Flap over the Cartoons . . .

[alzado]

I was just wondering if people have any opinions about the great controversy surrounding cartoons in Europe.  I understand they were published in a Danish newspaper first.  I have never seen any of them, nor do I especially want to.

I am all for respecting people's sensibility.  However, our local newspaper had a prominent editorial today, and let me paraphrase one paragraph --

The paper pointed out that the press in the Arab world is replete with the most unsavory and stereotypical cartoons directed against Israel and/or the Jews.  Is that okay, but turn-about is not okay?

Does anyone have any comment on any of this?  I am not Jewish nor am I Muslim, but I do feel at certain dismay at all this. 

[cfortunato]

I don't see that there's any serious questions.  The cartoons were certainly offensive to Moslems.  The cartoonist still has every right to print them, and is under no obligation to avoid offending Moslems or offending ANYbody.   The Moslems have every right to get angry, protest, boycott, whatever.  But they do NOT have the right to use violence to express their anger

[BoliverAllmon]

Supposedly the Iranian president is having a Jew cartoon contest. Whoever can draw the most repulsive depictions of a Jew wins.

[prometheus]

Those cartoons were published in september 2005. They are neither funny nur offensive if you ask me. They are just mildy satiric.

All those protests, those can't be because of those cartoons. Seems to me those people want to protest against their own goverments, but are never allowed.

I think this one was the most offensive:



Maybe these two are funny:




I don't really get the others. They certainly aren't meant to bluntly offend. They are just an attempt to mock them in the most subtle way, it seems:


I think it is pretty silly if you get angry because of those cartoons. I think its also very sad that the US and the UK refuse to support the cartoons, Denmark and the rest of Europe.

All those protests have been staged, they are all fake. Those people have not seen the cartoons and they don't know where Denmark is. They are told these is some kind of 'religious war' in Denmark. It is pure politics kindled by one of the most explosive substances on earth; religion.

I don't understand. With all the terrible things happening in the world, why would you demonstrate agaisnt these cartoons? Frankly, most Europeans think all those muslims that are angry have just gone mad. They cannot understand their anger, at all.

And I also don't understand why someone should respect someone elses religion. It would be nice if one is able to respect everyone without any effort. But if you look at the ideas underlying religion, it is very silly to demand respect.

[gilad]

i see the danish paper that initially printed the cartoons is trying to procure the holocaust cartoons from the iranian municipal paper. they want to print them in their own paper too.
i love that, it means as a jew i get to go burn down the danish embassy here, chant death to europe and gladly burn down irans embassy. it's going to be a good old time.
i would never do any of the above. i think it's madness that the reaction has been so violent, and that iran has found another reason to have a go at the holocaust and jews, when we have nothing to do with the cartoon issue as a german minister was quoted as saying today.
i was sad to see danish, norweigen, french, german, EU flags, embassies etc being burned. all because a few papers printed some cartoons. i mean speak of generalisations, it's really out of line.

[alzado]

Thanks to Promethius for the first opportunity I have had to actually see the cartoons.

I agree with both you and Kathleen Parker's editorial in today's paper that these cartoons -- while satirical -- are really not that strong compared to what one sees in American papers every day. 

We continually see Pres. Bush looking like a retarded fool with donkey ears.

I believe that some of this is based on illiteracy and ignorance.  Many of the people in these mobs have bad teeth, ragged soiled clothing, and cannot read or write. 

Frankly, they are altogether unpleasant people. 

Apparently there are overtly anti-semitic cartoons daily in the Arab papers, and no one ever even raises an issue that they are objectionable.

Take your choice as to which maxim applies best--

1--  The pot calling the kettle black, or

2--  What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

As for Gilad, I'm afraid you are just too sensible and civilized.  Heck, get your pitchforks and torches and storm the old mill. 

Doesn't it remind a person of those scenes from the old Frankenstein films, with the mob of peasants carrying pitchforks and torches?

To make the parallel complete, Frankenstein's monster would have to be Danish.

[prometheus]

I think the element which makes the first cartoon bad is the meaning of the arabic text on the bomb.

Some people in the middle east are told that the people in Denmark protest against Islam and that they burned quran's during those protests.

[rimv2]

These are actually funny.

