -- you know, the
sort of environment you're creating in the name of Free Speech.

This thread has become an Islamophobe clubhouse. The *last* thing
you racist cretins are interested in is diversity of opinion.

CFShep:

> Or 7-11s being firebombed for selling pork rinds?

You know, considering the amount of Pakistani Muslims
who run American convenience stores, this statement
is pretty fucking unintentionally hilarious.

clock:

> Rose did one interview with Pipes (and I take your word
> that its a straight piece without anything indicating
> that the interviewer or the paper approved of Pipes)

Which is like publishing an interview with the Imperial
Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. If you publish an interview
with Pipes and leave out background information about how
controversial he's considered to be, how many Mideast Studies
professors disagree with him, etc. it's tantamount to an
endorsement. You know, just bringing some "expert opinion"
to bear on the subject. Totally disingenuous defense.

"Bob":

> "...insulting cartoons (with zero redeeming humor value..."

> Oh come on. The cartoon of Mohammed telling suicide
> bombers "Stop stop we ran out of virgins" is totally funny.

Sure they're funny -- if you're an asshole. Personally, I
didn't find that funny at all; just a childish provocation.

But then again, I've never been accused of being that kind of asshole.

> "Now we have to explain to *moderate* Muslims why it's so
> exemplary of Western values to insult and demean a religion."

> Oh my God. For Christ's sake. Mother of God.

Keep praying. It makes your embrace of
secularism look that much more sincere :)

> You couldn't have Western Civilization without blasphemy. In
> fact, I would say you couldn't have civilization -- period --
> without blasphemy. And it's my understanding that in the
> _civilized_ Muslim world it's quite common to ridicule the
> pious and violate religious taboos (just like in the West!!).

Sure. In the Shi'ite tradition, you can find pictures of Muhammad
in gift shops (the Shi'a are given to venerating the human figures
of their religion to the point that hardcore Sunnis accuse them
of polytheism -- much like Calvinism trashed the Catholic Church
for all that statuary and stained glass depicting saints).

The difference is, of course, that these pictures are reverent. And
sure, there are moderate Mulims who don't believe in putting their
religious figures on pedestals anymore than we in the West do.

This, of course, completely ignores the context of those
cartoons. They were published in a right-wing (that's a fair
characterization) paper, in a country with a strong nativist
political movement (which just called for censoring the Koran
-- speaking of, you know, the Danish committment to Free
Speech), with the *explicit intention* of pissing off Muslims.

So the Muslims reacted to a blatant insult by going ballistic.

This *surprises* anybody?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 12, 2006 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

Canadians are supposed to be boycotting Danish products.....they are even supposed to call the morning treats "Freedom Pastries" and not Danishes. Seems America has exported a lot of good thinking.

Posted by: murmeister on February 12, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

"What next, bearded one?",

http://www.signandsight.com/features/597.html

Posted by: cld on February 12, 2006 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

Calling people Islamophobes is really not an argument. Just stupid name calling.

Posted by: side on February 12, 2006 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop
The point I was making, which nobody but you and Fats missed, is that it's ridiculous to be held hostage by violent Muslims or hysterical Christians.

The point I was trying to make was that you aren't being held hostage by anybody, no matter how hard they are trying.

So what do you think? On the story's on merits, publish them or not?

I wish we include photos in our posts.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 12, 2006 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the article-link, cld. That's a very nicely worded argument. I like this quote:

"Joking how the prophet Mohammed is running out of virgins because so many suicide bombers are standing at the gates of paradise is dark and mean. And, given the reality of global attacks, lamentably effective (just as a side note)."

It is a side-note that (some) of those cartoons were funny and actually pretty good, because it is not important. What is important is:

1. muslims around the world have no right to attack people or property because THEY are unamused.
2. they also have no right to create a climate of intimidation here, where editors feel they have to censor themselves (or else...)
3. it is not islamophobic for us to suggest they grow a sense of humor and/or become a bit more tolerant of other people's expressions.

Posted by: ing on February 12, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

The name calling by people like remck1 is evidence in itself that they have no arguments.

Posted by: ing on February 12, 2006 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

Terrific piece, cld. Mentions "The Life of Brian" which got me thinking: art or juvenile provocation?
Or is it only with Islamic blasphemies that we need to concern ourselves with this distinction.

For Hassan Nasrallah the distinction is irrelevent:

[Speaking of the Danish cartoons] the leader of the Lebanese fundamentalist Shiite movement Hezbollah claimed that if Muslims had executed British novelist Salman Rushdie others would not dare to insult Islam.

Posted by: Bob on February 12, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

ing:

> 1. muslims around the world have no right to attack
> people or property because THEY are unamused.

Has anyone championed the so-called "right"
to attack people or property for *any* reason?

Would you like to know why you Islamophobes are such moral imbeciles?

This is like teasing the retarded kid in class. Everyone
knows the retarded kid has poor impulse control. So you
tease him, you poke him, laugh at him until he flips
out and hurls his milk carton across the classroom, and
then the teacher sends him to the principal's office.

And while the teacher's out of the room, you're all snickering
to each other. "Huhuhuh, we sure got that retarded kid good."

This is what you're doing -- you fucking hypocrites -- in the
name of the superior values of Western culture. Attempting
to provoke a jihad with the retarded culture on the planet.

> 2. they also have no right to create a climate of intimidation here,
> where editors feel they have to censor themselves (or else...)

You created the climate of intimidation by publishing the
cartoons originally. If those cartoons had the *tiniest shred*
of intellectual or artistic content, I might be on your side
the way I was with Rushdie and van Gogh. But not over bullshit.

> 3. it is not islamophobic for us to suggest they
> grow a sense of humor and/or become a bit more
> tolerant of other people's expressions.

It is the *very definition* of Islamophobia -- or more specifically
cultural chauvinism. You expect people to understand the world the
way that you do. Try putting yourself in the shoes of someone who's
been educated in a madrassas and spent his elementary education
memorizing verses of the Koran, for chrissakes. Do you think these
Muslims *choose* to grow up that way? They didn't choose it anymore
than you were fortunate enough to be born into Western culture.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 12, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

rmick1 -

"This is like teasing the retarded kid in class. Everyone
knows the retarded kid has poor impulse control. So you
tease him, you poke him, laugh at him until he flips
out and hurls his milk carton across the classroom, and
then the teacher sends him to the principal's office."

Wow. just wow. The true face of the "fellow travellers" really comes out doesn't it? Muslims are not just like kids, but mentally disabled* kids??? And WE are the Islamophobes?

Why even argue with idiots like this? Sheesh.

*People don't really say "retarded" any more, just so you know...

Posted by: ing on February 12, 2006 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINK

Beat me to it, ing.

Posted by: Bob on February 12, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

ing:

> "This is like teasing the retarded kid in class. Everyone
> knows the retarded kid has poor impulse control. So you
> tease him, you poke him, laugh at him until he flips
> out and hurls his milk carton across the classroom, and
> then the teacher sends him to the principal's office."

> Wow. just wow. The true face of the "fellow travellers" really
> comes out doesn't it? Muslims are not just like kids, but
> mentally disabled* kids??? And WE are the Islamophobes?

That's absolutely correct. YOU are the ISLAMOPHOBES. Your entire
argument is predicated in notion that Western culture is superior
to Muslim culture. An analogy to picking on a retarded kid is
thus completely approprate to illuminate your worldview.

> Why even argue with idiots like this? Sheesh.

Of course you have a hard time confronting the fact that I
showed up up for the two-bit schoolyard bullies that you are.

> *People don't really say "retarded" any more, just so you know...

Was it you or one of your compadres who was going off upthread
about Muhammad's physical love affair with his camel?

Speaking of, you know, political incorrectitude.

GMAFB

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 12, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

showed up up = showed you up

Posted by: rmck1 on February 12, 2006 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

Bob,

cultural chauvinism. You expect people to understand the world the way that you do. Try putting yourself in the shoes of someone who's been educated in a madrassas

You don't even realize that it is this exact line of thinking that is anethema to the West. You're so blinded by the multiculturalist meta-narrative that has infected the Left, that you give it preference above Liberal ideals, just like Norwegian feminist, Uni Wikan:

The article quoted a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo (who was described as having "lived for many years in Muslim countries") as saying that "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. One reason for the high number of rapes by Muslims, explained the professor, was that in their native countries "rape is scarcely punished," since Muslims "believe that it is women who are responsible for rape." The professor's conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it."

To place the above into context, consider the following:

Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily.The study is the first where the crime statistics have been analyzed according to ethnic origin. Of the 111 charged with rape in Oslo last year, 72 were of non-western ethnic origin, 25 are classified as Norwegian or western and 14 are listed as unknown.

Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year.

Nine out of ten cases do not make it to prosecution, most of them because police do not believe the evidence is sufficient to reach a conviction.

Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo's Vice, Robbery and Violent crime division says the statistics are surprising - the rising number of rape cases and the link to ethnic background are both clear trends. But Larsen does not want to speculate on the reasons behind the worrying developments.

While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases, with 20 percent being women of foreign background.

Larsen said that since this was the initial study examining ethnic make-up there were no existing figures to put the numbers into context.

"Meanwhile, it is our general experience that this is an increasing tendency. We note this by the number of time we need to use interpreters in the course of an investigation," Larsen said.

Compare the situations in Sweden and Denmark:

Statistics from Swedens National Council for Crime Prevention show that the number of reported rapes against children is on the rise. The figures have nearly doubled in the last ten years: 467 rapes against children under the age of 15 were reported in 2004 compared with 258 in 1995. Legal proceedings continue this week in a case involving a 13 year old girl from Motala who was said to have been subjected to a group rape by four men. (Note: These four men were Kurdish Muslims, who raped the girl for hours and even took photos of doing so)

The number of rape charges per capita in Malm is 5 6 times that of Copenhagen, Denmark. Copenhagen is a larger city, but the percentage of immigrants is much lower. And its not just the rape statistics that reveal a scary increase in Malm or Sweden. Virtually every kind of violent crime is on the rise. Robberies have increased with 50 % in Malm only during the fall of 2004. Threats against witnesses in Swedish court cases have quadrupled between 2000 and 2003. During the past few decades, massive immigration has changed the face of Swedens major cities, as well as challenged the viability of the welfare state.

