The most famous cartoon ever (serius topic, no spam)

[Fljotsdale]

[QUOTE=fable]The Danish newspaper that published the caricatures of Mohammed also turned down two years before satirical pictures of Christianity--hence, the accusation of hypocrisy, quite rightly, to the same management. [/quote]

Oh, I don't disagree with you! The news media are all hypocritcal, imo, and so are governments. Don't trust any of 'em as far as you can throw 'em!

[QUOTE=fable]Are the Muslims who have protested these cartoons of Mohammed the same Muslims who read and enjoyed these newspapers in Jordan, etc? [/quote]
No idea. Some are, I should think, though undoubtedly not all. The point in my mind, though, was Muslims don't OBJECT to anything anti-any-nation/religion/creed/whatever, so long as it isn't insulting them/their religion/etc. That is why it is hypocritical to protest.
For what it's worth, I think that attitude is hypocritical in ANYONE, regardless of religion or whatever creed they own.

[QUOTE=fable]Because if they aren't, then there's no hypocrisy. And from at least one report I've heard, most of the violent protests, at least, are coming from illiterate, economically deprived Muslims in the MidEast, who wouldn't have probably seen their own newspapers, but do know how to watch a television or read an image posted on a wall, showing the Mohammed caricatures.[/QUOTE]

We've had some nasty Muslim marchers in London, UK, with banners calling the faithful to kill us.
We have also had some Muslims - FAR more - disowning those Muslims and marching PEACEFULLY to protest about the cartoons. That is civilized.
The others are just barbarians.

[Fljotsdale]

[QUOTE=fable]And just when you thought it couldn't get more nauseating, there's Roberto Calderoli, a minister in Silvio Berlusconi's government representing the Northern League. They're about as far right as the Danish Party that the Danish PM needed to keep satisfied--hence his unwillingness to see a group of high level Islamic representatives for 5 months--also anti-immigration, and have voiced some pretty remarkable sentiments in the past. Mr. Calderoli? Well, he decided to resort to the politician's standby, taking a popular stand, insulting people whom his constituency dlislikes and acting as though he was a maverick. A few days ago, he started wearing in public and at his government office a teeshirt displaying the cartoons of Mohammed that caused all this mess.[/quote]

Minister? Bloody rabble-rouser.

[QUOTE=fable]Fortunately, as this BBC piece, shows, he displays as much a gift for good timing as he has for good taste. Berlusconi couldn't protect this moron, not with elections looming in a matter of months, and his government lagging badly at the polls. So Calderoli is out. For now. If Berlusconi gets reelected, I suspect Calderoli will show up on the federal level, again. Until then, I suspect he'll remain important behind the scenes.

So who will stir up the pot of tension to boil a little more hatred on any side, next? [/QUOTE]

If Berlusconi gets re-elected, Italy deserves him.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Fljotsdale]Minister? Bloody rabble-rouser.[/QUOTE]

It gets better. Calderoli was apparently distributing the teeshirts as well. He also said that riots in Libya against the Italian embassy had nothing to do with him and his teeshirt. "The question is different. What's at stake is Western civilization," he told La Republica.

What a profound man. Or is it a profoundly disturbing and disturbed man? People like that should never be elected to any office. But of coiurse, they're the ones who are always pushing to get in.

[Fljotsdale]

[QUOTE=fable] It gets better. Calderoli was apparently distributing the teeshirts as well. He also said that riots in Libya against the Italian embassy had nothing to do with him and his teeshirt. "The question is different. What's at stake is Western civilization," he told La Republica.[/quote]

Maybe Western civilization IS at stake. He is one of the fools making it so. But ONLY one of 'em.

[QUOTE=fable]What a profound man. Or is it a profoundly disturbing and disturbed man? People like that should never be elected to any office. But of coiurse, they're the ones who are always pushing to get in.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Someonce once said - I don't remember who - that anyone who seeks power shouldn't have it.

