No. The lesson here is if you threaten journalists with death, protest with signs that say "be prepared for the REAL holocaust," storm government offices, and burn embassies then you'll have your way. More than your way in fact. You'll have Western liberals apologizing for you too.
Posted at 2006-02-04 20:15:31 [PermaLink]We are witnessing two fundamentally incompatible cultures. It is not about cartoons. It could be anything. Other views always come second to theirs. It is not a debate; it is an ultimatum: become like them or suffer the consequences.
Where are the moderate muslims or is that an oxymoron? In face of such intolerance on the part of their co-religionists, they either keep their opinions to themselves or, if any exist, become targets like the rest of us.
Pity the poor liberal who must intellectually contort him/herself to explain all this. All their explanations of root causes - poverty, the need to be sensitive or whatever - fall so short as to be laughable. While the prospects for co-existence look bleak, we must never capitulate.
Damian, keep on blogging mate! I am with you on this one.
In the meantime, some interesting 300 year old words by Baruch Spinoza:
:::
For when people try to take it away, and bring to trial, not only the acts which alone are capable of offending, but also the opinions of mankind, they only succeed in surrounding their victims with an appearance of martyrdom, and raise feelings of pity and revenge rather than of terror. (78)
Uprightness and good faith are thus corrupted, flatterers and traitors are encouraged, and sectarians triumph, inasmuch as concessions have been made to their animosity, and they have gained the state sanction for the doctrines of which they are the interpreters. (79)
Hence they arrogate to themselves the state authority and rights, and do not scruple to assert that they have been directly chosen by God, and that their laws are Divine, whereas the laws of the state are human, and should therefore yield obedience to the laws of God - in other words, to their own laws. (80)
Everyone must see that this is not a state of affairs conducive to public welfare. (81)
Wherefore, as we have shown in Chapter XVIII., the safest way for a state is to lay down the rule that religion is comprised solely in the exercise of charity and justice, and that the rights of rulers in sacred, no less than in secular matters, should merely have to do with actions, but that every man should think what he likes and say what he thinks.
::::
Jonathan
[External Link]
Here's a perfect example of what posters here have been saying re Freedom of Expression...
[External Link]
Excerpts from an op-ed in the Guardian
In January 2002 the New Statesman published a front page displaying a shimmering golden Star of David impaling a union flag, with the words "A kosher conspiracy?" The cover was widely and rightly condemned as anti-semitic. It's not difficult to see why. It played into vile stereotypes of money-grabbing Jewish cabals out to undermine the country they live in. Some put it down to a lapse of editorial judgment. But many saw it not as an aberration but part of a trend - one more broadside in an attack on Jews from the liberal left.
A group calling itself Action Against Anti-Semitism marched into the Statesman's offices, demanding a printed apology. One eventually followed. The then editor, Peter Wilby, later confessed that he had not appreciated "the historic sensitivities" of Britain's Jews. I do not remember talk of a clash of civilisations in which Jewish values were inconsistent with the western traditions of freedom of speech or democracy. Nor do I recall editors across Europe rushing to reprint the cover in solidarity.
Quite why the Muslim response to 12 cartoons printed by Jyllands-Posten last September should be treated differently is illuminating. There seems to be almost universal agreement that these cartoons are offensive. There should also be universal agreement that the paper has a right to publish them. When it comes to freedom of speech the liberal left should not sacrifice its values one inch to those who seek censorship on religious grounds, whether US evangelists, Irish Catholics or Danish Muslims.
But the right to freedom of speech equates to neither an obligation to offend nor a duty to be insensitive. There is no contradiction between supporting someone's right to do something and condemning them for doing it. If our commitment to free speech is important, our belief in anti-racism should be no less so. These cartoons spoke not to historic sensitivities, but modern ones. Muslims in Europe are now subjected to routine discrimination on suspicion that they are terrorists, and Denmark has some of Europe's most draconian immigration policies. These cartoons served only to compound such prejudice.
The right to offend must come with at least one consequent right and one subsequent responsibility. If newspapers have the right to offend then surely their targets have the right to be offended.
can hardly be described as kneejerk.
