Kuwaitis call for boycott of Danish goods

[deep]

You are infering that you advocate jail for people's free expression

Don't you support Israel, like me?

 

[deep]

I reiterate that making a cartoon of Jesus ejaculating over Mary while being done over by Joseph would be a depiction of supremely bad taste - but I think that I could safely draw and distribute something like that without having to worry about personal safety.

You are young and idealistic.

Try this in some of the Red States.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I support the countries right to exist but I hardly support the more stupid (completely subjective set of precepts that I like to see in a country) elements of it's legal system or the pseudo-secularism that allows Greater Israel ideologies to dominate policy.

By the same logic if you don't support anti-free speech judgements in the USA then you don't support it.

Or I don't support Australia because of the racial and religious vilification laws being used in Victoria.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You are young and idealistic.

Try this in some of the Red States.

Don't have too many of those in these parts, the best I could do was offend a Catholic enough to walk out of the room by blasting Mother Teresa and JPII.

 

[deep]

I support the countries right to exist but I hardly support the more stupid elements of it's legal system or the pseudo-secularism that allows Greater Israel ideologies to dominate policy.

that is good to know

the greater Israel

is just one way

of wiping one group off the map

while complaining

they want to do it to us.

 

[VertigoGal]

You are young and idealistic.

Try this in some of the Red States.

Right..but as that image would be vulgar and offensive in the eyes of a majority Christian state, it would be reasonable to ban such images, wouldn't it?

anyway, while it's everyone's right to boycott blah blah, if you refuse to buy anything made in denmark due to this cartoon you are most likely an idiot. just my opinion.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And that is quite inconsequential to the topic at hand.

The freedom from censorship is the mark of a free society. Part of tolerance in a society is parties being able to tolerate things that they may find offensive. It is a case of surrendering a liberty (free speech) for security (against Islamic radicals and economic boycotts).

There can be a price for solidarity.

France Soir and Germany's Die Welt were among the leading papers to reprint the cartoons, which first appeared in Denmark last September.

The caricatures include drawings of Muhammad wearing a headdress shaped like a bomb, while another shows him saying that paradise was running short of virgins for suicide bombers.

France Soir originally said it had published the images in full to show "religious dogma" had no place in a secular society.

But late on Wednesday its owner, Raymond Lakah, said he had removed managing editor Jacques Lefranc "as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual".

Mr Lakah said: "We express our regrets to the Muslim community and all people who were shocked by the publication."

The president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM), Dalil Boubakeur, had described France Soir's publication as an act of "real provocation towards the millions of Muslims living in France".

Other papers stood by their publication. In Berlin, Die Welt argued there was a right to blaspheme in the West, and asked whether Islam was capable of coping with satire.

"The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical," it wrote in an editorial.

link

This is the chance to stand up for that great liberal ideal of free speech, one that has forged the societies we have today and allows an independent press to speak truth to power.

Liberty is under siege at home and abroad, the best course of action is consistent opposition to the threats in line with ideological prejudice - supporting free speech, opposing national ID cards, opposing unchecked domestic surveillance.

 

[yolland]

What course of action do you advocate, I agree that they are offensive pieces to believers but that in and of itself is no cause for censorship and I will fall strongly on the side of free speech - where do you stand?

This, I think, is the trump card of your argument (which I naively assumed we'd pushed to a stalemate already ). I share deep's suspicion that strategic provocation with intent to isolate and humiliate is disingenuously masquerading as a noble and pure campaign to protect free speech here. But you are right to point out that one cannot construct reliable legal yardsticks for distinguishing between the two (and punishing the one but not the other) without threatening free speech overall. Still, it rankles with me to see (protected) offensive speech being tauntingly wielded as a civic fitness litmus test in this way.

Is it too wildly unrealistic to wish for a formalized, professional ethic of artistic responsibility on such matters which would not be based on fear of reprisals on the one hand--nor on tacit endorsement of art as social control on the other? With this incident, they have succeeded in alienating large numbers of people who were not up at arms before. And I fear their disingenuous apology has only served to confirm in these peoples' eyes that the offense was indeed strategic--or at best, reflective of unconcern for their collective standing as citizens with dignity.