Posted by: TangoMan on February 12, 2006 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, yes, the Life of Brian. I guess we can ponder this one:

[a line of prisoners files past a jailer]
Coordinator: Crucifixion?
Stan: Yes.
Coordinator: Good. Out of the door, line on the left, one cross each.
[Next prisoner]
Coordinator: Crucifixion?
Stan: Er, no, freedom actually.
Coordinator: What?
Stan: Yeah, they said I hadn't done anything and I could go and live on an island somewhere.
Coordinator: Oh I say, that's very nice. Well, off you go then.
Stan: No, I'm just pulling your leg, it's crucifixion really.
Coordinator: [laughing] Oh yes, very good. Well...
Stan: Yes I know, out of the door, one cross each, line on the left.

Blasphemy, I suppose, but totally hilarious.

Posted by: ing on February 12, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

Why didn't Kevin Drum include a few of the cartoons?

Posted by: BigRiver on February 12, 2006 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

While Kevin Drum has deeply disappointed me on this issue, Michael Kingsley has come through:

The Ayatollah Joke Book: So, the Prophet Mohammed walks into a bar
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Friday, Feb. 10, 2006, at 6:12 AM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2135917/?nav=tap3


Here is a "starred" comment from Slate's comment section that shouldn't be missed.

---
Subject: Muslim Mad Hatter's Tea Party
From: SoerenAabye
Date: Feb 11 2006 10:13PM

Leave it to Michael Kinsley for doing what he does so well crystalizing the issue.

"The limits of free expression cannot be set by the sensitivities of people who don't believe in it."

The response of the American media and politicians who have made the Danes the heavies in this ugly farce, is no doubt an attempt at appeasement. Indeed, there is historical precedent: It was the Czechs, "persecuting" ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland, whom we made the heavies in 1938, for the sake of appeasement.

What it boils down to is this, Mike:

Because we are bogged down in Iraq, because our War on Terrror is hobbled by feckless execution, because Bin Laden and Zawahiri and Zaqawi are still at large, because al Qaeda and Hamas and Jamal al Islamiya remain in the ascendency in their domains despite our vaunted power, the enemy DETECTS WEAKNESS.

THAT is what is happening in the streets of the Muslim world, where the flag and embassies of one of the most benevolent peoples on earth are being torched.

And now we have Laura Bush, holidaying in Torino, opining on how "reprehensible" the cartoons are.

Street Muslims are holding a Mad Hatter's tea party, and the moral cowards of the western world are in eager attendance, equivocating for the sake of Peace in Our Time.
---

Posted by: Bob on February 12, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

TangoMan:

> "cultural chauvinism. You expect people to understand the
> world the way that you do. Try putting yourself in the
> shoes of someone who's been educated in a madrassas"

> You don't even realize

I am completely aware of the intellectual traditions
that found my argument, and also that found yours.

> that it is this exact line of thinking that is anethema to the West.

My argument epitomizes the West. Yours
leads to fighting jihad with jihad.

> You're so blinded by the multiculturalist meta-narrative

Thank you, Allan Bloom. Get yer buddy Leo Strauss
to explain to me one more time how the "fact/value"
distinction in sociology unleashes moral nilhilism :)

> that has infected the Left,

This is such a lame neocon talking point.

> that you give it preference above Liberal ideals,

Bullshit. Tolerance is as tolerance does. What your examples
argue for is "getting tough" on Muslim immigrant youth for
violent behavior. Heh. I suppose if you started chopping
off the dicks of convicted rapists, you might start
getting through to those Scandinavian Muslim immigrants.

Which might not, you know, be such a bad idea if more
traditional forms of criminal deterrence don't seem to work.

Just don't pretend it isn't the West's answer to Shariah.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 12, 2006 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINK

"Bob":

Laura Bush is an appeaser, huh.

Shows the lengths you have to go to keep that lame rationalization alive.

Your alternative, of course, is global war with 1.2 billion people.

Which makes you a radical jihadist, only Western.

I think I'm going to refer to you as Ayatollah Bob from now on :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 12, 2006 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

rmck1,

You're not owning up to your ideals. You advocate cultural equivalence which abhors making objective declarations. This is exactly what feminist Uni Wikan does when she tries to shift responsibility for rape onto the Norwegian victims. They just need to change their ways, learn to understand the mindsets of Muslim men and shouldn't judge them by Norwegian cultural standards, because you know, that would be racist.

You're using her exact logical template.

Posted by: TangoMan on February 12, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. TangoMan, I did not expect to hear about Wikan's insane theories here. But you are right about where the multiculti crap takes us, ultimately.

rmck1 - "This is like teasing the retarded kid in class. Everyone
knows the retarded kid has poor impulse control. So you
tease him, you poke him, laugh at him until he flips
out and hurls his milk carton across the classroom, and
then the teacher sends him to the principal's office."

Wait, rmck1, isn't that exactly what ing, Bob, and TangoMan did to you?

That's a vivid image, by the way. Are you still doing this, rmck1, or was that just something you did in your younger days?

Posted by: peanut on February 12, 2006 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

TangoMan:

> You're not owning up to your ideals.

I absolutely am. You're misinterpreting my argument.

> You advocate cultural equivalence which
> abhors making objective declarations.

I do no such thing. I support the 1948
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

> This is exactly what feminist Uni Wikan does when she tries
> to shift responsibility for rape onto the Norwegian victims.
> They just need to change their ways, learn to understand the
> mindsets of Muslim men and shouldn't judge them by Norwegian
> cultural standards, because you know, that would be racist.

I'm not sure exactly what she's arguing (and
I frankly doubt you're doing her argument full
justice here), but this is a straw, umm, woman.

> You're using her exact logical template.

Right. This is after I caught shit for analogizing
Muslim culture with the retarded kid in class :)

I am making a *practical* argument. Why
antagonize Muslims over something that has exactly
zero redeeming artistic or intellectual value?

If it were the fatwa against Rushdie or the
assassination of van Gogh, I'd be in your corner.

But I don't see the point of gratuitously antagonizing
Muslims when the reaction was entirely predictable.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 13, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

But enough about rmck1, he's not worth the keystrokes, usually. I see today is not an exception.

Here's Kevin's thoughts on the subject:

"And yet....I have to admit....if you dedicate a weekly cartoon roundup to this very issue a roundup that includes examples of several cartoons mocking other religions as well as a warning that "fearing editorial censors, not to mention firebrand jihadists, U.S. cartoonists did a lot of self-censoring" it's hard to figure out any good reason not to run at least one of the offending cartoons so your readers know what this is all about."

I know it's old fashioned of me to want to stay with the subject, but I had two thoughts on this: (a) there is exactly NO reason not to run the drawings in the kind of article that Kevin talks about and (b) there are only very weak reasons EVER given by editors here and in the UK for not running the cartoons.

It typically boils down to rationalizations: we just don't think those drawings were any good, people don't need to see them etc (in a Norwegian talk show recently the channel's news editor suggested people can just go to the web to see the drawings. hmmmm.). (Almost) noone will admit the obvious: they're afraid.

If we can't even admit our fears, what chance do we have of overcoming them?

Posted by: peanut on February 13, 2006 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

Peanut,

You might find my post from a year ago to be pertinent to this topic. It includes a diverse round-up of links, including the famous David Goodhart essay in the Guardian.

Posted by: TangoMan on February 13, 2006 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINK

Damn html! Here is the link

Posted by: TangoMan on February 13, 2006 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

peanut:

> But enough about rmck1, he's not worth the keystrokes,
> usually. I see today is not an exception.

I hope you caught my response to you in the previous thread.

Your lunch was delicious, btw :)

> It typically boils down to rationalizations: we just don't think
> those drawings were any good, people don't need to see them etc
> (in a Norwegian talk show recently the channel's news editor
> suggested people can just go to the web to see the drawings.
> hmmmm.). (Almost) noone will admit the obvious: they're afraid.

The rationalizing going on here is from you. The cartoons were
fucking stupid; in any other context, they'd disappear without a
trace. Secondly, of course responsible editors don't want to take
the chance of provoking more violence -- Duh. Once again, it's like
antagonizing the class retard. You *know* he's going to overreact,
but you do it anyway because it's so much *fun* to make him flip out.

And that's the action of a *moral* imbecile.

> If we can't even admit our fears, what
> chance do we have of overcoming them?

I don't think anyone would deny wishing to avoid a
further round of pointless violence. I don't think
that personal cowardice has much to do with it, though,
as an editor or publisher would feel responsible for the
violence caused even if it didn't affect them directly.

Just ask the editor of the JT who was just "put on vacation."

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 13, 2006 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

From the bbc news page "q & a on the Muhammad Cartoon Controversy":

"Islamic tradition or Hadith, the stories of the words and actions of Muhammad and his Companions, explicitly prohibits images of Allah, Muhammad and all the major prophets of the Christian and Jewish traditions.

More widely, Islamic tradition has discouraged the figurative depiction of living creatures, especially human beings. Islamic art has therefore tended to be abstract or decorative.

Shia Islamic tradition is far less strict on this ban. Reproductions of images of the Prophet, mainly produced in the 7th Century in Persian, can be found."

Sounds to me like though there may be no actual ban on the images to be found in the Koran, much of the Muslim world has for centuries interpreted certain passages as forbidding visual depictions of Muhammad. In general, this sort of doctrinal prohibition hasn't become a traditiion in Christianity.

Christians of many stripes have built huge portions of their teachings on such extra-scriptural doctrines, with countless sects as well as countless religious wars, pogroms and massacres to show for it.

My only point being, there's a subtle difference between just "offending" someone's cultural sensibilities and violating what is for many a precept of their religion. I don't mean to justify the rioting. I'm against ALL forms of fundamentalism myself. But the calls to rerun the cartoons "just so folks can see what they're all about" seems juvenile and mean-spirited.

But I guess if you want to fight back against the Islamofascists, cartoons are the best way to go -- that is, if you're too chickenshit to just enlist.

Posted by: mercury on February 13, 2006 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

mercury:

Nicely done :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 13, 2006 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINK

The cartoons are no big deal, and it's not our business. The newsworthy part of this is how explosive and angry the Muslim world is right now, which is something to think about. There is no good reason to run the offensive cartoons in American newspapers, unless we want to make it our business. Considering our venture in Iraq, and to bring democracy to Muslim peoples, punching them in the face and insulting them, when they are already enraged, with "freedom of tasteless speech and caricature" is not a wise course.

