Kuwaitis call for boycott of Danish goods - Page 21 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-07-2006, 06:03 AM   #301
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:44 AM
No I do not think that the Nuremberg judges were wrong in sentencing him to death. Inspiring that hatred layed the groundworks of the holocaust and was an enabling factor, but even when he knew that atrocities were taking place he did not stop. The absence of remorse in deed is also an important factor here.

There is a very large gap in the situation though, on one hand we are talking about a prominent member of the Nazi leadership who had knowledge of what was going on and continued to produce propaganda to aid the effort to exterminate the Jewish people. All of this was done as an apparatus of the Nazis and their fascist regime. I do not think that that the argument of free speech applies in propaganda, by its very nature it is the antithesis of free speech. He produced propaganda to meet a genocidal end with knowledge and as such bore some responsibility.

I think that that contrasts against a revisionist historian who promulgates lies, an anti-semitic agenda and filed a libel suit against a critic. All in all he is a disgusting human being, but thankfully his own agenda has been his ruin and by loosing the libel suit he has been economically ruined and any legitimacy he may have enjoyed has been annihilated, and all done without having to censore the mendacious bastard. He alone is not responsible for inspiring crimes, he doesn't appear to have knowledge or crimes going on today like Streicher had of the extermination of the Jews. We are dealing with different thresholds here.

Free speech is a liberty. Liberties can be positive or negative (complimenting an activist versus injecting heroin). In application of liberties they should obey the no-harm principle, ergo an action that infringes upon the rights of others (e.g. stealing, which violates property rights) should not be allowed. Free speech is speech that is not incitement to violence. I think that an example of free speech is "Fuck the Cartoonists Who Blaspheme the Prophet", now some of the followers of Omar Bakri Mohammed had signs and speech threatening death upon the cartoonists and threatening terrorist attacks - that language is inciting violence (something that deprives others of their rights) and does not fall under the same banner of free speech. Reconciling the limits of free speech versus incitement can be done logically and consistently within the confines of the no-harm principle. Under this anti-religious speech that does not incite violence against those is acceptable. Another important line is racist langauge versus ideology. Religious belief falls under ideology, ideology is not static, it is not inherent, it can change - for those reasons attacking religious belief is different than attacking other races - which is inherent, which is genetic, which cannot change (if I identify as Anglo I would have a hard time passing off as Malay). I think that one might be able to justify racial vilification legislation if it was properly crafted and there was extremely good cause, but I cannot see how any religious belief can be offered that form of immunity.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 06:20 AM   #302
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:44 AM
The enemies of free speech are both domestic and foreign. In Australia we are dealing with sedition laws supposedly to crack down on extremist Imams, if there is incitement to violence what prevents procecution under current laws? The entire package and the proposals for CCTV and a national ID card are all more consolidation of power under anti-terrorism. It is entirely possible to fight terror without surrendering a nations fundamental liberties just as it is possible to maintain an functional ethnically heterogeneous society without hate speech legislation.

Protected free speech - I support that right.













source
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 06:29 AM   #303
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Five people have died already (innocent Muslims), meanwhile in Pakistan
Quote:
The Pakistan Medical Association has vowed not to prescribe medicines from firms based in some European countries where controversial cartoons portraying the Prophet Mohammed were published, said Shahid Rao, the body's general secretary for Punjab province.

The association will boycott drugs from Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany and France to protest the 'blasphemous' drawings, Rao said.

'We have taken a unanimous decision and it will be immediately implemented in Pakistan,' Rao told AFP.

'Doctors in the country are very motivated on this issue,' he said. 'We would use alternate medicines in future till a public apology comes from these countries.'

Pharmacists have also vowed not to sell such medicines, Rao said.
link

I hope that this sort of thing doesn't mean any more unnecesary death. I am confident of two side effects, firstly newpapers in future will be much more careful so as not to offend Muslims. Secondly general populations will have increased animosity towards Muslims and the Islamic faith.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 07:37 AM   #304
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
There is a very large gap in the situation though, on one hand we are talking about a prominent member of the Nazi leadership who had knowledge of what was going on and continued to produce propaganda to aid the effort to exterminate the Jewish people. All of this was done as an apparatus of the Nazis and their fascist regime. I do not think that that the argument of free speech applies in propaganda, by its very nature it is the antithesis of free speech. He produced propaganda to meet a genocidal end with knowledge and as such bore some responsibility.
This has always been my view as well--that goverment-commissioned propaganda, even when the propagandist is fully willing, makes a poor analogy to free speech. Still, there are those who question the legitimacy of that verdict today.

I also agree with most of what you say about the distinctions between incitement to violence and offensiveness, racial and religious vilification, etc. Although I am not sure that the non-Western mind (for lack of time and a more nuanced phrase) always maps out these distinctions in quite the same way that we would.

I have always found it interesting that Streicher, in theory the least violent of the Nuremberg defendants, was in practice the least repentant as well, at least to judge from his behavior during his trial and leading right up to his execution. Perhaps this was just a character issue, but it is tempting to speculate whether the particular set of poisons he was working with might ultimately have been the most soulsucking of all.
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 07:56 AM   #305
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:44 AM
That is the danger of genuine loathing and hatred, incidently also the reason for mockery and humour - an equally mighty way of confronting evil without loosing heart.