"This is a far bigger story than just the question of 12 cartoons in a small Danish newspaper," Flemming Rose, the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, told the New York Times. Too right, but it is not the story Rose thinks it is. Rose says: "This is about the question of integration and how compatible is the religion of Islam with a modern secular society - how much does an immigrant have to give up and how much does the receiving culture have to compromise."
Rose displays his ignorance of both modern secular society and the role of religion in it. Freedom of the press has never been sacrosanct in the west. Last year Ireland banned the film Boy Eats Girl because of graphic suicide scenes; Madonna's book Sex was unbanned there only in 2004. American schoolboards routinely ban the works of Alice Walker, JK Rowling and JD Salinger. Such measures should be opposed, but not in a manner that condemns all Catholics or Protestants for being inherently intolerant or incapable of understanding satire.
Even as this debate rages, David Irving sits in jail in Austria charged with Holocaust denial for a speech he made 17 years ago; the Muslim cleric Abu Hamza is on trial in London for inciting racial hatred; and a retrial has been ordered for the BNP leader, Nick Griffin, on the same charges. The question has never been whether you draw a line under what is and what is not acceptable, but where you draw it. Rose and others clearly believe Muslims, by virtue of their religion, exist on the wrong side of the line.
As a result they are vilified twice: once through the cartoon, and again for exercising their democratic right to protest. The inflammatory response to their protest reminds me of the quote from Steve Biko, the South African black nationalist: "Not only are whites kicking us; they are telling us how to react to being kicked."
THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO CONVEY ALL ALONG;THE GUARDIAN JUST DID IT FAR MORE ELOQUENTLY.
Steve, their are moderate muslims but a couple of things must be noted vis a vis this kerfuffle with the cartoons....
First, they are scared of the Orthodox Radical Muslims.....Secondly and this is more important, the moderates damned well know that those rampaging through the streets casting death threats on us in the West are in perfect accordance with Islam as per Muhammed's brutal teachings...
And that is WHY we will NEVER have peace with Islam in our borders......the moderates will DO nothing too help us and the so called fanatics will not stop attacking and hoping too enslave us....
Looks like the Clash of Civilizations has arrived earlier then anyone could have thought...
As others have pointed out, this has nothing too do with these cartoons....the really issue is far far more deep and dangerous...it is Islam's very nature and its oughts with all of us who reside in the Free West and East....
Islam either has too be destroyed or completely neutered or we will end up being destroyed....for 1400 years it has been hell bent on capturing the world by all means necessary..
Libs and other fools are dreaming if they think this will go away...as Muslims increase in population in Europe, their brutality will rise correspondingly.....in otherwords as they gain numbers, they will revert to True Islam...not this lying peaceful crap that Western Muslims try to feed the gullible!!
We have defeated Nazism and Marxism ......we can win this battle too!!!
Ajushail:
The Guardian may have put that argument eloquently, but it's still a load of old bull. It was they who published the grossly anti-Christian cartoons that Damian posted in the blog entry upon which we are both commenting. It is disingenuous of you to represent that editorial as an expression of anything but the most breathtaking hypocrisy.
'Nor would we have published the cartoons when they first appeared in September, before the strength of the extremely slow reaction became known. We would no more have published original cartoons equating Islam with terrorism than we would have published ones depicting Jews as hook-nosed caricatures".
More hypocrisy from the Independent.
Slightly tangental, but . . . notice where all the "outrage" is coming from? Radicalized Moslems in the West, and from the repressive Syrian, Saudi, Palestinian, and Iranian thougocracies. Haven't heard word one about riots in Baghdad or Kabul--the two Moslem Middle eastern countries with freely elected governments. (If there were riots in Baghdad, you can bet the MSM would be trumpeting it as more proof of failure, quagmire, and so on.)
Wonder what that tells us?
ajsuhail:
I think you got it almost exactly right... this is the most important point of the article.
"There should also be universal agreement that the paper has a right to publish them."
But that's not happening. Why are Canadian Muslims boycotting danish products and not the newspaper that published them? What boycott do you support? Are you going to boycott Canadian products because damian penny wasn't arrested for publishing the cartoons on his blog?
You are right on your examples of double standards... No one should be in jail for holocaust denial.
Damian
For what it is worth I agree with every word of your post.
ajsuhail:
"If newspapers have the right to offend then surely their targets have the right to be offended."