As I said, these cartoons would not have run in American mainstream newspapers because they are propagandistic caricatures intended to insult a minority group. Now they have run in some Danish press outlets, and the obvious ensued afterwards, once the cartoons became well-known and were promoted by demogogues.

It's not that much different than the Israelis promoting the idiotic things that the Iranian leadership says (in attempts to create unity by caricaturing a common enemy "other" to hate), because the Israelis want public opinion to tilt in favor of attacking Iran over the nuclear prospect.

We have a propaganda war going on right now between hard right Israeli operatives and hard right Muslim demogogues. Thus, the talk about the holocaust cartoons, which, when you think about it, actually makes sense. Why would it be okay to print offensive cartoons about Mohammed and not about the holocaust? This is what Muslim demogogues are saying, and it resonates with their people.

My own personal opinion is that bad taste should not be illegal, whether it's in reference to religion or genocide. But, let's face it, when something is considered offensive enough it is considered "adult" and is not promoted in the public square like non-offensive subjects. This "adult" area is where adults ought to go to get tasteless material that denigrates religion, genocide, women, or whatever.

That is why these cartoons are rejected wholesale by mainstream American news outlets - then and now. If Justin Timberlake would have pulled his penis out during Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, do you think every newspaper in America would have reprinted the image so that everyone knew what they were talking about?

Of course not, and they didn't show Janet's breast either.

Posted by: Jimm on February 13, 2006 at 12:56 AM | PERMALINK

If we had better access to the Muslim peoples themselves, we could make the obvious point that they have very often printed very offensive material about Jews, not to mention said very offensive things against Jews.

Unfortunately, we don't have that access to them, so we have to be subtle and wise, because we want to get access to them, but they are wound up something explosive right now for a number of reasons, some religious, some economic, some political, etc., and ultimately we want to "win hearts and minds".

If there's one thing that wingnuts (in particular) have trouble with, as well as the right wing in general, it's consistency. How many empassioned screeds did I hear about "winning hearts and minds" and what not in Iraq and for the war on Terror? And, now that Iran is rearing its ugly head with tens of millions in PR money behind it, we hear the screaming about that too, but the missions are fundamentally inconsistent.

Posted by: Jimm on February 13, 2006 at 1:03 AM | PERMALINK

I don't think we can see this outside the context of the Iranian nuclear question. They could have found all kinds of pretexts for rioting over appearances by Mohammed in western media over the last few years. Why now? Why Denmark? Because they think they can bully a small country that doesn't expect it, like Denmark.

I think the very best and most helpful thing that could happen would be for every western leader, every single one, to come out tomorrow morning and piss on a copy of the Koran.

Posted by: cld on February 13, 2006 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

Jimm:

Of course I agree with you on all points.

The most telling thing for me is how this clearly cleaves our own hell-bent-for-leather Western jihadists (i.e. clash of civilizations proponents) from even the Bush hawks. Somebody upthread called Laura Bush an "appeaser" because while in Spain, she called the cartoons "reprehensible."

Well, duh. The Bush war cabinet realizes full well how this only makes their project in Iraq more difficult. And they damn well must know the way the Iranians, Saudis and Syrians are exploiting it to keep democracy out of their lands: "Insulting the Prophet -- that's what decadent infidel "democracy" means ..."

So I don't oppose showing those cartoons out of some misguided multi-culti sense of cultural equivalence, as TangoMan asserts. I obviously support our notion of free speech and I vigorously oppose any flavor of religious fundamentalism.

I oppose running those cartoons because it will only make it that much more difficult for moderate Mulims to smack down their extremists.

And that's something that *everybody* agrees needs to happen real soon. Insulting cartoons only makes the whole situation that much more difficult for everyone involved.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 13, 2006 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINK

cld:

That's so egregious that you've inspired me to coin a new word for it:

That is geopsychopathic.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 13, 2006 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

Good point Bob, but there are also good multicultural reasons in themselves, along with good taste, especially good professional editorial taste, that also make good arguments for not running these cartoons in our newspapers, even without the mission in Iraq, and against terror, to win hearts and minds, which is obviously teetering right now.

It's a powder keg down there, and what we should be most worred about is just how powerful that keg is, as evidenced in the recent riots. The frustration and rage is palpable, and we don't want to draw that towards us, but instead appear as much as possible as a benevolent witness to their misery, even a helping hand, so that they turn that frustration and rage inwards on their own rotten leadership.

These wingnuts wouldn't understand a wise foreign policy if it punched them in the face (after they punched the Muslim world in the face mocking what they cherish and venerate).

Posted by: Jimm on February 13, 2006 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK

Most Muslims in the world are extremely naive, extremely undeveloped and there's nothing we can do to help them in this, anything we tried to do would simply be taken completely the wrong way and great care would be taken to make sure it had exactly the opposite effect of anything we might have intended. So doing anything 'for' them is impossible, and doing anything with them is impossible.

The politics of the Islamic world are, throughout, exactly like the politics of the prison yard, it's about bullying and nothing else, and we simply cannot have this as any normal or acceptable part of the modern world, with the scale of weaponry that will be easily available in just a few years.

They literally want to draw the line 'kill us or do what we tell you', and will accept no compromise.

Posted by: cld on February 13, 2006 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK

These wingnuts wouldn't understand a wise foreign policy if it punched them in the face (after they punched the Muslim world in the face mocking what they cherish and venerate).

I mean the wingnuts in this thread, of course, who suffer from foreign policy attention deficit disorder.

I'm actually starting to ponder if we are underestimating the savvy and craftiness of the authoritarian leadership in the Muslim world, who desperately want to hold on to power and privilege. We love characterizing them as insane, but I'm starting to detect some very good chess moves on their part. Hopefully these are just lucky, since these moves can't possibly be that coordinated, can they? Though the Iranians are definitely smart competitors...

Posted by: Jimm on February 13, 2006 at 1:26 AM | PERMALINK

rmck1,

I can't see where you oppose fundamentalism when you excuse it so vigorously.

Posted by: cld on February 13, 2006 at 1:26 AM | PERMALINK

cld, are you advocating nuclear genocide?

Posted by: Jimm on February 13, 2006 at 1:27 AM | PERMALINK

I already know a large number of you support nuclear and economic apartheid, and there is some room to argue this as involves unstable, reckless, and/or irrational leadership (with their hands on nuclear).

But, your last comment cld seems to lead naturally to wiping out the Muslim world, in order to prevent their leaders from getting nukes. If so, how is your view any different than "driving Israel into the sea", except for the substitution of "Muslim world" for "Israel"?

Posted by: Jimm on February 13, 2006 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINK

I am not advocating nuclear genocide, or genocide of any other kind, but I can see no daylight.

Jimm, "We love characterizing them as insane, but I'm starting to detect some very good chess moves on their part. Hopefully these are just lucky, since these moves can't possibly be that coordinated, can they?"

I think, in this, what is happening through so many countries at once is exactly how the Republicans in Ohio stole the election. It's not a coordinated conspiracy, but everyone in a sensitive spot knows what he has to do to shove the thing forward, just a bit. No one is singularly responsible, no one does anything outright illegal, but they all know, and everyone makes sure they know, that bit they need to do to push it forward.

Posted by: cld on February 13, 2006 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK

In this next period we really need to stand starkly and immovably upon our own fundamental principles, no matter what they may do. I'm sure Denmark is probably about ready to fold right now, never having had any problem like this before and I wish we had people in the White House more capable of organizing a western resistance to this bullying.

But Republicans are so much like Muslims in this they have no credibility at all.

Posted by: cld on February 13, 2006 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

cld:

When have I ever excused fundamentalism?

I'm the guy who just analogized taunting Muslims with those cartoons to mocking the class retard.

I mean -- it's easy to do. The class retard is retarded! He's going to overreact! Look -- see -- he's drooling on himself!

I mean -- that's *your* attitude toward fundamentalism.

My argument is that antagonizing a weaker party is neither moral nor practical.

If you want to call this making excuses for fundamentalism, I suppose I can live with that. One of your Islamophobe confreres chided me upthread for being politically incorrect by using the term "retarded."

So I'm obviously splitting the difference here :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 13, 2006 at 1:41 AM | PERMALINK

cld:

Denmark attempted to bully the entire Muslim world with those cartoons.

Denmark antagonized the retard. The retard -- being retarded -- flipped out.

Who do you think the teacher would hold more responsible?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 13, 2006 at 1:45 AM | PERMALINK

rmck1,

Point appreciated. But do we let them drive the bus?

Is it correct for the retarded to be in control of the international agenda, to let them play with any explosive they might want to play with?

Retarded people don't have the self-determination, or the responsibilities of normal people, they are in the care of their families or wards of the state.

If they can get their way by throwing a fanatic fit once, they'll just do it again and again. It's best to draw the line quickly and clearly, which might frustrate them when they really want to play with the shotgun, but in time they may find better things to do.

It wasn't Denmark collectively that did it, but it is Denmark collectively that is suffering because of it.

I think it's a stretch to say these cartoons, pretty banal by anyone's standard for editorial cartoons, can be said to be bullying on the scale of forcing an apology from the Danish government, which would be an admission tantamount to collective responsibility and guilt, and which I think they are probably going to achieve.

And I don't think that will stop it.

Posted by: cld on February 13, 2006 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

I don't like Andrew Sullivan for his torture-meme business, but for Kevin Drum to say that he's trying to "browbeat" the press into printing the cartoons is laughable. Doesn't Andy Sullivan have the right to express his opinion on his own blog? I'm growing increasingly amazed at the LLLs discarding of the 1st amendment.

Posted by: Donkey_Courage on February 13, 2006 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

I repeat:

1st amendment
1st amendment

I thought this was the #1 sacred thing to liberals.

Posted by: Donkey_Courage on February 13, 2006 at 2:25 AM | PERMALINK

The 1st amendment is "sacred", and we still don't see penis and tits (w/nipple shot) on the front page, do we? Or on any pages, do we? Or holocaust cartoons, do we?

If the offensive cartoon in question was Mohammed with his penis hanging out, would we still be hearing all this nonsense about how all of our newspapers should print the cartoon?

Of course not.

But apparently it's okay to caricature the Prophet as a violent predator. In my view, the latter is worse the former.

Posted by: Jimm on February 13, 2006 at 2:34 AM | PERMALINK

Donkey Courage:

WTF is a "LLL"? Lily-Livered Liberal? :)

You think simplisticly.

I'm a card-carrying ACLUer.