So that leaves us all with a problem, doesn't it?

[Fiona]

Not really. I have often thought it should be done like jury selection.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=fable]The Danish newspaper that published the caricatures of Mohammed also turned down two years before satirical pictures of Christianity--hence, the accusation of hypocrisy, quite rightly, to the same management. <snip>[/QUOTE]

I know I said I'd stay out of this thread (but things seems to have calmed down generally), but this is just wrong.

Because the paper at one point in time in history turned down satirical pictures of christianity, doesn't mean it is hypocritical in posting satirical cartoons of anything else at a later point in time.
There is such a thing as context. The Muhammed cartoons where published as a part of an ongoing national debate in Denmark. The two "events" are only tied by the fact that it is the newspaper and that it is religous cartoons.
Also - the other cartoons in question where 2 years ago. Much changes in 2 years in all aspects of life, and I'd be surpries if only so in Denmark.


As I've said before, christianity and Jesus and the Christian God is often used as satire in the danish newspaper, media as general, "artists" and society as a whole. Heck we have a satirical political cartoon which mimics the premier minister where the christian god is often a part of.
Pulling out *one* example where the newspaper in question did not print something, as an example of hypocrasy is ... well - foolish... in my book because you fail to grasp the society as a whole and fail to grasp the context of the situation. Despite what some voices might think and say, these cartoons where not published to offend Islam. (Like thankfully a large number of muslims also seemingly knows) It is just easy to conclude, because it doesn't requier one to question, because it is eaiser to conclude "they are evil and hypocrites".

Lastly - I find it fun that nobody responded to the mentioning I did of the Egyptian paper which published the drawings shortly after Jyllands-Posten did, apparently without reprecussions (and boycuts).

Anyways - Xandax out

[fable]

As I've said before, christianity and Jesus and the Christian God is often used as satire in the danish newspaper, media as general, "artists" and society as a whole. Heck we have a satirical political cartoon which mimics the premier minister where the christian god is often a part of.

Yet the Danish newspaper which published the Mohammed cartoons turned down a group of cartoons satirizing Christ and Christianity because they were found two likely to offend their readership. So while what you write may hold true for some other media outlets in Denmark, it doesn't for this particular newspaper. They did specifically turn down such cartoons, for the reasons of possible offense.

Pulling out *one* example where the newspaper in question did not print something, as an example of hypocrasy is ... well - foolish... in my book because you fail to grasp the society as a whole and fail to grasp the context of the situation.

But come on, now, Xandax: it wasn't simply a case of not printing "something." It was not printing cartoons about Christ, and because they would offend the readership. On the other hand, given cartoons about Mohammed, they had no problem about offending *that* far smaller number of Islamic readers. The blatant contradiction of position between the two can't be any greater. I honestly don't see how this can be missed.

Lastly - I find it fun that nobody responded to the mentioning I did of the Egyptian paper which published the drawings shortly after Jyllands-Posten did, apparently without reprecussions (and boycuts).

I've been disgusted by some of the cartoons published in Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere long before the Danish ones came out, attacking Judaism and Christianity. Do you want to start a topic about that? I certainly think they're well worth discussing. And I'd be curious why spokespersons for Islam haven't commented upon their presence in newspapers, for such a long time.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=fable]Yet the Danish newspaper which published the Mohammed cartoons turned down a group of cartoons satirizing Christ and Christianity because they were found two likely to offend their readership. So while what you write may hold true for some other media outlets in Denmark, it doesn't for this particular newspaper. They did specifically turn down such cartoons, for the reasons of possible offense.
<snip>[/QUOTE]

As I said the two are different situations.
One is not a hyppocrite because doing one thing in one incident and something differnet in an unrelated incident 2-3 years later.

The Mohammed drawings were/are a part of the debate in Denmark about integration, how far you should "bend" to other "cultures" rules and other such related issues. The Christ pictures in metion where 2-3 years ealier, and not a part of this debate at all.