People have been making fun of Christianity for who knows how long. Strong Christian followers have even been labled as bible thumpers.

Other religions have been criticizes without retalliation with violence, why do certain muslims think they are special.

[pianistimo]

at the risk of getting into trouble - how do we know this is what muhammad looked like?  looks like salladin.  anyways, the arabic paper has printed cartoons of public figures like ariel sharon.  double standard?  personally, i wish people would just get along and not fight.  people on piano forum seem educated and kind to each other despite occasional joking that might get borderline to hurt feelings.  i certainly never want to be the cause of someone else's pain - and if i think something will hurt someone's feelings - i try not to do it. maybe people expect cartoonists to make jokes.  and, in this day and age - they are usually directed at anyone and everyone - so noone feels badly.  am sure that the pope has had a few cartoons about him.  the show simpson's always makes fun of christians and 'flanders' is often made to look gullible. 

[rimv2]

at the risk of getting into trouble - how do we know this is what muhammad looked like?  looks like salladin.  anyways, the arabic paper has printed cartoons of public figures like ariel sharon.  double standard?  personally, i wish people would just get along and not fight.  people on piano forum seem educated and kind to each other despite occasional joking that might get borderline to hurt feelings.  i certainly never want to be the cause of someone else's pain - and if i think something will hurt someone's feelings - i try not to do it. maybe people expect cartoonists to make jokes.  and, in this day and age - they are usually directed at anyone and everyone - so noone feels badly.  am sure that the pope has had a few cartoons about him.  the show simpson's always makes fun of christians and 'flanders' is often made to look gullible. 

I think they should throw these cartoons down people's throat until the crap heads learn to take a freaking joke

[BoliverAllmon]

It isn't the people reacting against their governments like what was mentioned earlier. Iran and Syria's government is fanning the flames. The islamic people are so easily persuaded to feel any certain way it is pathetic. THINK FOR YOURSELVES!

[zheer]

I would say that these cartoon pictures are unnecessary provocation, what purpos does it surve, i can think of one, and that is to make Danish people make fun of the MUSLIM PROFIT. It is foolish thought less stupid and meaningless.
   I do feel that a large number of muslims over reacted and used it as an reason to cause trouble, it was foolish to burn the Danish embassy, however it was equally foolish for the priminister of Denmark to think that it is Ok to publish offensive material, especially since Europeans regard themeselve as civil and some haw superior.
    Personally as a muslim i didnt find affensive enough to make me angry in anyway  and you is never going to see me taking part in any public protest.
However i think the Danish peiminister should appologise to the muslim public in DEnmark if he is truly above this situation. But he wont.

[pianistimo]

then muslims should apologize for beheading people right and left and showing it on tv.  but, this is a war (with fault on both sides, and perhaps ill-advised retaliation) and not normal political machinations.  and, as you say, people like us who just want to live in peace are not able to because of the times we live in.  they are beyond our personal control and into the realm of spirit.  people are guided by frenzy on both sides and not really rational thought.  too many years of bad feelings, hurts, generations of stuff (history), that is too much to forgive for these people.  forgiveness is much better - as you say - to just say 'i'm sorry - or we're sorry - lets start over and try again.'  of course, trust is a major factor, too.  nobody trusts that the other is telling the truth and they don't want to get taken advantage of.

what's interesting to me is that countries have their own civil wars if they are not fighting an outside enemy.  the sunnis and shiites remind me of our own country (north and south) during the civil war.  why does war have to exist? 

[BoliverAllmon]

I would say that these cartoon pictures are unnecessary provocation, what purpos does it surve, i can think of one, and that is to make Danish people make fun of the MUSLIM PROFIT. It is foolish thought less stupid and meaningless.
   I do feel that a large number of muslims over reacted and used it as an reason to cause trouble, it was foolish to burn the Danish embassy, however it was equally foolish for the priminister of Denmark to think that it is Ok to publish offensive material, especially since Europeans regard themeselve as civil and some haw superior.
    Personally as a muslim i didnt find affensive enough to make me angry in anyway  and you is never going to see me taking part in any public protest.
However i think the Danish peiminister should appologise to the muslim public in DEnmark if he is truly above this situation. But he wont.

get over it man. crap is published all the time that is offensive towards Christians, Jews, the Pope, and other religious leaders. We are told to take it in stride and for the most part we do. Muslims should learn to do the same. it is called free speech!!!!

boliver

[zheer]

it is called free speech!!!!

boliver

  You get over it ,am not botherd in the slightest way. BTW thats not free speech, that is taken it too far, free speech does not mean you can go around saying you hate black people, for example. Free speach has a limit.  Like the expression its a free world.