In national newspapers I don't think you should publish Holocaust cartoons, I don't think you should publish racist cartoons, I don't think you should publish pornography and I don't think you should go out of your way to antagonize a world religion with a series of exquisitely trite and tasteless cartoons that have *no other redeeming fuction* -- not even humor -- than to deliberately offend Muslims.

This hardly implies that I'd seek prosecution for any paper who violated my little list of commandments there.

Editors practice self-censorship all the time. The First Amendment only restricts government prohibition.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 13, 2006 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINK

In regard to Abu Ghraib:

I'm sorry, I missed the newspaper that printed ALL the photographs WITHOUT CENSORSHIP.

Posted by: mcdruid on February 13, 2006 at 3:08 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and I love the German/French hypocrisy. Newspapers there reprinted some of the cartoons.

It is illegal in both countries to deny the Holocaust.

A year ago, Germany shut down an entire newspaper and confiscated its assets for its opinions.

You can't have freedom of speech only for some.

Posted by: mcdruid on February 13, 2006 at 3:11 AM | PERMALINK

Hi,

I just wanted to comment on the following quote from a European (German) perspective :
> The cartoons are no big deal, and it's not our
> business. The newsworthy part of this is how
> explosive and angry the Muslim world is right
> now, which is something to think about. There
> is no good reason to run the offensive
> cartoons in American newspapers, unless we
> want to make it our business. Considering our
> venture in Iraq, and to bring democracy to
> Muslim peoples, punching them in the face and
> insulting them, when they are already enraged,
> with "freedom of tasteless speech and
> caricature" is not a wise course.

It seems to me that this is a fair (and smart) attitude to take from a US point of view, but it's not really the point in Europe. In Europe, the question is not how to avoid offending some group of foreigners. Instead, the question is how far we are willing to go to accomodate a fundamentalist Islam in our own society. To give one small example from Germany : a schoolteacher here removed a picture of Mohammed from a school website after email threats from fundamendalist Islamic groups in Germany. The picture was completely neutral and was illustrating a historical essay, but it still "offended", because it was a visual representation of the prophet. The teacher got scared for himself and his students, so he took it down.

The point is not the cartoons themselves, it's the question of how much influence violent fundamentalists should have in a society. In my opinion : none. Please note also that of course it's true that most Muslims in Germany and in Europe are normal people getting on with their llves. This is also not the point - it's about the violent crazies. There is no reason to treat them any more respectfully than equivalent Christian groups.

Posted by: Ray on February 13, 2006 at 3:29 AM | PERMALINK

Lots of hypocrisy here. Let's say a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan were to give an offensive speech at a Klan rally, and it was met with violence by black and/or Jewish protestors, as is usually the case when there are not thousands of police present. Then all the major newspapers should reprint the speech as a lesson to black savages about respecting free speech?

I'm not excusing Moslems, but I don't know that they are any different from other mud people who are too primitive to control their anger.

Posted by: Dwaine Lee Hoady on February 13, 2006 at 3:30 AM | PERMALINK

Dwaine:

How is it hypocrisy to say that a Western newspaper has the right to print anything it wants? If Muslims want to sue for libels fine, but don't hold up placards saying "The Real Holocaust is coming" or "Behead those who Insult Islam". When I hear a single librul condemn that, I'll start believing libruls might actual be LIBERAL.

Posted by: Donkey_Courage on February 13, 2006 at 4:10 AM | PERMALINK

Cartoon and Free Speech Hypocrisy

http://counterpunch.org/itani02022006.html

Posted by: Jimm on February 13, 2006 at 4:32 AM | PERMALINK

it's hard to figure out any good reason not to run at least one of the offending cartoons

The blindness of this is staggering. If you don't publish, you refrain from doing something that serves no decent purpose, but simply hurts people. That's an excellent reason.

If the freedom of the press, which should be sacrosanct, were at stake, that would be one thing. But freedom of the press is not at stake. Those who have not published the cartoons have refrained for reasons of taste, not because they're afraid of Muslim protesters.

It's a pity that some of the comments here seem to suggest that we should want to hurt Muslims, because that's a good thing. With attitudes like that, it's not surprising that we are not doing so well among Muslims worldwide, or with the world in general.

Posted by: No Preference on February 13, 2006 at 7:17 AM | PERMALINK

"...it's hard to figure out any good reason not to run at least one of the offending cartoons so your readers know what this is all about. - Kevin Drum

I can give my experience on that. I believe this cartoon controversy exploded about 10, 12 days ago. The first thing I thought when I heard about this was, naturally, "gotta see these cartoons to know what this is all about". But I was very busy at work, so I didn't effectively look for them. Globo, our biggest network, declined to show the cartoons in the late night news show, reporting on the riots but alleging that they reserved the right to enforce their freedom of expression. I could only see the cartoons the next morning, in a website.

And you know what? Actually seeing the cartoons didn't do much to change my stance on the matter. That's because I was not offended at all by them, since I'm not Muslim, and could look at them only from an aesthetic POV - and that's hardly relevant for a political analysis of the matter. I found some to be creative (I only laughed at the one where they are out of virgins), others to be well drawn, but most of them to be very bland.

So I have my opinion on this cartoon thing - I think the Muslims are dangerously overreacting, and that the press has to be firm on defending its freedom - but seeing the cartoons didn't do anything to impact this view. So I think Globo was correct on not showing them, while still defending their right to show them if they so desired.


Posted by: Brazil Connection on February 13, 2006 at 8:30 AM | PERMALINK

CFShep:

> Or 7-11s being firebombed for selling pork rinds?

You know, considering the amount of Pakistani Muslims
who run American convenience stores, this statement
is pretty fucking unintentionally hilarious.

"Unintentional"? Says you!

It was damn well meant to be fucking funny in the Modest Proposal vein of reductio ad absurdum...

Doh.

Posted by: CFShep on February 13, 2006 at 8:43 AM | PERMALINK

Mercury
But the calls to rerun the cartoons "just so folks can see what they're all about" seems juvenile and mean-spirited.

Huh? Before you can rerun them you have to run them. Where have they been run? Not too many people in the US get the Danish rags.

Attacking an embassy is the same as attacking a country's sovereign territory. If muslims think that's an OK response to cartoons...WTF?

The cartoons lampooned the fact that the self-proclaimed Religion Of Peace supplies much of the violence and terror going on these days. And how do muslims respond to the cartoons? With violence and terror. One could choke on the unfettered irony of it all.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 13, 2006 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

This isn't about free speech - there isn't any in Europe. Just ask Ernest Zundel - rotting in a prison for a speech 14 years ago where he dared question the number of dead jews in WWII.

Ask Germar Rudolph - a chemist who was hired to test the blue residue at supposed death camps - to see if jews were 'gassed'... his findings were explosive... jews were deloused, not gassed, and the death of 600,000 jews was mostly from typhus.... germany was losing the war, and THEIR internees were in squalid conditions... OUR detainees - Germans and Japanese -- languished in better digs...

FOR THIS - Rudolph fled Germany to the US to avoid prison time-- trumped up by the holocaust racket in Germany. WE sent him back because he didn't keep his promise not to publish his findings here..

THIS is freedom of speech?... no

THIS is a world run amok by ethnocentric Jews who paint the rest of us with broad brushes that suit their ethnocentric agenda.

Then there is David IRving...arrested in Austria while on vacation... he also questioned the number of dead jews in wwii...

Even his enemies don't doubt his credentials. His specialty is 20th century warfare - specifically WWI & II.

Yes, yes, the jewess Deborah Lipstadt defamed him in her first book [as a condition of its publication - THAT CAME OUT IN TRIAL]

.... but no matter... he sued and lost... so jews have seized that bit of information to discredit his entire career....

THREE men are languishing in prisons in Europe for just QUESTIONING the number of dead jews, and how they died.... there is no discussion of the facts... only prison terms for any and all who question the holohoax.

Read Winston Churchill's account of WWII... nowhere does he mention death camps... that story didn't capture our 'imaginations'.. until Jews wanted Palestine... then the propaganda machine in hollywood began churning out nazi film, holocaust film [yawn barf] -- and designated demons.

Germans, Austrians, not Arabs and Muslims... white rural males... church going evangelicals... christmas trees in malls and governent buildings....

All of the above are designated enemies of JEWS...

All of the above are enemies of the new Amerika.

think about it.... are we free to publish cartoons about the holocaust? Tel AViv? Sharon? how about any jew?

Posted by: Tj on February 13, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

This whole thing is going to backfire on European newspapers. The Dane's name is Rose for christ sake!!

this was another last ditch attempt to jump start a larger war between nations, with Israel picking up a few more Islamophobes.

In the end, Europe will engage muslims.. not kill them. 1.6 billion muslims will continue to effect change in the middle east - not good for Israelis.

that's what's behind all of this. israel is on the clock. they either begin killing a whole lot of palestinians, or the whole of palestine will be arab within 2 decades.

we need to look at the propaganda machine here in the states. its not about arabs hating americans. its about jews hating muslims.


Posted by: mike on February 13, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Red-State Mike: So what do you think? On the story's on merits, publish them or not?

Well, I thought I was being clear, but on rereading my posts I think perhaps I wasn't. So let me try again.

I'm separating inalienable democratic rights from perceived responsibilities here. I don't think there's a polarized, binary, either-or answer to whether they should be published. I do think that the question of whether they can be published is crystal clear--of course they can. I don't save my support of free speech for things I agree with, and it unfortunately would seem that my list of items that fall under free-speech protections is a lot longer than that possessed by what passes for conservatives these days.

So what I'm saying is that it's up to individual editors to decide whether they think the content of the cartoons can be adequately depicted without reprinting them, whether the news value outweighs the considerations of, as many of them are describing it, good taste, sensitivity and so on. I'm frankly surprised that more U.S. papers haven't run them, but then I'm also surprised that we don't see photos of body bags coming home, all the photos from Abu Ghraib and various other things that have significant news value.

I know that's not the answer you're looking for. I've noticed in your posts that you to like as much as possible to define things as wholly right or wholly wrong. But there it is: I think every media outlet should feel free to publish these photos, and I think they each one is perfectly within its rights to choose not to do so. In this case, a lot of them have been playing the "wait and see what the other guy does and then pile on" game, but that's nothing new for the American media, alas.