As I said - the mentioned pictures in regards of Christ only has the fact that they are cartoons and involve religon in common with the mohammed cartoons.
The context and purpose was completely different, and thus I find it a (very) far stretch to pull hypocrasy into the equation on that account, because the events are just not the same.

[quote="fable]<snip>
I've been disgusted by some of the cartoons published in Jordan"]

I'm not taking about the "ordinary" hate drawings in thoese medias, but the specific egyptian newspaper posting the excat same Mohammed pictures shortly after Jyllands-posten did, which did not cause boycut of egyptian merchandise from other islamic nations.

[fable]

The Mohammed drawings were/are a part of the debate in Denmark about integration, how far you should "bend" to other "cultures" rules and other such related issues. The Christ pictures in metion where 2-3 years ealier, and not a part of this debate at all.

Only if they are selectively excluded. Otherwise, they furnish a striking instance of an editorial policy that finds it a matter of "freedom of the press" to run cartoons mocking Islam, but too injurious to their financial health (by offending readers) to run cartoons mocking Christianity.

The context and purpose was completely different, and thus I find it a (very) far stretch to pull hypocrasy into the equation on that account, because the events are just not the same.

Here we have two parallel instances, same editor, same type of cartoon, the main difference being that one group targets Islam, while the other targets Christianity. The latter is likely to offend their readership. The former deserves to be run because of their freedom of speech. What could be plainer than that? If they hadn't trumpeted the freedom of speech part, the newspaper could simply claim they were acting mendaciously, catering to a readership that didn't give a hang about Islam. Instead, they struck a heroic pose, which is contradicted by their own actions and words regarding the Christian cartoons. Two years doesn't matter. Same editorial team. Same situation. Very different reaction, for reasons that were hardly idealistic.

I'm not taking about the "ordinary" hate drawings in thoese medias, but the specific egyptian newspaper posting the excat same Mohammed pictures shortly after Jyllands-posten did, which did not cause boycut of egyptian merchandise from other islamic nations.

I see. But I don't know the context. Were they printed as part of an editorial to show what the Danes or Europeans think of Islam? Because if that was the context, then they would only provoke a reaction against Denmark or Europe, not against Egypt.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=fable]Only if they are selectively excluded. Otherwise, they furnish a striking instance of an editorial policy that finds it a matter of "freedom of the press" to run cartoons mocking Islam, but too injurious to their financial health (by offending readers) to run cartoons mocking Christianity.
<snip>[/quote]
The "Freedom" wasn't an issue when the Mohammed cartoons where printed.
Not until the fact that Islamic governments and organisations demaned actions from the danish government and punishment towards the edtior/cartoonists, did this issue become a matter of freedom of press/free speech.
The Mohammed Cartoons weren't printed as a Free Speech reason, but because illustrators were affraid to illustrate a childrens book about Islam/Mohammed in Denmark.
Thus neither the Mohammed cartoons or the cartoons in question about Christ were a part of "free speech" to begin with.
These cartoons were printed as said within one context. The Christ cartoons as far as I can find and have read were not a part of any such context, and were simply unsolicited. I'd wager there is much that doesn't get printed simply because it is send to a newspaper withouth that making them hypocritical.
I'd like to pose the following spin on it - Would you consider the paper hypocritical if they had printed the Christ Cartoons for whatever context they were in 2-3 years ago, and not printed Mohammed cartoons today?
Even if the contexts where unrelated?

[quote="fable]
Here we have two parallel instances"]
There is nothing parallel about these instances other then the fact that they are religous movites and cartoons. And as said, the freedom of speech thing did not become an issue until demands where made that the danish government should interveene which it can't under danish law.
And by your reason, if the newspaper in one instance didn't show satirical cartoons of say our preminer minister 2-3 years ago - they are hypocritical if showing of satirical cartoons of any other figure of state now? Even when there is a long history of showing political satire of our own PM in all aspects of soicety?
Sorry, I don't buy that train of logic, which I infact find void of any form of logic.