Yes, but the extent to which they have taken offence needs to be challenged. Did the Jews threaten the editor of the New Statesman with death or torch their building?
If Muslims have a right to threaten with death those who give offence to their religious views we have every right to question their beliefs and in fact satire and ridicule are probably necessary to encourage reformation.
Freedom of religion should not mean freedom from having your religious beliefs criticized nor should freedom of religion trump freedom of speech.
Appeasement will only reinforce extremist beliefs and actions.
Ajushail, the point you're missing is that no mobs of Jews or Christians have taken to the streets of a Western democracy, burning flags (which, incidentally, in this case, have the Christian cross on them), threatening to behead or butcher or slay or exterminate or annihilate people who have insulted them.
Posted at 2006-02-05 08:40:03 [PermaLink]Albertanator you said
Islam either has too be destroyed or completely neutered or we will end up being destroyed....for 1400 years it has been hell bent on capturing the world by all means necessary..
Hmmm
I am curious; how exactly do you propose this be done? After all there are more than a Billion Muslims most of whom are not going to give up their faith because you want them to.A specific plan of action is something I would really be interested in listening to as you have brought our attention to the fact that Islam poses a great danger to civilisation.Or is it just more hot air on your part? You have identified the problem;now what is the solution?
This bit of Gary Younge's Guardian piece (excerpted above) is a particularly rich bit of irony:
"As a result they are vilified twice: once through the cartoon, and again for exercising their democratic right to protest. *The inflammatory response* to their protest..."
That's a _good_ one, Gary – mobs burn down embassies, but it's the (anemic) Western _response_ that is "inflammatory"! What a jokester! I'll bet you were up all night working on that _bon mot_!
I'm with the Guardian on this one. To me, the image that crops up is this: a man goes into a biker bar and says to a guy with tattoos, "--your mother." After he recovers in hospital, he says he was "testing the limits of free speech." Who's the damn fool here? The Middle East is a collection of biker bars.
"Appeasement," my eye. You kick someone in their religious principles and when they dare to squawk about it (because in Europe that's really all that's happening--Muslims using free speech and assembly too, imagine that) you claim that it's "appeasement" to give a sympathetic listen?
Incidentally, the Sharon cartoon is simply modelled on this:
[External Link]
Calling it "antisemitic" is a stretch. The architect of Sabra and Shatila deserves pretty trenchant criticism, which is what the cartoon provides. The man has considerable blood on his hands. Is it "antisemitic" to point that out?
More at my place on "freedom of speech" and plain foolishness: [External Link]
ajsuhail:
You support the boycott of Danish products by angry Muslims, steming from a newspaper in Denmark publishing cartoons.
The question I have is this... Do you support a boycott of Canadian products, because a Canadian citizen, Damian Penny, published the cartoons on this site?
Allan MacInnis good question
I support the boycott against Danish goods because of the attitude of the government there. This could have easily been nipped in the bud if the Prime Minister had condemned the cartoons, acknowledged the dismay of Muslims but at the same time explained that he was powerless to curb the Press. On the other hand, he refused to meet the Ambassadors of 11 Islamic countries,refrained from criticising the attitude of the newspaper and generally spoke down to the Muslim community as if we accounted for nothing . It was only after he began to feel the heat of the boycott did he offer a sembalance of an apology.This was a belated apology and one that appeared half hearted.
Damian Penny is a blogger like countless others in this Country.If, however a major newspaper like the Toronto Star were to do the same thing, I am convinced that the government of Canada will not remain an idle spectator.I have lived long enough in this wonderful country to be convinced that the vast majority here is tolerant though we have the odd exception in bigots like Kathy Shaidle and Albernatator.
I think I've been exonerated;
"...we have the odd exception in bigots like Kathy Shaidle and Albernatator."
;)
ajsuhail:
So it is fair to say this is your point... Newspapers should have the right to publish material that offends, but just as governments will publicly speak out against say... a KKK rally, they should speak out against people who delibertly try to offend Muslims. If that is what your saying I could agree with that.
What about cases where Muslims or anyone else draws your prophet, but not to offend... Should goverments speak out about that? There was a South Park episode a few years back that had a characture of Mohammad... but they trash absoluetly everybody and I mean everybody.. It's a popular TV show.. and the episode aired in Canada and there was no government appology... Nor was there an appology when the show joked that Japanese people don't go to heaven, or do people with red hair and freckles. Nor do governments appoligize every time a resturant serves up a steak, which is a cow... which is according to Hindu's, their relatives.