[BoliverAllmon]

then tell it to these people

www.smallfire.org/vauximages/ sh*t/pisschrist.jpg

www.heroinhelper.com/ images/cartoons/noGood.jpg

www.hreoc.gov.au/.../ art/example5.jpg

those are just off the top. these people are performing free speech. government points this out time and time again.

boliver

[zheer]

then tell it to these people

www.smallfire.org/vauximages/ ***/pisschrist.jpg

www.heroinhelper.com/ images/cartoons/noGood.jpg

www.hreoc.gov.au/.../ art/example5.jpg

those are just off the top. these people are performing free speech. government points this out time and time again.

boliver

   Free speech is good, but one must see the limits, the thing about heroin and the disability thing seemd fine nothing wrong with that.

[Kassaa]

Fundamentalists have no sense of humor.

[lisztisforkids]

   Free speech is good, but one must see the limits, the thing about heroin and the disability thing seemd fine nothing wrong with that.

The limit of free speech is what you decree it is. 

[zheer]

The limit of free speech is what you decree it is. 

   Look say what you like, just dont push it too far.

[prometheus]

Freedom is speech is limited in most western countries. But only in extreme cases. Insults are allowed. Plus, saying that you hate black people is only expressing your state of mind

There is are exception for the royal houses and the jewish people. Both these exceptions are wrong. If I insult 'my' queen, I could in theory be put in jail for about two years. If you deny other holocaust victims didn't die then this is dubious, depending on the extact way the law is phrased. I don't think denying that romani gypsys were killed in the holocaust would create much commotion.
Plus, you can deny other holocausts. Why? What is the reasoning behind this?

These cartoons don't even come close to the limit of freedom of speech. But of course every country has the right to boycot any other country for whatever reason. When western people get angry because Denmark is boycotted, well it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. So you either talk with them, boycot them back or make some more 'fun' out of them.

Also, everyone has the right to make tasteless comments, bad offending jokes, etc, that the state wound not have the right to make. I mean, freedom of speech allows for the freedom to express yourself in a way a large majority would  condemn. The state has no right to have any opinion on the borders of freedom of speech.

But in this case selfcensorship is very important. If you are allowed to say everything then you must also make sure you don't say everything. The state has no right to limit your freedom, but that doesn't mean you should say everything. That would be silly.

But all those riots in the middle east, they aren't about these cartoons. Those cartoons were already published in the middle east in october 2005. No one cared at that time. All the riots are staged by religious and politican movements.

[BoliverAllmon]

But all those riots in the middle east, they aren't about these cartoons. Those cartoons were already published in the middle east in october 2005. No one cared at that time. All the riots are staged by religious and politican movements.

completely agree

[leahcim]

However i think the Danish peiminister should appologise to the muslim public in DEnmark if he is truly above this situation. But he wont.

Why? Did he draw the cartoons or publish them?

I could accept a thin argument that Governments, especially in democracies are supposedly representative [in reality, of course, we know that's not true] but a newspaper? In what sense does a newspaper represent someone who is Danish or French or any other nationality?

As someone who has told us you are British, do you take responsibility for what's printed in the newspapers here? If the cartoons were published here, that would be just as much your fault as mine, no? i.e not our fault at all afaict [unless you happen to work for a newspaper, I certainly don't] Do you think Tony Blair should have control over them - is he responsible for what's published in them?

I note some Danish people have been advised to flee certain countries, but Danish muslims are just as Danish aren't they? Are they at risk? If not, how do you decide [or those people that might put Danish people in danger] which of the Danish are at fault?

Or the converse, do you accept responsibility for the actions of people who might fit into some neat group, like pianists, men, muslims or kurds or Brits...if you are any of those things, does that make you responsible for what other men, pianists, muslims, kurds or brits do?