As I mentioned before, I think American Christians taking this up as a righteous religious banner are not doing their cause any good. Look at this thread alone--people are bringing up a (what?) 20-year-old Serrano work as an example of how vilified Christians are in the U.S. It's hard to take people seriously in their newly proclaimed love of free speech when they choose their battles so lopsidedly, and when so much of their emotion in this instance is, as their language shows, clearly directed toward proving Christianity's inherent superiority to Islam. Some idiot writing a letter to an editor friend of mine suggested that he "not miss this chance for Christians to stick it to the Muslims." It wasn't the first or the last letter my friend got that took that tone. Pretty telling.

I'm guessing you're a Christian, which would necessarily make this more personal for you. But I don't have a dog in this religious fight, and from where I sit this looks like a public dialogue about free speech that has morphed into a bout of religious arm-wrestling. It's just one more tiresome example of dueling religious fundamentalists setting the terms of the discussion for the rest of the world. You're right that that literally doesn't make us hostages, but perhaps you can understand why it's starting to feel that way.

Posted by: shortstop on February 13, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

It's hard to take people seriously in their newly proclaimed love of free speech when they choose their battles so lopsidedly, and when so much of their emotion in this instance is, as their language shows, clearly directed toward proving Christianity's inherent superiority to Islam. Some idiot writing a letter to an editor friend of mine suggested that he "not miss this chance for Christians to stick it to the Muslims." It wasn't the first or the last letter my friend got that took that tone. Pretty telling.

See, if you replace the word "Christian" with the word "liberal", and replace the word "Islam" with the word "Christian", it pretty much exactly summarizes my feeling on the subject.

I guess we see this issue from exact opposite points of view.

Posted by: sportsfan079 on February 13, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

I am a dedicated agnostic. I think fundamentalists are nutcases. all of em.

But Jews use crypsis to hide their evangelical zeal. They hide behind names like Cooper, Rose, and Miller.

AND they own our media. They create the enemies we see on TV.

Christmas, Islam, Christians,... hell, we wouldn't even have heard of pedophile priests but for the war between the vatican and Tel Aviv.

I don't like Jews because they assert power without taking responsibility for it.

this is a war on islam. we're just bystanders.

The dust up in Europe is made in Tel Aviv, but meant for consumption in the west.

I don't like the puppets, but I REALLY don't like the puppeteers.

Posted by: mike on February 13, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long for the incomparably anti-Semitic mike/Tj/Arsenia/Ashley/Karen/wenn/amIforgettinganybody to show up.

Posted by: shortstop on February 13, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Tj;

Woah, I see the Holocaust denial industry still soldiers on. How big is your Saudi check?

shortstop:

Nice. Haven't ever seen a big post from you. I pretty much agree, save to believe that there is a legitimate "hostage" issue in Europe, where immigration is a much more culturally fraught issue than it is in pluralist America.

CFShep:

Yeah, your remark was hilarious, but not in the way you intended.

Heavy-handed race-baiters are rarely funny. The idea of the Muslims who run my local convenience store (and they like to have a picture of the Kaaba on their screen saver) flipping out over pork rinds is so ridiculous precisely because it doesn't have a prayer of happening. I think they'd burn the porno first :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 13, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

sportsfan:

Right. Which means that you really don't have any solid moral ground to stand on.

As usual, it's a case of whose ox just so happens to be in the process of being gored.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 13, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

Shortstop
stuff...

We're not so far apart on the issue. When I heard they published the cartoons, I thought, "Here we go." Unnecessary and provocative. And protected as free speech.

When the muslims threw a fit, I thought that that was their right. When they attacked embassies and threatened to take lives...no way.

In the Navy we conduct freedom of navigation operations all the time. We sail free waters just to reaffirm to the rest of the world that they are in fact free. I support creating and publishing the pictures for the same reason, to demonstrate that we can not be intimidated into giving up a fundamental right.

I'm not a Christian either, and I'm unaware of what their position is on this. My position is independent of theirs. I see it more as a secular fight, not a religious one.

I think Hollywood should do a movie of Mohammend. What better story? If they're worried about showing his likeness, they can have him played by a blindingly bright 500 watt halogen light bulb. Get James Earl Jones for the voiceover. Or maybe Sam Elliot ("Goat, it's what's for dinner").

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 13, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

To complete my thought, it's probably not the job of newspapers to exercise free speech for free speech's sake on this one. But I would expect artists to be lining up to take a crack at this one.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 13, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

sportsfan:

Right. Which means that you really don't have any solid moral ground to stand on.

rmck1, it doesn't mean that at all.

Go back and read my post again, and if you have trouble with the big words, sound them out phonetically.

Posted by: sportsfan079 on February 13, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

We're not so far apart on the issue. When I heard they published the cartoons, I thought, "Here we go." Unnecessary and provocative. And protected as free speech.

When the muslims threw a fit, I thought that that was their right. When they attacked embassies and threatened to take lives...no way.


Red State Mike, that post was excellent. I agreed with it completely.

Posted by: sportsfan079 on February 13, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

RSM:

I agree with you to a point. Boycotts and peaceful protests? Yes. Riots, torching embassies and death threats? Obviously not. An apology from the president of Denmark? Obviously these folks aren't very clued in to the nature of democracy and are still in thrall to the Old Testament notion of collective punishment.

But America doesn't have a dog in this fight. We're neither hardcore assimilationists nor candy-assed multiculturalists. We're pluralists. And we have *much* more land, so immigrant groups don't take up so much of each other's oxygen the way they do in Europe.

If I were European, I might very well support publishing those cartoons on the Navy analogy of plying free waters just to keep them free.

Or I might not. I don't see much free-speech value in a gratuitous insult. I do see "fighting words." The novel The Satanic Verses or the movie Submission this is *not*.

But I do have more respect for the European free-speech arguments than I do for the provocateurs trying to shame our publishers into doing the same.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 13, 2006 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

sportsfan:

Yes it does. But I wouldn't expect a xenophobic provacateur to understand that.

The question is whose ox is being gored here, not who has any claim on moral authority.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 13, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

RSM: Completely unsarcastic and snarkless question here...what happened to your deployment? Weren't you going to Iraq?

Posted by: shortstop on February 13, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

RSM: Completely unsarcastic and snarkless question here...what happened to your deployment? Weren't you going to Iraq?

That's all been Overcome By Events, as we say in the Nav. We had more volunteers than slots as they are reducing the manning over there in my niche. Since I would have needed extra training prior to going, they sent the "ready round". It would have been mostly working a desk at Balad Air Base anyway, which is basically like spending 6 months in Arizona (they say). Burger King and McDonalds on station. No chance for heroics.

Posted by: Red State Mike on February 13, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

"I know that's not the answer you're looking for. I've noticed in your posts that you to like as much as possible to define things as wholly right or wholly wrong. But there it is: I think every media outlet should feel free to publish these photos, and I think they each one is perfectly within its rights to choose not to do so. In this case, a lot of them have been playing the "wait and see what the other guy does and then pile on" game, but that's nothing new for the American media, alas."

So, they have the right to do it and the right not to. Duh.

Just two things:

1. Having a "formal, legal" right to do something is not the same as feeling free to do it. If you can say anything you want and be sure the police won't come knocking on your door for your expressions, that all fine and well. But if you at the same time have to worry that *someone* might take a shot through your bedroom window, or firebomb your garage, or attack your wife or kids, then what good is this formal "right"?

2. Also, for a media outlet, having the "right to do it and the right not to" doesn't absolve you of your obligation to Honestly and Completely inform your readers of the basis for your editorial decisions. If they are in the least bit based on personal fear, you owe your readers to tell them so. It might be useful information for them.

Posted by: ing on February 13, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Other than that, the only truly interesting post here is from Ray. Thanks for the German perspective, which I believe is fairly close to the scandinavian one.

Needless to say, people in this country do not have much of a clue about how life with a significant unassimilated muslim community really is, since there really is none (or at least not a significant one) in the US.

It IS hilarious, though, to read wankers like rmck1 and jimm drone on and on page up and page down about the "cultural situation" in countries they know nothing about and (from the look of things) have not even visited once.

Posted by: ing on February 13, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Yes it does. But I wouldn't expect a xenophobic provacateur to understand that.

Too funny. How much time did you spend in the dictionary to get that sentence written?

I can see now why peanut and others are always owning you on other threads.

Posted by: sportsfan079 on February 13, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

ing, it's unfortunate you have no idea what makes for consistent and effective foreign policy. one of the primary and wisest talents of statecraft is not to get drawn into ruses and traps, that limits one's options and threaten prior and current missions. this is one of those instances. what we want to do is put the fire out. everything from me in this thread is centered on this concept or that of exercising sound and professional editorial taste.

Posted by: Jimm on February 13, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

rmck1 sometimes spends hours at a time riding up and down in elevators to catch the "word of the day" on the Captivate screen. The effect is not infrequently hilarious.

Posted by: peanut on February 13, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

This is funny, like really.

I'm all for showing respect and such; but I'm totally against having my life and my country hijacked by a bunch of radical asshats be they Muslims or Christians; as is, here in Denmark, 90 pct of these asshats are Muslim, sorry for saying.

Sensibility is all very fine, and I have absolutely no grudge against my Muslim neighbour or any other of the 95 (96,97 ... ??) pct of the Danish Muslims who are peaceful, democratic, more or less secular, people.

But. Imams saying things along the lines of "Unveiled women deserve to be kicked and will become better human beings by being so" and "women wearing make-up are the faces of Satan trying to mislead men", other Imams using our hospitality to cry out for "Holy War" and praise Muslim leaders who "Reach for the Sword before they reach for the Pen", they can get stuffed. And they deserve absolutely no respect or sensibility.

They deserve being called a bunch of bloody hypocrites, they deserve having their religion mocked if I have to; basically I don't wan't clowns like these to teach me a lesson about religious tolerance. If they so long for living under the Law of the Sharia I've got a solution for them: Move back to Iran or Saudi Arabia and leave me and Denmark alone - and leave the secular Danish Muslims alone; quite a lot of Danish Muslims are afraid of saying what they actually believe in this case, afraid of the "religious police" and what it might do to them. (As a side note Danish Member of Parliament - and a Muslim himself - Naser Khader is under protection from the police. He spoke up against the radical nutcases, so in their view he must go.)

It was because of this fear Jyllands Posten originally chose to do what it did. 5 months ago I didn't applaud it - today I'm not so sure anymore.