I'll tell ya ajsuhail. It's pretty scary when I look at some of the pictures posted on a site like Michelle Malkins and sees Muslim childred holding signs saying "Whoever insults a prophet Kill Him". Or "Behead those who insult Islam"....
That's some scary stuuf... and part of me feels that a positive thing about the whole cartoon issue is that it is bringing these people out of the woodwork.
How do you as a Muslim react when you see images like that? Joy? Saddness? Anger? Mixed?
Regardless of this whole mess it seems to me there is some sort of war within Islam. A war I'm not sure who is winning.
Allan, see our post "On the Eve of Revolution".
You have challenged Ajsuhail on the very basis of his accusations here. Will he have the guts and honesty to respond?
Perhaps.
Dr.Dawg: So Sharon is Satan? And that's not anti-Semitic?
Mark
Ottawa
Dr.Dawg: Your link:
[External Link]
"Saturn Devouring One of His Children" by Francisco de Goya y Lucientes - El Prado Museum, Madrid, Spain."
Seems like the right homework.
Mark
Ottaa
Ajsuhail, would you care to address my point as to why the Muslims kicking up a violent fuss over the cartoons (bloody CARTOONS, people!) are different to the Jews in your example?
Posted at 2006-02-05 12:54:13 [PermaLink]Mark, you're obviously suffering from the same affliction as I. Put on your reading glasses.
Saturn. Satan. Not the same. Not by any means. Although people have tried to link the concepts, I remain to be convinced. One was a Greek/Roman god. The other was the favourite son of God. Before the rebellion, he was Lucifer, the light-bearer; after, he was Satan, the adversary.
It's a stretch, in any case, to allege that the cartoonist had an in-depth knowledge of paleotheology when he drew his caricature.
Whoops. That's "favourite angel." Don't want to get into swampy waters here.
Saturn and Satan appear in Dante's Inferno as quite independent characters.
Mark, Warren refuses to recognize that the CARTOONIST identified Saturn with Satan, and that the intent of the "work" was antisemitic. Hello, Warren... what was that about "homework"?
BTW, the El Prado is amazing. Absolutely amazing. It contains works that would be banned under sharia if Warren's pandering brethren get their way.
WTF? Hey, Anonalogue, what bullshit is this?
The cartoonist, needless to say, did nothing of the kind. But thanks for playing.
PS: I wouldn't go confusing me with WK, now. He might sue you.
Dr Dawg:
You're not even in left field, you're completely out of the ballpark.
Muslims are using their rights of free speech and assembly in Europe? I suppose that's what you call burning cars, rioting, and threatening death. What's next, they'll kill a Danish filmmaker and riot for weeks in Paris? Or will they do something they HAVEN'T already done?
"The architect of Sabra and Shatila deserves pretty trenchant criticism, which is what the cartoon provides. The man has considerable blood on his hands. Is it "antisemitic" to point that out?"
Yes, it is antisemitic, unless you have proof that Sharon actually ATE a baby. Wouldn't the criticism be FAR more trenchant if it were actually true? Just as, I felt when I first saw it, the depiction of Mohammed with a bomb in his turbin is anti-Muslim.
The question is - what is a free society going to do about it? As you saw from the cartoons in this post, there have been equally, if not more, disgusting cartoons published about other religious groups in the past. In a civilized society we learn turn away in disgust, and draw no attention to the tripe, lest it be featured on the nightly news. We don't riot and kill because we've been offended. Are you like Voltaire, or like every other Frenchman?
Burning cars in protest over the cartoons? In Europe? Can you provide a link? Or are you thinking about those riots in France a few weeks back?
Because Sharon happens to be Jewish doesn't mean a portrayal of his behaviour is anti-semitic. That's just too convenient a label. Good substitute for actually thinking, though.