It is possible to disagree and even hate beliefs without hating all those that adhere to them or whatever derived parts they know (somehow I doubt that those firebombing embassies are experts in classical Arabic who understand the theological grounds for the slight - the language issue of the Koran prevents theological drift but it also makes things harder to change, I suspect that remembering the text phonetically does not encourage critical thinking or interperatation - a problem that has existed before in other religions). The trick is when talking to a believer is to not trip those buttons that can so easily drive them mad (although it can be fun to do it) unless the point of the excercise is to pull down that mask and expose an agenda - a worthy excercise in certain circumstances. The argument that we should by definition respect the beliefs of others is alright with a clean slate, but they are rapidly etched away with word and deed - individual philisophical traditions and practitioners who make overtly agressive pronouncements do not get a shred of respect and jokes directed in their direction should only be limited by the taste (or lack thereof) of who is listening.

As I highlighted when I posted the cartoons from the Arab press they are all state approved cartoons. The hypocricy is not the individual Egyption or Syrian in the street but the governments that encourage that form of religious (and if we want to go there even racial) intollerence to be demanding apologies from the Danish government over the behaviour of an independent newspaper. The parallel is that of politically correct speech in the literal context of expression that is consistent with government policy - not one of Baathism = Nazism (in the case of Syria).
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 11:47 AM   #306
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:44 PM
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/02/07/vzhiriran.shtml

“The war is inevitable because the Americans want this war,” he said. “Any country claiming a leading position in the world will need to wage wars. Otherwise it will simply not be able to retain its leading position. The date for the strike is already known — it is the election day in Israel (March 28). It is also known how much that war will cost,” Zhirinovsky said.

He went on to add that the publication of Prophet Muhammad cartoons in the European press was a planned action by the U.S. whose aim is “to provoke a row between Europe and the Islamic world”. “It will all end with European countries thanking the United States and paying, and giving soldiers,” he said. Russia should “choose a position of non-interference and express minimal solidarity with the Islamic world”, Zhirinovsky added.'

He may or may not be correct but I am somewhat suspicious about why the cartoons row is being incited at this point in time.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 11:55 AM   #307
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The fault rests squarely on those who decided that they would respond to being offended by cartoons in an independent paper with violence. Any apologist who blames the Danish government, Jyllands-Posten, the Cartoonists or those who support them is flat wrong.

Will the freedoms that were once enjoyed in peace now go silently into the night?
Per a (London) Times poll today, 67% agreed with the statement - "Newspapers have the right in principle to publish the cartoons but they should not do so out of respect for the Muslim community'.

Apologists? No, a reasonable and proportionate view.

I am not comfortable with a view or vision of liberalism which gives us carte blance to incite provocations just because we feel like it.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 01:48 PM   #308
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
Apologists? No, a reasonable and proportionate view.
On what basis? Should newspapers be respectful regarding things that some deem sacred? Very poor track record there.

Or is this a reaction to the violent protests? Does the respect grow in proportion to the level of response?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 01:51 PM   #309
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/02/07/vzhiriran.shtml

“The war is inevitable because the Americans want this war,” he said. “Any country claiming a leading position in the world will need to wage wars. Otherwise it will simply not be able to retain its leading position. The date for the strike is already known — it is the election day in Israel (March 28). It is also known how much that war will cost,” Zhirinovsky said.

He went on to add that the publication of Prophet Muhammad cartoons in the European press was a planned action by the U.S. whose aim is “to provoke a row between Europe and the Islamic world”. “It will all end with European countries thanking the United States and paying, and giving soldiers,” he said. Russia should “choose a position of non-interference and express minimal solidarity with the Islamic world”, Zhirinovsky added.'

He may or may not be correct but I am somewhat suspicious about why the cartoons row is being incited at this point in time.
Just yet another stupid conspiracy theory by an extremist, apply Occam's razor and you're rid of it.
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 03:27 PM   #310
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 02:44 PM
Here is one of the Holocost Cartoons. Hitler in Bed with Anne Frank.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/155865.php
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 04:09 PM   #311
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Per a (London) Times poll today, 67% agreed with the statement - "Newspapers have the right in principle to publish the cartoons but they should not do so out of respect for the Muslim community'.

Apologists? No, a reasonable and proportionate view.

I am not comfortable with a view or vision of liberalism which gives us carte blance to incite provocations just because we feel like it.
Me either. Why did all of those European papers publish the damn things other than to provoke the Muslims?
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 04:30 PM   #312
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76


Me either. Why did all of those European papers publish the damn things other than to provoke the Muslims?
Are you suggesting that "provoking Muslims" was the main thrust of publishing the cartoon?

Some how I thought journalism did not regulate itself by a "do not provoke" standard.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 05:46 PM   #313
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:44 PM
The Apologists Trend Continues?

Belgian town bans 'Saddam shark'

Quote:
A town in Belgium has banned an artwork of Saddam Hussein for fear that it will put off tourists and offend Muslims.
I thought Saddam was not a favored figure in the eyes of the Muslim world.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 06:02 PM   #314
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Are you suggesting that "provoking Muslims" was the main thrust of publishing the cartoon?

Some how I thought journalism did not regulate itself by a "do not provoke" standard.
That's not necessarily the only reason they published the cartoons. However, they should have known that making them public would make all hell break loose in the Islamic world, since the media has no borders. Once the news hit the Middle East there was no stopping the madness.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 06:37 PM   #315
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
Once the news hit the Middle East there was no stopping the madness.
But is that the fault of the cartoonist or of those select groups of people who chose to torch buildings?

I'm not sure either side here holds the high ground. On the one hand, there was definitely an element of provocation involved when other nations chose to reprint the cartoons. They knew, a priori, this would not be taken well. On the other hand, religious sensibilities should extend only so far - when you're calling for death and torching private property, you have no place in a reasonable debate.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com