One the one hand we have the nutcases all worked up about a bunch of cartoons - and there's only that much rage you can muster against a bunch of cartoons before it starts getting a bit ridiculous; on the other hand we have the moderate Muslims who, at least in Denmark, are coming out of the woodwork and finally, finally! start speaking up for themselves. Finally, finally! telling the radical extremists among the Imams: You're not speaking for us anymore compadre - no more can you claim to be speaking on behalf of 200.000 Danish Muslims, you're speaking for yourself and noone else.

If something like this starts to happen other places; if the silent Muslim masses start to speak out, isolate the islamists and leave them to rot; this all might be for the better. Certainly it's a lot more peaceful lobbing cartoons at each other than fighting wars.

Posted by: Ole on February 13, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Ole, tusen takk og heia Danmark!

Posted by: peanut on February 13, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Jimm,

"penis and tits (w/nipple shot) " --now that's title!


Ray, "one small example from Germany : a schoolteacher here removed a picture of Mohammed from a school website after email threats from fundamendalist Islamic groups in Germany."

Did the fundamentalist group ask to have the picture removed, or did they start with threats?

Posted by: cld on February 13, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

You have to include the nipple shot, since we see breasts all the time, in tons of ads and TV, but it's not considered "adult" unless there's some nipple showing.

Posted by: Jimm on February 13, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

This cartoon flap is just a blip compared to what is in the pipeline. German scholars are reinterpreting the Koran based on 1,200 year old Koran fragments. The Germans microfiched all the fragments as they were restored, and before they were returned to the Yemeni gov't, which now all but restricts access to the ancient Korans.

If you think that Christians think the Bible is the word of god, you ain't seen nothing yet.

My prediction is that Germany is going to bring a world of hurt down on itself when these scholarly articles are published.

So, today no one spoke up for freedom because the issue was simply cartoonish. Tomorrow, who will speak up for knowledge itself, especially in the face of likely riots that are mounted because Germans are changing the word of God as was spoken in the Koran.

Posted by: TangoMan on February 13, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

"when you couldn't openly support the KKK anymore"

I am reminded of a statement my uncle's long time black maid made one day, long ago.

It seems she was dining in the south, and sat at the booth. The waiter pointed out that they don't serve niggers here. This black lady responded: "That's OK, I don't eat them"

My granny used to call them niggers, she was an old Arkansas gal. A real neutotic, as far as old women go.

I guess they were ok back then, as long as they wore those floppy canvas pants and the bare feet. Funny those barefeet, I was always afraid to ask, but you know, they are pink on the bottom. Same with the hands, I think that black stuff is only skin deep.

Posted by: Matt on February 13, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Matt go fuck yourself.

Posted by: peanut on February 13, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

cld asked:
>>Did the fundamentalist group ask to have the >>picture removed, or did they start with threats?

Well, I saw the teacher on a TV show - he said that at first he got some normal emails complaining that the picture was unflattering and made Mohammed look bad. He thought they had a point, so he replaced it with a better picture. Then, he started getting more threatening and seemingly organised emails demanding that he remove any picture at all.

By the way, the site was just student essays put up by this Latin teacher and partly in Latin - it's hard to think of anything less offensive.

Posted by: Ray on February 13, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Ray,

Read all about it in the New York Times today:

But the real story is that they and their followers ran out of options. They tried to get Jyllands-Posten to recognize its offense. They tried to enlist the support of the government and the opposition. They asked a local prosecutor to file suit under the country's blasphemy law. And they asked ambassadors in Denmark from Muslim countries to meet with Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. They were rebuffed on all counts, though a state prosecutor is currently reviewing the case. But, really, what choice did they have?

So, let's review: The Imams failed to intimidate the paper into pulling the cartoon, failed to have the cartoonists put behind bars, and failed to bring sufficient international pressure to bear on the Danish government in order for them to betray such reactionary and bourgeois ideals as "free speech". So what other alternative did they have but to incite a global firestorm against "their" country.

Posted by: TangoMan on February 13, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

Religious maniacs among immigrant Muslim communities behave remarkably like gangster and mafia organizations in immigrant communities of other ethnicities.

The PLO is certainly no stranger to drug dealing, and, I think, in time these Muslim fanatic cells will end up in the same kind of generalized criminal activity as any other gangster groups, barring some kind of historically jarring episode that sees them expelled from Europe en masse.

So it seems to me it would be most practical for law enforcement to address the whole question the way they would address a mafia group, rather than as a political or religious question --a mafia group with a gimmick, religion.

Posted by: cld on February 13, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

Religious maniacs among immigrant Muslim communities behave remarkably like gangster and mafia organizations in immigrant communities of other ethnicities.

Huh? Care to support this with any facts? Last I checked, the real immigrant mob organizations to worry about were Russian and Southeast Asian, with the Russians being the most ruthless.

Nearly every immigrant group has elements, by the way, that have indulged in organized crime, especially since there is so much we outlaw and is therefore made profitable on the black market, and the issue for immigrants is survival.

Indeed, organized crime has existed long more and consistently than liberal democracy, or any other development.

Still, your "whole question" is absurd, since I'm guessing it means that we treat the mosques as centers of organized crime, and not just terrorism, as some would have it. Neither is the case.

Posted by: Jimm on February 13, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

Neither is the case.

As a safe, base assumption. In any particular case, who knows? I'm sure the Nazis said much the same about synagogues.

Posted by: Jimm on February 13, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

This would be so hilarious if it wasn't because some of the guys screeming for respect are from Hizb Ut Tahrir.

Recently they had a meeting with the Danish Secretary of Integration. They refused to shake hands with her ... because obviously she's a woman. And shaking hands with a woman is halal wanted caliphate inside, under the cover of relifor these guys. Now there's a show of respect. Really.

I actually don't care if the US media chooses to print the cartoons or not, but I'm slightly pissed off by the fact that so many on the US left seem to think that this is merely a case of a Danish newspaper taunting "the Muslims" as such. They where taunting, mocking, satirizing, whatever, our local nutcase islamists of whom Hizb Ut Tahrir are the worst.

Go read their Mission Statement:

http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/definition/message2.htm

and come back and tell me what you read. And then tell me, honestly, if it's islamophobic to believe that if these guys come even close to real power, then we're up shit creek.

Even the Danish party Det Radikale Venstre, which is a centre/left very academic, "globalistic", humanistic, multiculturally orientated party, has come to the conclusion that enough is enough: They're calling for the Danish Public Prosecutor to file charges against Hizb Ut Tahrir so as to dissolve it and outlaw it according to the Danish Constitution Section 78, Subsection 2:

Associations that operate or attempt to achieve their aims by means of violence, incitement to violence or similar criminal action on those who think differently will be dissolved by means of a judgement.

There's an issue here that needs to be adressed, and it can't be adressed merely with respect, understanding and sensibility towards anyone claiming to be speaking on behalf of Islam.

Really.

Posted by: Ole on February 13, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

Ditch this sentence:

And shaking hands with a woman is halal wanted caliphate inside, under the cover of relifor these guys.

and put this instead:

And shaking hands with a woman is halal for these guys.

Sorry about that.

Posted by: Ole on February 13, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

And make that haram instead. Off to bed.

Posted by: Ole on February 13, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

Religious maniacs among immigrant Muslim communities behave remarkably like gangster and mafia organizations in immigrant communities of other ethnicities.

Huh? Care to support this with any facts? Last I checked, the real immigrant mob organizations to worry about were Russian and Southeast Asian, with the Russians being the most ruthless. - jimm

Pull your head out of your ass jimm. There are countries other than the USA on this planet. I mean, buy a map or something.

Posted by: peanut on February 13, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

God natt, Ole. (What is it now, midnight over in Denmark?) And thanks for the information. Very useful, and not just for me, I think.

Posted by: peanut on February 13, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

TangoMan - So what other alternative did they have but to incite a global firestorm against "their" country.

Exactly. Which is mildly ironic since they are also complaining that Danes do not treat them as true countrymen. Hmmmm, I wonder why?

Posted by: peanut on February 13, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

peanut:

> It IS hilarious, though, to read wankers like rmck1 and jimm
> drone on and on page up and page down about the "cultural
> situation" in countries they know nothing about and (from
> the look of things) have not even visited once.

Not nearly as amusing as Danish provacateurs (and I don't include
Ole in that) who are narcissistic enough to post on American blogs,
believing that America shares its cultural problems with Muslims.

News flash: We don't. We're not tight-assed assimilationists
like the Danes and the French. And we're not bend-over
multiculturalists like Sweden and Holland. We're pluralists. We've
figured out immigration a damn slight better than most of Europe
because we haven't had homogenous white-person cultures for
centuries that have only in the past 60 years become threatened
by the collapse of European colonialism and now globalization.

> "Yes it does. But I wouldn't expect a
> xenophobic provacateur to understand that."

> "Too funny. How much time did you spend in
> the dictionary to get that sentence written?"

Add pompous ass to the above appellation.

> I can see now why peanut and others
> are always owning you on other threads.

I made one mistake. I owned up to it.

You'll never see peanut own up to his mistakes.

Ole:

> If something like this starts to happen other places; if
> the silent Muslim masses start to speak out, isolate the
> islamists and leave them to rot; this all might be for
> the better. Certainly it's a lot more peaceful lobbing
> cartoons at each other than fighting wars.

Change can only come from within
Muslim communities themselves. Agreed.

TangoMan:

> Read all about it in the New York Times today:

Might have been more honest had you posted the whole article:

> By MARTIN BURCHARTH
> Published: February 12, 2006

> THERE seems to be some surprise that the Danish people and
> their government are standing behind the Jyllands-Posten
> newspaper and its decision to publish drawings of the Prophet
> Muhammad last fall. Aren't Danes supposed to be unusually
> tolerant and respectful of others?

> Not entirely. Denmark's reputation as a nation with a long
> tradition of tolerance toward others one solidified by its
> rescue of Danish Jews from deportation to Nazi concentration
> camps in 1943 and by the high levels of humanitarian
> aid it provides today is something of a myth.

Peanut, listen up:

> What foreigners have failed to recognize is that we Danes
> have grown increasingly xenophobic over the years. To my
> mind, the publication of the cartoons had little to do with
> generating a debate about self-censorship and freedom of
> expression. It can be seen only in the context of a climate
> of pervasive hostility toward anything Muslim in Denmark.

> There are more than 200,000 Muslims in Denmark, a country
> with a population of 5.4 million. A few decades ago, Denmark
> had no Muslims at all. Not surprisingly, Islam has come to
> be viewed by many as a threat to the survival of Danish culture.