Voltaire's good enough for me, btw. :)
"Any newspaper which will not run the Mohammed cartoons, out of a newfound sensitivity to readers' religious beliefs, is being cowardly and hypocritical. And commentators who place all the blame on the cartoonists, not the thugs and lunatics threatening them with execution, have no idea what freedom of expression really means."
new found sensitivity? obviously, you're not aware that the modern press and media has been well aware of Islam's edict of censuring the likeness of Mohhamed; not political cartoons talking about religious/political issues, only depictions of The Propher himself.
rent "the message" as see the pains the producers took in avoiding this issue in *1976*
this free speech line is garbage. if you're posting the images, you're knowingly adding fuel to the fire.
Dr.Dawg: One for you. Seeing optometrist about new prescription for glasses this summmer. Ontario health care no longer pays for seeing doctor. Progress under socialized medicine?
Mark
Ottawa
Dr Dawg,
If you were any more obtuse only Euclid would be able to see you.
"Because Sharon happens to be Jewish doesn't mean a portrayal of his behaviour is anti-semitic."
That's entirely the point. I didn't know that he ate babies. If YOU can provide a link about his cannibalism, I await. Otherwise I will continue to consider the cartoon neo-Nazi anti-Semetic BS. It's repeating a stereotype from 1938, one that has no basis in truth.
"Burning cars in protest over the cartoons? In Europe? Can you provide a link?"
[External Link]
"Angry Lebanese demonstrators torched the Danish consulate in Beirut on Sunday, further escalating a violent turn in protests over the publication by European newspapers of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.
Thousands of protesters, some carrying green Islamic flags, chanted "God is Greatest" outside the burning building as thick black smoke billowed into the sky.
Some stood on top of a fire engine, one of three damaged by protesters to prevent fire fighters putting the blaze out."
Should I repeat? "...damaged by protesters to prevent fire fighters putting the blaze out."
If you'd like, you can reference an article about a Christian or a Jew burning cars to protest against cartoons about God or Jesus. I await enlightenment.
Larry 14, Dr Dawg 0. But who's keeping score, right?
Reading comprehension 101:
"Burning cars in protest over the cartoons? In Europe? Can you provide a link?"
If Beirut is in Europe, I guess you have a point.
As for the war criminal Ariel Sharon, portraying him as Cronos is hardly anti-semitic.
I've brought this up in the past; this furore has absolutely NOTHING to do with Faith, and everything to do with Big Religion flexing its muscle. I doubt that the majority of the rioters involved had previously seen the cartoons let alone know where Denmark is on a map.
The three Abrahamaic religions all share a belief in the same God but are, and have been for eons, competing for the same marketshare (Ok, slight hitch, Judaism doesn't proselytize).
Note how this display of religious fervour has no focus; 'anger' has been directed at all the usual targets regardless of their actual involvement. The point being made is that the Dhimmis MUST be made to acknowledge their inferiority to the CULTURE of Islam. Clinton's stepping up to the plate was an example of how we're ALL supposed to behave...no exceptions.
The subject of the auto-arson in Paris was brought up and refuted. Somehow the fact that the (N. African Muslim immigrants) perps were reacting in the same formulaic manner as the current bunch, was ignored in the rush to write it off as being inconsistant with the cartoon time frame.
A. would have us believe that these rioters in ME cities (Syria)are all educated and literate devotees of their religion who are personally deeply offended at the idea of someone(s) thousands of miles away, making a statement critical of the very actions that they are in the midst of, or are about to commit...
Yeh, that'll fly.
Dan - you'll enjoy Hitch's latest (thanks Kathy over at Relapsed Catholic for the pointer)
"And how abysmal that a "spokesman" cannot distinguish between criticism of a belief system and slander against a people."
[External Link]
One important point Hitch wouldn't know about (but you would): Judaism's tradition of the Talmud is that it contains a great deal of argumentation... Ovadia Yosef's repugnant quoted passages are tackled by other counter passages, as it were.
Oddly enough, it precisely this freedom to debate and to interpret that many modern Muslims wish, and that is being repressed by the literalists.
Thanks, P.K; he said what I feel sooo much better than I ever could! That column's a keeper.
As for his final thought,
"It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts, and it is positively outrageous that the administration should have discarded them at the very first sign of a fight."
...as it ever was.
I always enjoy how liberal morons and islamic morons never tire of throwing out the ole racist card......folks, like the facists that Aju and Dara dear are, they hope by throwing that label that they will suppress peoples from speaking out about the dangerous reality in which we find ourselves from Islam and Liberalism!!
Aju, Islam can never be completely destroyed but it can be crippled and what we are seeing for the first time in Islam's evil history is that it has had to encounter Freedom of Speech vis a vis the internet which even the most backwards Islamic countries have access too...
Keeping that in mind, Muslims are for the first time learning about their depraved founder and not some fairy tale passed onto them by their local imams.....
This is why Ex Muslims are such a blessing and a boon to us......they have a true insiders knowledge that they know about and that they are sharing across the world, shaking the very foundations of Muslims beliefs .......
And as we know, in Persia, Black Africa Islam and partially in the Berber and Kurdish peoples, Muslims have for the first time been leaving Islam in impressive numbers ........and that is according to their own people!!
In otherwords, Islam depends on a closed worldview and cannot tolerate the light of freedom......when confronted with the Pen, the blood drenched scimitar of Muhammed's is no match!!
Obviously that ole nutty Muhammed knew very well that apostates were a danger to his cult....that is why it is recorded in the Sahih Burkari that they must be killed.....
And folks, in a nutshell this is why, among many other depraved Islamic teachings, that Islam resembles Marxism and Nazism completely, albeit in a more subtle way.....It is a bullying hateful intolerant ideology that HAS to kill its own who step out of line.....Hitler and Stalin were no different...Muhammed would have been perfectly at home with either....
I am going to guess also that Aju here is probably a Islamic heretic who holds only to the small minority view of Quran only Islam.....
In otherwords, he would be slaughtered in any Islamic state for his heretical views...
Much like Ismailies or Sufis who of both are quite mellow but far far from Muhammed's deranged teachings!!
Thanks
Albertanator
FIRST OFF IT IS AJ NOT AJU
AND THIS RISIBLE CLAIM
I am going to guess also that Aju here is probably a Islamic heretic who holds only to the small minority view of Quran only Islam.....
In otherwords, he would be slaughtered in any Islamic state for his heretical views...
In a word BULLSHIT
Buddy, you present a clear and present danger to the concept of cogent thought. You were not smoking something were you?
I wouldn't expect any coherent prose from Albertanator any more than I would expect him to expand on his thoughts on what to do with Islam.
You asked him pointedly exactly how he intends to eliminate Islam in it's entirety, he will not answer because he knows how far out of whack he is on that subject. He also dodged my questions on the subject when he suggested that all practicing Muslims should be "deported" from western society.
Either he doesn't realize that what he's suggesting would require concentration camps and death squads to enforce, or he's a weasel as well as a potential mass murderer.
Care to elaborate once and for all Al? Given that you have concluded that Islam must be destroyed or completely neutered or at least banished from the western world, what would you do with the Muslims who refused to give up their faith or their home?
A strongly worded letter? Please do tell.
ajsuhail, are you going to address my point, then? Or is it inconvenient for you to acknowledge it?
Posted at 2006-02-06 13:13:06 [PermaLink]Not sure what Al's got in mind but my take on it is that simply shining a light on it's darker side seems to be doing the trick. As much exposure to Western ideology as the market will bear, as it were. Education. English (French and German also) literacy is a starting point.
We're seeing this Worldwide escalation of terrorism because, simply put, the Islamic Fundamentalists are being challenged at every turn; they've nothing to lose.
You probably didn't even know this stuff was out there, eh A.?
[External Link]
Now I'M offended! I want you to make that shmuck apologize, on CNN, in prime time...
:0
I don't think Islam militants realize how close they are getting to an all out war they can not and will not win.
Their prophets may supply them with virgins and brovado but not with what really counts...free thought and the freedom of expression.
There is only one reason the Imams call for Muslims to violently protest the cartoons. Like straight out terrorism, violent protests WORK. Many of the biggest and most secure countries in the world are APOLOGISING!!! and their state departments (like that of the US and New Zealand) are running for cover while little Denmark goes it alone. What about Canada? Home of a huge Muslim population. It is one thing for the Canadian media to print insulting anti-American cartoons and to throw verbal insults across the border but has Canada the courage of Denmark to stand up for this free speech. Or is it just free speech when another country is willing to fight for it.
Posted at 2006-02-07 11:07:54 [PermaLink]