 

[A_Wanderer]

As citizens is there not a social contract of some form? To abide by the laws and respect the principles of the nation - an Arab Muslim living in the West is free to practice their religious beliefs but they also must abide by the law, the law protects the right of individual expresssion and outlaws violence against individuals. If we have a situation where some find that their adherence to religious views is incompatible with the nature of the society and it's laws then serious problems arise, ones that cannot be brushed over lightly or ignored.

Freedom of religion respects the right of citizens to practice their faith provided it does not violate the secular law - for instance following Abu Hamza al-Masri's preachings literally would break the law in the UK and would not be free religious expression - it would be murder. Freedom to criticise, mock and abuse religious belief protects everything from The Life of Brian to Piss Christ and the Mohammed Cartoons.

Having genuine freedom of religion and freedom to criticise religion is a critical part of modern secular "Western" societies, to gnaw away at either of those principles for whatever cause will dramatically alter the nature of discourse within the societies.

Incidently the case in Greece where a cartoonist is on trial for depicting Jesus as a dope smoking hippy is in some ways (as in government intervention and trial ) worse and shows that appreciation of these rights are by no means exclusively under threat from one quarter. I am more concerned about how governments choose to react from the pushing tactics than the few people believers can kill (e.g. translators of the Satanic versus all those years ago).

 

[A_Wanderer]

A C&F cartoon that illustrates another side of the issue, now it's not idolotry because were not worshipping the image.

link

Now who here thinks that this should be banned or we should entertain the notion?

 

[AcrobatMan]

what indra said

and what A_wanderer has been saying

 

[U2Man]

 

[AcrobatMan]

me 2

 

[nbcrusader]

Moslems hold Mohammed sacred.

Do you think we should extend respect and dignity to the followers of other religions as well?

I guess your answer is no. Very disappointing that a principle (we should show respect to that which a religion holds sacred) you press hard in support of one group, is completely disregarded (and mocked) for another.

 

[DrTeeth]

Hah, and who said martyrdom is an Islamic thing?

 

[verte76]

I don't want to *ban* it. But if I owned a newspaper I might not want to put it in the newspaper. Other newspapers could make their choices.

 

[Justin24]

"Muslims of the world, be reasonable," said the editor-in-chief of the weekly independent newspaper Al-Shihan in an editorial alongside the cartoons, including the one showing the Muslim religion's founder wearing a bomb-shaped turban.

"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?" wrote Jihad Momani.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1889584,00.html

Well Jordan seems to be evolving from the 13th century.

 

[Justin24]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/02/AR2006020200247_pf.html

 

[U2Man]

Hah, and who said martyrdom is an Islamic thing?

What has this got to do with martyrdom?

 

[all_i_want]

why does it seem so strange to you that people respond to humiliation of their religion through boycotts and protests? how can you possibly blame them for doing so? i am not really much of a muslim but this whole thing smacks of arrogance and self-righteousness. it is those people's right to protest and boycott as much as it is the satirists right to express himself.

this is about making choices. if you purposefully degrade a religion, a nation or whatever, it should be obvious that there will be consequences. these people have a right to boycott whatever they like, get over it already.

 

[Justin24]

Yes they have a right to boycott and protest, but the papers also have a right ot publish someones expression of work

 

[nbcrusader]

why does it seem so strange to you that people respond to humiliation of their religion through boycotts and protests? how can you possibly blame them for doing so? i am not really much of a muslim but this whole thing smacks of arrogance and self-righteousness. it is those people's right to protest and boycott as much as it is the satirists right to express himself.

this is about making choices. if you purposefully degrade a religion, a nation or whatever, it should be obvious that there will be consequences. these people have a right to boycott whatever they like, get over it already.

Well, "humiliation" of religion takes place every day, even here. Some respond with guns and death threats.

Is that what is needed for others to respect sacred beliefs?