[quote="fable]
I see. But I don't know the context. Were they printed as part of an editorial to show what the Danes or Europeans think of Islam? Because if that was the context"]

I'd think they were posted to show how the "danes treated Islam", but when viewing the response to other newspapers which reprinted the cartoons in other countries from these islamic countries, it goes to show that there have been absolutly no reaction towards the egyptian paper, which in my view is not only curious but also suspecios and most certainly hypocratic (here we indeed have similar incidents, but differnet response). Especially considering the eqyptian paper reprinted them doing the Rahmadan(sp?).
This was shortly after the danish paper printed them, but well before any "riots", protests and boycuts started.

[fable]

The "Freedom" wasn't an issue when the Mohammed cartoons where printed.
Not until the fact that Islamic governments and organisations demaned actions from the danish government and punishment towards the edtior/cartoonists, did this issue become a matter of freedom of press/free speech.

My understanding is that the cartoons were accompanied when first printed by an article on freedom of speech, and that Flemming Rose, the Jyllands-Posten edtor, contacted roughly 40 cartoonists to draw Mohammed as they each saw him. It was tied editorially to the difficulties Kare Bluitgen experienced in finding illustrators for a children's book on Mohammed--fear of attack being their cause for holding back. So, freedom of speech certainly seems like it was an issue at the time of publication. Though I have the feeling that we're seeing this issue from two very different perspectives.

These cartoons were printed as said within one context. The Christ cartoons as far as I can find and have read were not a part of any such context, and were simply unsolicited. I'd wager there is much that doesn't get printed simply because it is send to a newspaper withouth that making them hypocritical.

I can't speak to that with any authority. But according to the Guardian Unlimited, Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." So we have a situation where the Juyllands-Posten refused to print satirical cartoons about Christ because their readership might find it offensive, while no thought was given to the offensiveness of satirical cartoons about Mohammed. Again, were it not for the high horse that Rose sat upon concerning those Mohammed cartoons for so long, I would simply conclude he was making decisions based on money: standard procedure for commercial media, really. But when you factor in the Mohammed cartoons being placed to suppsedly demonstrate freedom of the press, the only conclusion I can come to is that there's a hefty dose of hypocrisy in Mr. Rose's outlook.

I'd like to pose the following spin on it - Would you consider the paper hypocritical if they had printed the Christ Cartoons for whatever context they were in 2-3 years ago, and not printed Mohammed cartoons today?
Even if the contexts where unrelated?

Stated motivation is the deciding factor, so if the Christ cartoons were printed but the Mohammed ones weren't, and Rose claimed he printed the former to demonstrate "freedom of the press," then yes, he would be hypocritical.

And by your reason, if the newspaper in one instance didn't show satirical cartoons of say our preminer minister 2-3 years ago - they are hypocritical if showing of satirical cartoons of any other figure of state now?

Not unless they deliberately refrained from running one series out of political bias, ran the others for the same reason, and trumpeted the banner of "free and equal access to the media." Then, yes, they would be hypocritical.

I'd think they were posted to show how the "danes treated Islam", but when viewing the response to other newspapers which reprinted the cartoons in other countries from these islamic countries, it goes to show that there have been absolutly no reaction towards the egyptian paper, which in my view is not only curious but also suspecios and most certainly hypocratic (here we indeed have similar incidents, but differnet response). Especially considering the eqyptian paper reprinted them doing the Rahmadan(sp?).
This was shortly after the danish paper printed them, but well before any "riots", protests and boycuts started.

I have no understanding of why the Egyptian newspaper printed those cartoons, but the fact that there were no demonstrations is extremely suspicous, don't you think? Especially since a Lebanese newspaper printed them, got its offices attacked, and the editor sacked by his publishers. That makes it sound like either the Egyptian newspaper used the cartoons as part of an editorial, or that the Egyptian government kept a tight rein on any possible demonstration. Either reason is certainly possible, since Mubarak's police run things with an iron fist, but I could easily be overlooking the real reason the newspaper got away with it, as well.