[prometheus]

The point is that the government should not even make any suggestion about what they think the media should publish or censor. They cannot ask for self censorship. They cannot help the media selfcensor themselves.

In my country some media suggested that the government should help them set up some selfcensorship guidelines. But the government refused. Apperently these people did not understand how the government should work, or rather should not work.

Why is this? Because the government is such a dangerous collection of power and wealth it will get out of control if the people loosen its bonds on it. Without active democracy power will be abused. So the government should limit itself to its duties towards the people. The government has no place in judging over the media, morals and ethics, what people do in their lives, etc.

The Danisch prime minister has nothing to apologise for. He is above the situation per definition because he is the prime minister of Denmark. It is not his place to comment on this. If he does, he should be forced to resign.

So what do you do? You either sue them, write a letter or stop buying that newspaper. It is very silly to boycut danisch farmers because of a newspaper. If they are serious they should ask everyone to boycot Jyllands-Posten. Write their subscribers and try to convince them.
If you act otherwise you are a silly person who just doesn't understand. If you can't take this you should cut yourself off of the world. Personally I have problems to accept the world as it is, and rightly so. And I don't even believe in an universal truth that everyone should be forced to accept. Maybe in that case a person should realise that their religion isn't compatible with the reality of this world.

The Jyllands-Posten probably sells a lot more thanks to the offended muslims.

[ahinton]

Why? Did he draw the cartoons or publish them?

I could accept a thin argument that Governments, especially in democracies are supposedly representative [in reality, of course, we know that's not true] but a newspaper? In what sense does a newspaper represent someone who is Danish or French or any other nationality?

As someone who has told us you are British, do you take responsibility for what's printed in the newspapers here? If the cartoons were published here, that would be just as much your fault as mine, no? i.e not our fault at all afaict [unless you happen to work for a newspaper, I certainly don't] Do you think Tony Blair should have control over them - is he responsible for what's published in them?

I note some Danish people have been advised to flee certain countries, but Danish muslims are just as Danish aren't they? Are they at risk? If not, how do you decide [or those people that might put Danish people in danger] which of the Danish are at fault?

Or the converse, do you accept responsibility for the actions of people who might fit into some neat group, like pianists, men, muslims or kurds or Brits...if you are any of those things, does that make you responsible for what other men, pianists, muslims, kurds or brits do?

Wow! - that's a whole lot of questions - but they're very valid ones, without a doubt.

I can at least understand the principle under which some people might want or hope for such an apology from the Danish Prime Minister, insofar as that those who claim to have been offended and might demand such an apology on the (albeit misleading) assumption that he is - or should be - ultimately responsible for what does or does not appear in the newspapers, to the extent that he has some responsiblity for upholding the law in Denmark. However, no one in Denmark has suggested that the Danish newspaper has actually broken the laws of Denmark by publishing the cartoons, so such an expectation would indeed be unrealistic, if not actually fatuous.

In the so-called free so-called democratic society in which most of us the West live, each individual is supposed to be responsible for his/her own actions and companies for their corporate actions, subject to the laws of the land concerned. In such circumstances, any public apology from anyone - including a Prime Minister - for the actions of another individual or company will not be worth the paper on which it's written; it would be no more valid or useful than an apology from me that Sorabji didn't write ten piano symphonies.

While on the subject of who is supposed to be resonsible for what and who can apologise meaningfully for their own actions or omissions in such a Western society - and since Tony Blair has been mentioned - in UK, Her Majesty the Queen does technically have the ultimate overall power to dismiss her government, although the likelihood of her ever doing so is as remote as a distant galaxy.

No, it won't do. Only those who have published items can apologise for their having done so, if they so choose. Even if they were to do so, however, such apology will achieve nothing if the offended parties will accept nothing less than an apology from the Danish Prime Minister, however pointless such an apology from him would be.

The right to freedom of speech is, in my view, worthy to be defended at all costs, but it does not obligate everyone to open their mouths all the time, regardless of the potential consequences of what might fall out of them when they do. It's a bit like some of the arguments about copyright, which, as I have had cause to remark on several occasions, also confers copy resonsibility. If the right to freedom of speech is to remain wholly defensible and credible, its responsible use will surely support its continued validity.