 

[all_i_want]

Well, "humiliation" of religion takes place every day, even here. Some respond with guns and death threats.

Is that what is needed for others to respect sacred beliefs?

of course not. but what has been objected against and criticized during the course of the thread was kuwait's call for boycott against denmark. i obviously dont support violence of any kind, but i support people's rights to stand by their beliefs. dont get me wrong, i am in no way saying that the satire should have been banned, i fully support free speech. however, it was provocative on purpose and the reaction is not the least bit shocking. it is all action-reaction.

no one would blame you for not buying a doom metal CD because it is against your beliefs. no one would blame you for not buying gay-porn cause it is not your cup of tea. similarly, no one can be blamed because they dont buy stuff made by people who degrade their beliefs.

 

[Justin24]

So are we supposed to live in a PC world then. People get offended all the time. Jesus has been degraded, Buddha has I am sure, but you dont see millions of people taking up arms over that do you.

 

[U2Man]

why does it seem so strange to you that people respond to humiliation of their religion through boycotts and protests? how can you possibly blame them for doing so? i am not really much of a muslim but this whole thing smacks of arrogance and self-righteousness. it is those people's right to protest and boycott as much as it is the satirists right to express himself.

this is about making choices. if you purposefully degrade a religion, a nation or whatever, it should be obvious that there will be consequences. these people have a right to boycott whatever they like, get over it already.

Wait a minute here. A privately owned newspaper posted pictures that offended muslims. According to Danish laws, the government has no right to interfere with their decision.

How does this justify a boycott of an entire country?

 

[all_i_want]

Wait a minute here. A privately owned newspaper posted pictures that offended muslims. According to Danish laws, the government has no right to interfere with their decision.

How does this justify a boycott of an entire country?

well, if i decide to boycott a country, it is my decision isnt it? why would anyone need to justify NOT buying from denmark? what, do you think people would just boycott for the heck of it if they were not truly offended? if i had a store and hung a poster on the wall that depicted, i dunno, jesus eating babies or something, wouldnt a christian find that offensive and perhaps not buy from my store? would he/she have to further justify this decision?

 

[verte76]

why does it seem so strange to you that people respond to humiliation of their religion through boycotts and protests? how can you possibly blame them for doing so? i am not really much of a muslim but this whole thing smacks of arrogance and self-righteousness. it is those people's right to protest and boycott as much as it is the satirists right to express himself.

this is about making choices. if you purposefully degrade a religion, a nation or whatever, it should be obvious that there will be consequences. these people have a right to boycott whatever they like, get over it already.

It's one thing to say "Islam is based on irrational premises" and another thing to draw a picture of Mohammed with a bomb on his head. One is based on philosophical beliefs, and the other is solely to insult Muslims. I'm not sure freedom of speech is really the issue here, even though some people are saying it is.

 

[Justin24]

http://www.youtube.com/w/Comedy-Central-Presents-Carlos-Mencia?v=8rVqYbDTkws&search=Carlos Mencia

All_I_Want. Watch this please

 

[verte76]

Wait a minute here. A privately owned newspaper posted pictures that offended muslims. According to Danish laws, the government has no right to interfere with their decision.

How does this justify a boycott of an entire country?

You're right, they shouldn't be boycotting an entire country. They could always send people to protest outside of the offices of the newspaper that published the cartoons.

 

[U2Man]

well, if i decide to boycott a country, it is my decision isnt it? why would anyone need to justify NOT buying from denmark? what, do you think people would just boycott for the heck of it if they were not truly offended? if i had a store and hung a poster on the wall that depicted, i dunno, jesus eating babies or something, wouldnt a christian find that offensive and perhaps not buy from my store? would he/she have to further justify this decision?

It is totally your decision.

But how do you think the reaction would be if it was the other way around - on a national level? If an Islamic newspaper had printed a picture like the one you just described, would the entire Christian world boycott that country?

As someone pointed out in this thread, jews are being humiliated and offended every single day in many Islamic newspapers. Why isn't that considered equally wrong in these countries?