[Gauda]

[QUOTE=fable]Whether it should be taken seriously or not, political cartoons are an entirely different genre from comic strips, and with a separate history. They've managed to bring down powerful heads of state in the UK and US repeatedly over the last 200+ years. (Nixon even stated at one point that a particular cartoon was responsible for his losing the 1960 election to Kennedy. He may have been right; the election was a toss-up, and the sleeze issue hadn't been discussed much--but the cartoon brought it to national view.) They're most defintiely serious business.

That noted, was printing those cartoons attacking the revered and wise founder of a legiittimate religion a tasteful thing to do? Not in the slightest. It was, in my opinion, disgusting. Does it constitute a hate crime? I think so, yes. It is a misrepresentation of the religion, just as Islamic terorists are using a twisted version of their religion to justify what is really criminal revenge for international socio-economc crimes. It incites people to believe that Islam is a religion about hatred and intolerance. If Islam's Prophet was shown rejecting modern-day terrorists or being blown up by them, some people might have started thinking. As it is, that magazine and its political cartoonists unfairly slammed Islam and its believers, and widened the sense of anger and betrayal on both sides. Declaring that by doing so they were celebrating "freedom of speech" is ludicrous. These same newspapers are international conglomerates designed to sell to the larget number of readers they can get. If freedom of speech was the criteria, why don't they commission Islamic cartoonists to reply in their pages in kind?

But does that make the nation as a whole in which the publication occurred, or the government in power, responsible? No. And this point will not be generally understood in nations where the concept of secularism is completely foreign. Denmark's regime I think has really blundered on this one. Instead of bluffing matters out, they should have immediately apologized and started work on hate crime legislation, as proof of good faith. They should also have set an example of religious tolerance for their citizens. They have done none of this.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't possibly agree with you more. I live in Norway, which is one of the countries that initially posted the cartoons in the christian-conservative newspaper 'Magazinet'. (And thus also has got much attention by the islamic states).

I know for a fact that it was meant to be a provocative (contrary to what the editor claims). The cartoons had its own political agenda of putting muslims in a bad light, by provoking muslims knowingly in a way that would be hard to comprehend for the western world. Which was actually quite a cunning to thing to do in order to reach the end of more intolerance between religions (which is exactly what newspapers like the christian-conservative 'Magazinet' is trying to do).

On top of the whole thing these people argue about freedom of speech, which has nothing to do with this (in my opinion). Few Muslims have ever argued that Islam never should be criticized, they have just asked about respect for their religion, and their prophet Muhammad. These cartoons, where one of the them display Muhammad as a suicide-bomber, was never meant to be justifiable criticism against Islamic cultures, but were purely provocative. Thus the whole freedom of speech thing, is taken wholly out of context by my opinion.

Many of these peoples who argue that freedom of speech is absolute, and total, and a "duty", rather than a right, speaks with forked tongues. As most of them seem to criticize the peaceful demonstrations, the burning of Norwegian and Danish flags. And as such, if you follow the concept of absolute freedom of speech, these people are using the exact same right as the publishers of the Muhammad-cartoons. And that is why I am rather astonished by the enormous rise of hostility against Islam in Norway (which is already quite high (the crhistian-conservatives/extremists has done their work well)).

[fable]

[QUOTE=Gauda]I know for a fact that it was meant to be a provocative (contrary to what the editor claims). The cartoons had its own political agenda of putting muslims in a bad light, by provoking muslims knowingly in a way that would be hard to comprehend for the western world.[/quote]

Not to argue with your post (which, after all, demonstrates the breadth of culture, good taste, and intellectual fortitude of agreeing with me ), but how do you know this "for a fact?" I mean, do you have some factual content you can point to, as evidence of this? We're all one or two levels removed from events, doing our best to understand what we don't firmly know.

Hey, I just got a promotion from the Platonist League for my last remarks.

[Xandax]

@fable: I think we'll simply be in disagreement on the former matter for a multitude of reasons, but for me most of all that these events are unrelated other then the fact that they are religous and cartoons and because of the the debates ongoing in Denmark of why non-belivers should be supmissive/subject towards (any) religious taboos.


[QUOTE=fable]<snip>
I have no understanding of why the Egyptian newspaper printed those cartoons, but the fact that there were no demonstrations is extremely suspicous, don't you think? Especially since a Lebanese newspaper printed them, got its offices attacked, and the editor sacked by his publishers. That makes it sound like either the Egyptian newspaper used the cartoons as part of an editorial, or that the Egyptian government kept a tight rein on any possible demonstration. Either reason is certainly possible, since Mubarak's police run things with an iron fist, but I could easily be overlooking the real reason the newspaper got away with it, as well.[/QUOTE]

As I mentioned at an earlier time, and as I'm in no way alone in thinking, it is remarkble indeed. I have no doubt that much of the turmoil have been used in internal policies in the affected areas, which also is shown by the lack of action towards the eqyptian prints and even "public" protest until much later.

[Ripe]

...I can't speak to that with any authority. But according to the Guardian Unlimited, Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." So we have a situation where the Juyllands-Posten refused to print satirical cartoons about Christ because their readership might find it offensive, while no thought was given to the offensiveness of satirical cartoons about Mohammed. Again, were it not for the high horse that Rose sat upon concerning those Mohammed cartoons for so long, I would simply conclude he was making decisions based on money: standard procedure for commercial media, really. But when you factor in the Mohammed cartoons being placed to suppsedly demonstrate freedom of the press, the only conclusion I can come to is that there's a hefty dose of hypocrisy in Mr. Rose's outlook.

What I'm wondering is did mister Zieler presented that e-mail to the press or did he simply said that he received it? Because if he didn't present that e-mail all we had is disgruntled author who got his work rejected (and I don't know what he was thinking in the first place, coming in from the street and offering his unsolicited material for publication, off course it wouldn't be published) and who might wish to get his revenge against paper and publisher who rejected him. And if he is telling the truth than the editor of JP is, simply put complete idiot because all he had to do is send e-mail saying: "I'm sorry but we do not publish unsolicited material." and there would be no argument about hypocrisy.

I have no understanding of why the Egyptian newspaper printed those cartoons, but the fact that there were no demonstrations is extremely suspicous, don't you think? Especially since a Lebanese newspaper printed them, got its offices attacked, and the editor sacked by his publishers. That makes it sound like either the Egyptian newspaper used the cartoons as part of an editorial, or that the Egyptian government kept a tight rein on any possible demonstration. Either reason is certainly possible, since Mubarak's police run things with an iron fist, but I could easily be overlooking the real reason the newspaper got away with it, as well.

Oh, that is very easy to explain if you consider global geo-political situation on Middle-East. In February 2005, former PM Hariri was killed in car-bomb, which lead to large scale demonstrations with one goal - to remove pro-Syrian goverment from power and withdrawal of occupation army (Syrian army) from Lebanon. As we all know, the demonstrations succeded and in April election anti-Syrian parties claimed major victory (but not necesary two-third majority to remove pro-Syrian President) which lead to withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon shortly after election. So if there is truth behind claims that Syria and Iran are behind the demonstrations there is very simple reason for large scale demonstration in Lebanon - destabilization of anti-Syrian coalition and government before upcoming Presidential elections (to be held in 2007) and parliamentary by-election that will be held in March 2006 (which may brake anti-Syrian majority in Parliament) so that they might regain their control over Lebanon.