The question of whether and where Danish muslims or non-muslims living in muslim countries might risk being put in danger may not, however, be amenable in practice in those countries to the kind of logic that nevertheless persuades us that these people are not personally responsible for the actions of Danish newspaper staff in Denmark itself; it must therefore be a matter for each such individual to try to assess that potential risk, if any and then act accordingly in the interests of personal safety.

Best,

Alistair

[leahcim]

Wow! - that's a whole lot of questions

I also wondered how you would connect this thread with Sorabji, and you have answered that.

[zheer]

Maybe am in a good mood, because am starting to find this thread very funy, the seriousness ov it, is rather funy.

[pantonality]

Maybe am in a good mood, because am starting to find this thread very funy, the seriousness ov it, is rather funy.

Well, this I don't get, because it's a serious situation. People in the ME are taking this very seriously. I personally think rioting about cartoons is stupid and rioting about cartoons that were first published 5 months ago is a strong indication of sheep culture in the Islamic world. It really looks like they'll follow their leaders blindly. In reality this isn't about cartoons it's about deflecting attention from Iran's nuclear program and Syrian implication in the Hariri assassination. Weren't there also a dozen Al-queda that escaped from jail in Yemen?

Frankly the whole concept of Jihad is mistaken because it allows Islam to pursue an imperialist agenda. Other religions do it too, especially Christianity, but Christianity only says if you don't believe in Christ you'll go to hell and they'll actively pursue converting anyone. Their official doctrine however, is not to help you get there (i.e. kill you). Regarding Judaism, they're not really interested in outsiders to joining them, but they're still the chosen people. The problem with all such religions is the exclusiveness factor, we're right and everyone else is wrong. It seems to me that Islam takes this beyond practical limits by glorifying killing of infidels and martyrdom of believers. These two concepts are central to Jihad and promote a culture of violence. However hard Muslims try to portray Islam as a peaceful religion, it's not. It's bent on world domination and the destruction of nonbelievers.

[prometheus]

The bible tells you to kill your neighbour if he works on saturday. Exodus 31:12-15

[thalbergmad]

The bible tells you to kill your neighbour if he works on saturday. Exodus 31:12-15

Goodbye to Mr freeman at number 13 then.

It was nice knowing you.

[pianistimo]

i don't think that's exactly true.  it tells the israelites (who were given the command to keep it holy) to keep the day without doing business on it.  i don't think even the israelites followed the commands for sabbath observance always - and doubt very much if anyone was killed over that one.  the prophets always tried to bring people back to God and told them that if they would keep God's law - they'd have blessings.  but, the blessing of the Sabbath is only a blessing if you rest on it.  i think God was making a point (as parents do) about the seriousness of what He was saying.  just as he said - honor your father and mother - and if any child was disobedient to the point of dishonoring his parents MAJORLY, the same punishment.  how many parents did that?  none.  so it's sort of a moot point.  just as God is similar to a parent - he cajoles us to act responsibly in our lives so that we can obtain blessings and not curses.  basically children kill themselves (by dropping out of school, not attaining their best) by not listening to their parents.

on the whole, the 'unfairness' of God (if you see it that way) is so much less than the cruel and inhumaneness of mankind.  He doesn't torture us - plan evil for us
much the opposite.  He wants us to have the best - to be our best - and to give our best.   prison systems are much harsher.  the realities of not behaving are not dealt with  as with that lenient mother on mad tv.  her son isn't given any rules, so when he breaks one - there's a multitude of dysfunctional stuff that each says.  it cheers me up because then i think i'm not such a bad parent after all.

[thalbergmad]

Pianistimo, I hope you don't mind me asking, but are you a Christian?

[pianistimo]

you have to ask God on that one.  it depends on whether temptation overrules my sensibilities.  i mean, if i were near that christian girl who is a hostage now in iraq - i would probably shoot any and all in my way to free her.  then, i think, 'now is that the christian thing to do?'  no, probably not.  would i burn in hell?  i don't know.  sometimes impulse isn't the best response.

i always tell my son - 'ok, if you join the military - don't shoot to kill.'  but, i'm afraid that if i were shooting - i'd try to aim for the hand and hit their heart accidentally.  i would feel terrible if i did that.  i don't know how to fire a gun.  (the times i tried target practicing - i missed the target completely several times).

also, when i see squirrels get run over - i physically get ill.  once, i rescued a dog from getting run over several times - and he ended up dying anyway after paying $200. for his treatment.  i hate to see animals run over - so can't imagine seeing freind or foe mortally wounded.  if i caused it - i'd probably shoot myself too.  maybe that's why so many in the military go crazy. 