> For 20 years, Muslims in Denmark have been denied a permit to build
> mosques in Copenhagen. What's more, there are no Muslim cemeteries
> in Denmark, which means that the bodies of Muslims who die here
> have to be flown back to their home countries for proper burial.

> Recently the minister for cultural affairs, Brian Mikkelsen of the
> Conservative People's Party, asked scholars, artists and writers to
> create a canon of Danish art, music, literature and film. The
> ostensible purpose was to preserve our homegrown classics.

> But before the release of the canon last month, Mr. Mikkelsen
> revealed what may have been the real purpose of the exercise:
> To create a last line of defense against the influence of Islam
> in Denmark. "In Denmark we have seen the appearance of a parallel
> society in which minorities practice their own medieval values
> and undemocratic views," he told fellow conservatives at a party
> conference last summer. "This is the new front in our cultural war."

> Were it not that a majority of Danes actually believe in this
> Islamic threat it would seem to be an outlandish pretext. But
> they do. When the Danish flag was burned on the streets in Arab
> countries, the reaction here was outrage and calls for standing
> even more firmly behind Jyllands-Posten. The center-right
> government gained support in polls, as did the anti-immigrant
> Danish People's Party, without which the government would not
> have a majority in Parliament.

> Now, the general view, expressed in the press and among a
> majority of Danes, is that the Muslim leaders who led the
> protests in Denmark should have their status as citizens
> examined because they betrayed their fellow Danes by
> failing to keep the controversy within the country.

> But the real story is that they and their followers ran
> out of options. They tried to get Jyllands-Posten to recognize
> its offense. They tried to enlist the support of the government
> and the opposition. They asked a local prosecutor to file suit
> under the country's blasphemy law. And they asked ambassadors
> in Denmark from Muslim countries to meet with Prime Minister
> Anders Fogh Rasmussen. They were rebuffed on all counts, though
> a state prosecutor is currently reviewing the case.
> But, really, what choice did they have?

> This is not the only example of Denmark's new magical thinking.
> After the flag burnings, the Danish news media began to refer to
> the white cross on the flag's red background as a Christian symbol.

> There was something discordant about this, for we've come to
> connect the flag less and less to religion. Denmark, after all,
> is one of the most secular countries in Europe. Only 3 percent
> of Danes attend church once a week.

> Still, the news media were right. Up to a point. Legend has it
> that the flag fell from heaven during a battle between the Danes
> and the Estonians nearly 800 years ago. It was a sign from God,
> and it led the Danes to victory. Now that flag has become a symbol
> around the world of Denmark's contempt for another world religion.

> Martin Burcharth is the United States correspondent
> for Information, a Danish newspaper.

Always click the link :)

Ole:

> I actually don't care if the US media chooses to print the
> cartoons or not, but I'm slightly pissed off by the fact
> that so many on the US left seem to think that this is merely
> a case of a Danish newspaper taunting "the Muslims" as such.
> They where taunting, mocking, satirizing, whatever, our local
> nutcase islamists of whom Hizb Ut Tahrir are the worst.

Sure, and I respect that. An organization like
Hitzb Ut Tahrir is a loathesome bunch of demagogues.

But you were tauting the religion of Islam with those
cartoons, not specifically Hitz Ut Tahrir alone.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 13, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

ing still has the best summary of the important facts to keep in mind here:

"1. Having a "formal, legal" right to do something is not the same as feeling free to do it. If you can say anything you want and be sure the police won't come knocking on your door for your expressions, that all fine and well. But if you at the same time have to worry that *someone* might take a shot through your bedroom window, or firebomb your garage, or attack your wife or kids, then what good is this formal "right"?

2. Also, for a media outlet, having the "right to do it and the right not to" doesn't absolve you of your obligation to Honestly and Completely inform your readers of the basis for your editorial decisions. If they are in the least bit based on personal fear, you owe your readers to tell them so. It might be useful information for them. "

Out for now.

Posted by: peanut on February 13, 2006 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

tauting = taunting

Posted by: rmck1 on February 13, 2006 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

EVERYBODY: Chill !

To those who believe in God, if religion is an issue, before posting accusatory, demeaning statements have you kneeled down to pray and ask Him what messagge you should convey to your thousands of readers of all ages?

There is much anger in some of these postings, from both sides. I don't think neither Christ nor Mohamed had extensive messages on freedom of speech nor hate towards the unbelievers.

Posted by: Moses on February 13, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

So why didn't I go to sleep? :-)

Bob, yes, that was an unfortunate sideeffect. And Jyllands Posten has actually apologized for that.

But - and that's in 20/20 hindsight - in my view, the rightfully offended Muslims hold part of the blame too. For years the nutcases have taken Islam hostage, have been claiming to speak on behalf of 1.3 billion Muslims when they burn, murder and pillage, and no one has done nothing more than a halfbaked attempt to protest it.

I don't buy it.

The crazy Danish Imams claimed to be speaking on behalf of 200.000 "registered" members of their associations, in reality these associations had at most 15.000-20.000 members. And it's a more than dubious claim that they where speaking on behalf of even these.

Fact of the matter is that appr. 2000 Muslims engaged in a mostly quiet, peaceful protest in Copenhagen a couple of days efter the cartoons where published - and that was just about it. They where bitter/angry/pissed off, but they where so in a very Danish, very democratic way. Until the nutcases started touring the Middle East with the bag stuffed with "fake" drawings, which have NEVER been printed in any newspaper - drawings which for all I know may have been made by the very same Imams, their claim was that they had been anonymously e-mailed - just to make sure people got really, really pissed. And that's my grudge against these Imams. They had every right to tour the Middle Est on their 2005 Outrage Tour, but they shouldn't have included a bunch of drawings that had certifiably NOTHING to do with Jyllands Posten.

(Actually an Egypt newspaper printed 6 of the 12 cartoons on Oct. 17 2005, including the Bomb in the turban thing. And there was absolutely NO reaction in Egypt, which later has lead the charge against Denmark, headed by their batshit crazy ambassador to our country.)

As said - my hope is that something good will crystalize out of this: Moderate Muslims will finally find the courage to tell the radical jerks to go to hell; and at least here in Denmark the right wing party Dansk Folkeparti (Danish Peoples Party) has found reason to do some soul searching too, at least so it seems.

As far as Brian Mikkelsen goes I actually think he has a very valid point, even if I don't agree with this point being a rationale for a cultural canon: Yes, there are radical asshats living in the medieval ages here in Denmark, yes most of these asshats are Islamic; go check Hizb Ut Tahrir.

If there is a plausible threat to the Danish democracy, this is where it's coming from. It's not imminent, it's not big at the moment - but it needs to be adressed. In not so subtle words, and the Hizb Ut Tahrir interpretation of Islam is part of the problem; they're the ones mixing politics with religion - and thus there is no way to tell these wackos to bugger off without also telling them to take their particular "one stop shop for all aspects of society aka Sharia Law" instance of Islam with them. If that's offensive to other Muslims my only response can be, in all honesty, that's a price we've got to pay. If they choose to be offended in a show of solidarity with a Danish islamist/jihadist, then so be it.

But I honestly don't believe that 1.299.543.565 Muslims in the world will make that choice, if so offered. The nutcases have grabbed hold of the "Voice of Islam", we need to realize that too as well as the silent Muslim masses need to throw out the nutcases.

Final remark before my head slams against the keyboard :-) : In an increasingly globalized world where the means of communication has reduced the distance between here and anywhere to the click of a mouse:

Not being offended is a skill.
Not a right.

I stole that from a commenter over at Iraq the Model, God knows who he stole it from. But it's true - no matter what you might say, someone somewhere can take offense from it. Even the simple phrase of "Good morning" could be seen as offensive by members of some obscure doomsday cult buried deep in the African jungle, because it's not supposed to be a good morning, dammit! It's not supposed to be at all ... ;-)

Thanks for not taking offensive and labelling me as a troll, BTW. Generally speaking, I'm with the US left in all but a very few matters in which we have common interests - in this particular instance it seems as if there's more than an Atlantic Ocean seperating us, though.

Posted by: Ole on February 13, 2006 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

Ole:

No, I think you're a completely reasonable gentleman, and if I was Danish (I'm an eighth Swedish and an eighth Danish ethnically) no doubt I'd feel exactly the same as you. If the American left is going to lay unabashed contempt on Pat Robertson, then to be consistent we have to include those "one stop shopping for all your authoritarian needs" Danish imams as well. Fucking bastards, all of 'em. Religious nutcases can go to that Hell they're so fond of imagining.

It's good to see that you're not overblowing the problem. With 200k Muslims in your country of 5 million -- and all but a handful of those Muslims sane and respectful in the Danish way (I was moved by Rushy Rashid's intensely conflicted reaction), then yes -- the problem is that the moderate, un-crazy, good-neighbor Muslims who buy into pluralism and don't lust after telling people of other cultural backgrounds what to do NEED TO SPEAK UP AND THWACK THEIR CRAZIES.

One of the biggest problems is that American foreign policy makes that extremely difficult. Our mission to democratize the Middle East is counterproductive in so many ways -- not because Muslims are somehow incapable of democracy, but because we're imposing it on them, looking not so much for democracy as to install a US-friendly government that sells its oil on good terms to the West. And when we lock ourselves into preaching democracy as the answer (democracy is only possible with certain preexisting cultural requisites), then, well, we have to support the election of Hamas or we look like stinking hypocrites.

The problem is that this doesn't give the moderates much incentive to control their crazies. The more hard-pressed the Muslim world feels from belligerent Western foreign policy, the more Muslims tend to unite in the Ummah, and this is a natural human reaction. By declaring a Global War on Terrorism, we've given a couple thousand (at most) radical death-loving lunatics a reason to believe that they're now at the center of *world history* -- just as when we armed the Afghan mujahadeen with the most sophisticated antitank weapons and after the Soviets gave up, Osama & Co. concluded that they had singlehandedly vanquished the Godless Eastern Empire. We foment their delusions.

This principle is universal, and it's so easy to see with America's own right-wing extremists. When the hard right felt shut out of power in the Clinton era, we had abortion clinic bombers, white supremecists torching black Southern churches, Eric Rudolph bombing the Olympics in Atlanta, Timmy McVeigh blowing up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. After Bush got in power, the Christian fundies felt less hard-pressed and they were able to talk some sense into their fanatics in a way that they didn't feel they could do with the "godless" Democratic Administration.