[Ripe]

...On top of the whole thing these people argue about freedom of speech, which has nothing to do with this (in my opinion). Few Muslims have ever argued that Islam never should be criticized, they have just asked about respect for their religion, and their prophet Muhammad. These cartoons, where one of the them display Muhammad as a suicide-bomber, was never meant to be justifiable criticism against Islamic cultures, but were purely provocative. Thus the whole freedom of speech thing, is taken wholly out of context by my opinion.

Actually there are two separate freedom of speach issues presented in this whole mess:
1. The right of those 12 individual authors to express their oppinion and their wiev of Islam, Mohamed and Muslims (and who is to blame if that view is closely connected with terrorism?)
2. The right of Juyllands-Posten to publish those cartoons (and let me ask a question: Would this all be different if those cartoons were exibited in a galery [because they are work of art] instead in a newspaper?)

Many of these peoples who argue that freedom of speech is absolute, and total, and a "duty", rather than a right, speaks with forked tongues. As most of them seem to criticize the peaceful demonstrations, the burning of Norwegian and Danish flags. And as such, if you follow the concept of absolute freedom of speech, these people are using the exact same right as the publishers of the Muhammad-cartoons. And that is why I am rather astonished by the enormous rise of hostility against Islam in Norway (which is already quite high (the crhistian-conservatives/extremists has done their work well)).

Well, the national flag mean to individual Norweigan or Dane about the same thing as Mohamed mean to Muslims. The Muslims claim that the West do not respect their culture and their symbols. I don't think that burning someone's national flag is showing respect for that culture. But it is exercising your right to speak and express oppinion.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Ripe]What I'm wondering is did mister Zieler presented that e-mail to the press or did he simply said that he received it? Because if he didn't present that e-mail all we had is disgruntled author who got his work rejected (and I don't know what he was thinking in the first place, coming in from the street and offering his unsolicited material for publication, off course it wouldn't be published) and who might wish to get his revenge against paper and publisher who rejected him. And if he is telling the truth than the editor of JP is, simply put complete idiot because all he had to do is send e-mail saying: "I'm sorry but we do not publish unsolicited material." and there would be no argument about hypocrisy.[/quote]

I think you''re missing the Guardian Unlimited quote: "Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." In other words, Kaiser didn't reply that he refused outside submissions (and there's no major commercial newspaper that will; plenty of news comes in that way). He replied that he wouldn't use the pictures because they would provoke an outcry. As for Zieler, the Jyllands-Posten has not denied sending him the email--which you can certainly bet they would have, if it hadn't been true. And Zieler is an internationally acclaimed cartoonist, some of whose work can be seen here.

I'm afraid that, with respect, I couldn't follow your latter paragraph, since Xandax and I were primarly discussing the Egyptian reaction to the cartoons. I knew why the Lebanese newspaper got the results they did with the cartoons, but we weren't speculating on that.

[Fljotsdale]

[QUOTE=Xandax] I know I said I'd stay out of this thread (but things seems to have calmed down generally), but this is just wrong.

Because the paper at one point in time in history turned down satirical pictures of christianity, doesn't mean it is hypocritical in posting satirical cartoons of anything else at a later point in time.[/quote]

But, unless the ownership or editorial team has completely changed, it IS hypocrisy. You can't say something is bad in one breath and perfectly justified in the next.

[QUOTE=Xandax]There is such a thing as context. The Muhammed cartoons where published as a part of an ongoing national debate in Denmark. The two "events" are only tied by the fact that it is the newspaper and that it is religous cartoons. [/quote]

Context. Yes. In this case we had a situation in which, almost worldwide, mindless, fanatical elements in Muslim society were/are seeking reasons, however weak or spurious, or even with real justification, to attack non-Muslims (or even Muslims who are not fanatical enough for their liking - or who happen to belong to a different sect of the faith). To publish such cartoons in such a such a situation, and when everyone knows it will be red rag to a bull, is the height of folly.
They have a RIGHT to publish what they like, whoever doesn't like it - but it shows a great deal of idiocy to do so in the present situation.

You might say that it shows we take freedom os speech seriously, and that no-one had a right to dictate to us what we can and can't say - and I agree with that. But sometimes diplomacy is the better part of valour. Says she, who is not at all diplomatic, LOL!:laugh:

[QUOTE=Xandax]Also - the other cartoons in question where 2 years ago. Much changes in 2 years in all aspects of life, and I'd be surpries if only so in Denmark.[/quote]

Two years ago is recent. I still think Jews are hypocritical about genocide, and that was what...how many thousands of years ago? Time of Moses and Joshua.

[QUOTE=Xandax]As I've said before, christianity and Jesus and the Christian God is often used as satire in the danish newspaper, media as general, "artists" and society as a whole. Heck we have a satirical political cartoon which mimics the premier minister where the christian god is often a part of. [/quote]

Yes, but we are satirising our OWN beliefs, hm? Makes a difference!

[QUOTE=Xandax]Pulling out *one* example where the newspaper in question did not print something, as an example of hypocrasy is ... well - foolish... in my book because you fail to grasp the society as a whole and fail to grasp the context of the situation. Despite what some voices might think and say, these cartoons where not published to offend Islam. (Like thankfully a large number of muslims also seemingly knows) It is just easy to conclude, because it doesn't requier one to question, because it is eaiser to conclude "they are evil and hypocrites".[/quote]

No, no! Hypocrisy isn't evil! It's the oil governments all run on.

[QUOTE=Xandax]Lastly - I find it fun that nobody responded to the mentioning I did of the Egyptian paper which published the drawings shortly after Jyllands-Posten did, apparently without reprecussions (and boycuts).

Anyways - Xandax out [/QUOTE]

Didn't see that post, sorry.

[Ripe]

I think you''re missing the Guardian Unlimited quote: "Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." In other words, Kaiser didn't reply that he refused outside submissions (and there's no major commercial newspaper that will; plenty of news comes in that way). He replied that he wouldn't use the pictures because they would provoke an outcry. As for Zieler, the Jyllands-Posten has not denied sending him the email--which you can certainly bet they would have, if it hadn't been true. And Zieler is an internationally acclaimed cartoonist, some of whose work can be seen here.

No, I get your point. But what I ask is did he presented that e-mail to the press as evidance? Because otherwise all we had is author's word against the editor of the paper.

And I know that he is internationally acclaimed cartoonist but my question still stand: What was he thinking? Very few newspapers publish unsolicitated material so he should expected rejection. And like I said, editor of JP is complete idiot if he send those e-mail.

I'm afraid that, with respect, I couldn't follow your latter paragraph, since Xandax and I were primarly discussing the Egyptian reaction to the cartoons. I knew why the Lebanese newspaper got the results they did with the cartoons, but we weren't speculating on that.

Quite simply, nobody has interest in destabilizing Egyptian government. Which is not true in the case of Lebanon.

[fable]

No, I get your point. But what I ask is did he presented that e-mail to the press as evidance? Because otherwise all we had is author's word against the editor of the paper.

We don't have his word against the newpaper, since the newspaper hasn't denied what he said. An email is easily fabricated, but the newspaper hasn't contradicted Zieler. I'd have to conclude from that, that they agree with his statements.

And I know that he is internationally acclaimed cartoonist but my question still stand: What was he thinking? Very few newspapers publish unsolicitated material so he should expected rejection. And like I said, editor of JP is complete idiot if he send those e-mail.

Oh, big newspapers will definitely publish unsolicited manuscripts from well-known figures. It's simply called freelancing. I've done it, both successfully and unsuccessfully, and I've hardly got an intenational reputation. If it gets rejected, you sent your pieces somewhere else. If it gets accepted, you've made a new market for yourself. It helps, as in Zieler's case, to have an already established name, but really, almost anybody can do this. The important thing is to make sure you follow the newspaper's editorial submissions guidelines, and I've yet to encounter a major newspaper that didn't have these.