[ahinton]

I also wondered how you would connect this thread with Sorabji, and you have answered that.

I take this to mean that you first assumed that I might contribute to it! The Sorabji reference is, of course, an arbitrary and incidental illustrative one (and, of course, Sorabji was no more a Dane, a cartoonist or a muslim than I am). The issue, of course,  - which is that of who should and should not be expected to assume responsibility for which people's and companies' actions - is one on which, as you doubtless noted, I agree entirely with your own thoughts.

Alistair

[alzado]

You know, I have been reading the more recent posts, and the "free speech" thing has a few problems.

Due to political correctness so rampant in America, there are many things you cannot say.

If you try to use the "N" word on a campus, you will be in serious trouble, probably expelled.  The only people who can use the "N" word about 500 times are black rap singers, who have about worn it out.  They also have rather unpleasant words for black females, but we won't go into that.

If you make any joke involving anything akin to terrorism, you will probably be promptly arrested or jailed.  You have to be very careful what you say about the American president, because some of this utterance is a crime. 

There are laws in the USA involving "inciting a riot" or "disturbing the peace."  You have to be very careful not to speak things than inflame a crowd.

In truth, I cannot think of one major American paper that has published the cartoons, although I've read that two or three have done so.  But I think most of them are scared they will be prosecuted. 

So we may boast about free speech in America, but . . .  be very careful.  The Patriot Act and some of the political correctness is so strong, you may lose your freedom over it.  "Free speech" is one of those much vaunted boasts that turn out to have very little substance, when all is said and done. 

Just a few thoughts from the poor sap who started this thread--

PC

[leahcim]

I take this to mean that you first assumed that I might contribute to it!

Not at all. This thread or that thread isn't specific to the question. If you don't post to a thread then you don't post to it. When you do, the question of what link you make to him from the subject being discussed is usually answered.

As for agreeing with my thoughts. I note that your "Wow, what a lot of questions" was correct. It was just a list of questions. Which you appear to agree with. Are there questions you don't agree with? Perhaps that one? Or this one? Or another one?

[ahinton]

As for agreeing with my thoughts. I note that your "Wow, what a lot of questions" was correct. It was just a list of questions. Which you appear to agree with. Are there questions you don't agree with? Perhaps that one? Or this one? Or another one?

No. There are not. Period. I would have hoped and expected that what I had already writen made that clear. If it did not, I not only apologise for that fact but also state unreservedly and categorically that I identify with your stance as you expressed it in this instance. I cannot go so far as to write that I "agree" with what you wrote, but this is only because one cannot actually "agree", per se, with questions (and it is, after all, questions that you posed); what I do agree with, however, is (a) your salutary decision to pose those questions and (b) the implied doubts that they identify about the ideas that prompted you, quite rightly, to ask them.

My only concern here that might (though might not) differ from your stance is that, whilst the logic that you sensibly apply to the matter in hand is, to my mind, unassailable, that does not of itself mean that those who claim to have been offended by the cartoons etc. will of necessity apply the same logic in arriving at their reactions. It will indeed be a sad fact of life if they don't, but we have no control over that.

Much is now being made of the idea that organisations of all kinds in the West have been enjoying indulgence in a feeding frenzy to get Danes publicly involved in all sorts of thigns for PR purposes; whilst I am quite sure that this kind of motivation has not - in the case I am about to cite - actually informed and influenced BBC policy, BBC Radio 3 have nevertheless been broadcasting a concert of music by Poul Ruders this evening and BBC Radio 4 have, on their "Newsquiz" programme broadcast this evening, joyfully made oblique reference to a certain Danish journalist / broadcaster by the name of Sandy Toksvig in this particular context.

I hope that all of this is now clear.

Best,

Alistair