Bush (and guys like peanut and many of the anti-Islamists on this thread) believe that the West needs to show a strong hand, because "they only respect power." Well, look at Israel/Palestine. A succession of Likud governments and a policy that licensed counterattacks tenfold the force of the original attacks has led directly to a landslide victory by Hamas. The more forcefully we try to address these problems, the more hard-liners come to the fore and claim justification because they have to resist assaults by hard liners.

In order to empower the moderates, we need to back off the clash of civilizations rhetoric.

Because only the moderate Muslims can win the war against the extremists. The more we try to wage that war directly, the more extremists we wind up creating.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 13, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

Of the hundreds of riots and rallies being orchestrated around the world to protest a handful of cartoons, an especially instructive one occurred in the heart of London on February 3. As in other rallies, the slogans consisted mostly of mortal threats against insulters of Islam, but one, at least, was new: Britain, you will pay, 7/7 on its waya reference to the London subway bombings on July 7 last year. Unlike many European newspapers, no English paper had chosen to reprint the cartoons in solidarity with Denmarks Jyllands-Posten. But England must pay nonetheless, because this is not about cartoonsit is about aggressive Islamic chauvinism and the West.

Islamic chauvinism explains what would otherwise be a spectacular irony: in Europe, transplanted Islamic radicals, like Palestinian-born Ahmed Abu-Laban, the Copenhagen imam whose campaigning incited the boycott against Denmark, are demanding that the countries to which they willingly fled from oppression now accept the same habits and attitudes that fetter their homelands. Religious intolerance is just one of these attitudes.

As Muslims denounce the cartoons for stereotyping, disrespecting faith, or hurting feelings, charges of hypocrisy and double standards are flying against them. The government of Pakistan, for instance, summoned the envoys of nine European countries to lecture them about how freedom of speech is not a license to disparage the beliefs of othersas if Pakistani officials could possibly be unaware of the anti-Semitic imagery that poisons its presses, or the fact that Christian churches in Pakistan are regularly machine-gunned and bombed. But if you believe that Islamic rights are not the same as Christian rights, or Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist rights, then there is no hypocrisy.

Islamic chauvinism explains why Arab journalists, who continuously lament the censorship in their presses, now demand that European states punish privately owned newspapers. It explains how the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki al-Faisal, can tell Wolf Blitzer that matters of faith must be handled with care and with sensitivity, when the country he represents outlaws wearing a cross or possessing a Bible. Danish Muslim leaders, who appealed abroad to bring down Islamic wrath on their adopted country, decry Denmarks coolness toward its Muslim minoritybut they have not urged the thousands of Muslims now queuing up for immigration into tiny Denmark to shred their asylum applications in disgust. This is not hypocrisy. It is strategy.

These Muslims think of themselves as dutifully promulgating and defending their faith. What has been the Wests defense of its own sacred principles? Many editors and politicians, like Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, have rightly been defiant. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, on the other hand, chose to reprove the European media: There is freedom of speech, we all respect that, but there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory. Free Speech Go To Hell, said a London placard carried by a covered protester, suggesting Mr. Straw has some thinking to do. And it was precisely to call attention to this dangerous state of affairs that the cartoons were printed and reprinted in Europeand now in America.

Whether the cartoons are ugly and blasphemous or brave and provocative is irrelevant. The point is that people cannot be threatened with death for publishing them. It is frightening to see offended Muslims grow so angry and violent that European governments must warn citizens against traveling in their precincts. Civilized societies do not register displeasure by surrounding European embassies, with lighter fluid and respective national flags in hand (as in Turkey, Pakistan, India, Somalia, Indonesia, etc.). And civilized governments do not stand aside as mobs attack and torch foreign missions (as in Lebanon, Iran, and Syria). But stand aside is the wrong term, for Iran and Syria are countries in which riots dont happen unless the authorities want them to happen.

The Islamic rage has by now spread well beyond Denmark: we have seen Palestinian gunmen hunt through hotels for Danes, Germans, French, and Norwegians to kidnap; we have seen Iran suspend trade ties with New Zealand because a Kiwi paper published the cartoons; we have seen fanatics in London march against their own country; everywhere there are the obligatory chants against the Zionist conspirators; and theyre burning American flags, too. The problem is not with a few cartoons, but with the West itself.

A July 2005 poll showed that 6% of British Muslims thought the London suicide bombers were justified; 24% sympathized with them. An estimated two million Muslims live in Britain; 6% of that is 120,000 people; 24% is 480,000. If this is typical of other Muslim communities in Europe, we can say, thankfully, that most European Muslims do not support terrorism against the West. But even if barely one in four of Europes 15 million Muslims sympathize with such terror, and a fraction of that fraction acts on that belief, then Europe has a big problem. Not that this was a secret: there was the Hamburg cell, Richard Reid, the schoolgirl-headscarf debate, the Paris riots, the Madrid and London bombings, and the slaying of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh; now this. Theres more on the way, too, or so the rioters and protestors promise.

But what can it mean that these terrorist supporters and sympathizers feel so free to parade their hate through Western streetsor non-Western streets, for that matter? Carsten Juste, the literally besieged editor of Jyllands-Posten, whose office is now protected by hired guard, has an answer: My guess is that no one will draw the Prophet Mohammed in Denmark in the next generation, and therefore I must say with deep shame that they have won. But there is another possibility: depending on how things go, the next generation might remember the last few days for The Cartoons that Ended the Phony War between radical Islam and the West.

Posted by: nick on February 14, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

nick:

So what answer do you recommend?

If not "phony war," what -- shooting war?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 14, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

"Legend has it that the [Danish] flag fell from heaven during a battle between the Danes and the Estonians nearly 800 years ago. "

I missed this turning point in Western history, so I looked it up, and jeez, it turns out the snow socialists have been fighting each other for centuries in their Monty Python noble knight uniforms.

So, now I know what Graham Chapman was laughing so hard about.

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.galleryangela.com/fat-pussy-sweet.html - fat pussy sweet http://www.galleryangela.com/fat-pussy-sweet.html
http://www.galleryangela.com/bbw-fucking.html - bbw fucking http://www.galleryangela.com/bbw-fucking.html
http://www.hitecholdings.com/big-fat-woman-sex.html - big fat woman sex http://www.hitecholdings.com/big-fat-woman-sex.html
http://www.ctaolevents.com/bbw-facesitting-4747.html - bbw facesitting 4747 http://www.ctaolevents.com/bbw-facesitting-4747.html
http://www.kidstotots.com/free-bbw-adult-personals.html - free bbw adult personals http://www.kidstotots.com/free-bbw-adult-personals.html
http://www.spoiledrottins.com/bbw-panties.html - bbw panties http://www.spoiledrottins.com/bbw-panties.html
http://www.gaylivetoronto.com/fat-chicks.html - fat chicks http://www.gaylivetoronto.com/fat-chicks.html
http://www.transmovies.net/morena-bbw.html - morena bbw http://www.transmovies.net/morena-bbw.html
http://www.asianshowbiz.com/bbw-facesitting-2417.html - bbw facesitting 2417 http://www.asianshowbiz.com/bbw-facesitting-2417.html
http://www.orientcruisespecials.com/bbw-hardcore-porn.html - bbw hardcore porn http://www.orientcruisespecials.com/bbw-hardcore-porn.html
http://www.shilpistudios.com/fat-granny-pic.html - fat granny pic http://www.shilpistudios.com/fat-granny-pic.html
http://www.orientcruisespecials.com/bbw-dating-3306.html - bbw dating 3306 http://www.orientcruisespecials.com/bbw-dating-3306.html
http://www.shilpistudios.com/free-bbw-sex-clip.html - free bbw sex clip http://www.shilpistudios.com/free-bbw-sex-clip.html
http://www.thepentecosts.com/fat-tgp.html - fat tgp http://www.thepentecosts.com/fat-tgp.html
http://www.spoiledrottins.com/free-bbw-videos.html - free bbw videos http://www.spoiledrottins.com/free-bbw-videos.html
http://www.vision1mm.com/fat-girl-tummy.html - fat girl tummy http://www.vision1mm.com/fat-girl-tummy.html
http://www.jasmarr.com/bbw-free-mature-picture.html - bbw free mature picture http://www.jasmarr.com/bbw-free-mature-picture.html
http://www.hawkesbury.net/big-black-fat-fuck.html - big black fat fuck http://www.hawkesbury.net/big-black-fat-fuck.html
http://www.gaylivetoronto.com/bbw-black-escort.html - bbw black escort http://www.gaylivetoronto.com/bbw-black-escort.html
http://www.ndctech.com/free-fat-teen-porn.html - free fat teen porn http://www.ndctech.com/free-fat-teen-porn.html
http://www.bedtimedvdz.com/free-bbw-pussy.html - free bbw pussy http://www.bedtimedvdz.com/free-bbw-pussy.html
http://www.hawkesbury.net/fat-xxx-woman.html - fat xxx woman http://www.hawkesbury.net/fat-xxx-woman.html
http://www.kansascitydivorcemediation.com/fat-having-pic-sex-women.html - fat having pic sex women http://www.kansascitydivorcemediation.com/fat-having-pic-sex-women.html
http://www.transmovies.net/fat-horny-teens.html - fat horny teens http://www.transmovies.net/fat-horny-teens.html
http://www.obialumni.com/fat-granny-tgps.html - fat granny tgps http://www.obialumni.com/fat-granny-tgps.html
http://www.crawfordlandscape.com/ass-black-fat-porn.html - ass black fat porn http://www.crawfordlandscape.com/ass-black-fat-porn.html
http://www.so-cool.com/fat-free-teens.html - fat free teens http://www.so-cool.com/fat-free-teens.html
http://www.shilpistudios.com/black-fat-mature-woman.html - black fat mature woman http://www.shilpistudios.com/black-fat-mature-woman.html
http://www.spoiledrottins.com/bbw-jpg.html - bbw jpg http://www.spoiledrottins.com/bbw-jpg.html
http://www.transmovies.net/free-bbw-teen.html - free bbw teen http://www.transmovies.net/free-bbw-teen.html
http://www.crawfordlandscape.com/free-bbw-porn.html - free bbw porn http://www.crawfordlandscape.com/free-bbw-porn.html
WBR FABVSHukyWgwsNmTp

Posted by: DloxeBNVEc on February 15, 2006 at 8:23 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly