[QUOTE=Xandax]Oh I guess you'd be so very supriesed how much and often for instance the Christian God and the "danish" interpretation of religon is depicted in so many ways. You obviously don't know it for sure, but are just trying to state it as if you do.
You might smell hypocrisy but it seems to be comming from some other place.[/QUOTE]
You're right. I don't know how Danes depict Christianity normally in their newspapers, though as they are a Christian nation, I assumed they haven't show Jesus as a warmonger. And I'm not an Israeli, so I really don't know for sure that Israeli newspapers don't in fact depict Moses drowing Arabs in the Red Sea. Maybe they do, in both cases.
You know the Danish scene far better than I. Has Christ been depicted in a grossly insulting manner as a mass murderer, in political comics in important Danish newspapers? That's still not quite an exact analogy, since Islamic culture is founded on their Prophet after a fashion that European culture hasn't been based on Christianity since--perhaps the late Middle Ages. But it will have to do.
The most famous cartoon ever (serius topic, no spam)
I sincerely empathize with the Muslim community at the moment; atleast the more average ones. Its been a disgraceful case of affairs for both parties; newspapers printing highly inflammatory materal with the very purpose of inflaming the Muslim community, and the horrid threats from extremist Muslims.
Many comments here draw upon political cartoons, freedom of speech etc. What is important here however, is that satirical/offensive political cartoons also possess an ulterior message, and serve a purpose to broadcast an accessible political message. From what I understand, these cartoons have been drawn and printed purely to agitate the Muslim community because 'they can'. Perhaps it is an exercise in 'freedom of speech' - but nevertheless at the expense of a minority group, already heavily badgered by social stigmas who obviously find it difficult to respond effectively. Hence, they resort to very graphic threats and actions in response.
These cartoons are double edges swords and, sadly, clever. I think I am correct in saying that Muhammed is not meant to be portrayed in anyway (atleast his face). Frankly I find these cartoons gross, mainly due to the malicious purpose behind them. Freedom of speech, like all 'freedoms', has its limits which these cartoons/caricatures have unjustifiably crossed.
Many comments here draw upon political cartoons, freedom of speech etc. What is important here however, is that satirical/offensive political cartoons also possess an ulterior message, and serve a purpose to broadcast an accessible political message. From what I understand, these cartoons have been drawn and printed purely to agitate the Muslim community because 'they can'. Perhaps it is an exercise in 'freedom of speech' - but nevertheless at the expense of a minority group, already heavily badgered by social stigmas who obviously find it difficult to respond effectively. Hence, they resort to very graphic threats and actions in response.
These cartoons are double edges swords and, sadly, clever. I think I am correct in saying that Muhammed is not meant to be portrayed in anyway (atleast his face). Frankly I find these cartoons gross, mainly due to the malicious purpose behind them. Freedom of speech, like all 'freedoms', has its limits which these cartoons/caricatures have unjustifiably crossed.
"I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!"
It's just a cartoon for <illegal word>'s sake!
It's so obviously a wrong thing, that there should not be a discussion.
Perhaps this is a positive learning moment for the press and the global community, because it forces people to think about respect vs. opinion and perhaps makes the press think twice about publishing any gradients of hate invoking material.
That's all I have to say about this ridiculous situation.
It's so obviously a wrong thing, that there should not be a discussion.
Perhaps this is a positive learning moment for the press and the global community, because it forces people to think about respect vs. opinion and perhaps makes the press think twice about publishing any gradients of hate invoking material.
That's all I have to say about this ridiculous situation.
[size=-1]An optimist is a badly informed pessimist.[/size]
Just because its a cartoon to you doesn't make it right. Whether it is acceptable or not is down to the group it belittles/whose beliefs it exploits for the amusement of others. They, more than anyone, can deem whether it is acceptable or not - and the consensus seems to be that they don't really appreciate the artist's (lack of) sense of humour, and yet newspapers then reprint these cartoons to raise the banner of freedom of speech and effectively spit in the face of the Muslim community.
I personally don't think that's right, but that's just me.
I personally don't think that's right, but that's just me.
"I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!"
[QUOTE=fable]You're right. I don't know how Danes depict Christianity normally in their newspapers, though as they are a Christian nation, I assumed they haven't show Jesus as a warmonger. And I'm not an Israeli, so I really don't know for sure that Israeli newspapers don't in fact depict Moses drowing Arabs in the Red Sea. Maybe they do, in both cases.
You know the Danish scene far better than I. Has Christ been depicted in a grossly insulting manner as a mass murderer, in political comics in important Danish newspapers? That's still not quite an exact analogy, since Islamic culture is founded on their Prophet after a fashion that European culture hasn't been based on Christianity since--perhaps the late Middle Ages. But it will have to do.[/QUOTE]
Christ has not been depicted as a massmurdere that I know off but it is quite possible, but then again I don't read all newspapers in Denmark and I rarely follow the medias when religous people complain - but the Mohammed drawings did not depict him as a massmurder either.
Also such depictions comes in many forms other then the newspapers in Denmark.
An "artist" painted a mural of Jesus with an erect member and has also made a highly controversial movie about the return of Jesus. Just amongst other things.
Now people were upset and outcry occured, but not deathtreats, threats of terrorisme or otherwise such actions were issued. Neither within the country or from other christian countries. We didn't have christian priests traveling around countries showing fake pictures or groups inciting people to kill danes.
That is just one example. Much satire in Denmark uses God(s) and Jesus as well as characters and so on.....
There exists a long history in detacthment between the public realm and religon in Denmark. Religion is deemed personal, and not public, and that is why not many in this country can understand the militaristic reactions.
The government can do nothing - well they can try to alter the laws, but they wouldn't get away with it - this is a privately owned newspaper who did something questionable but still within the law. Demanding the premier minister to appologice just shows lack of understanding of the situation.
[quote="Denethorn] I sincerely empathize with the Muslim community at the moment; atleast the more average ones. Its been a disgraceful case of affairs for both parties; newspapers printing highly inflammatory materal with the very purpose of inflaming the Muslim community"]
It is clear you have no idea about why the drawings where created and shown, by that statement alone.
You know the Danish scene far better than I. Has Christ been depicted in a grossly insulting manner as a mass murderer, in political comics in important Danish newspapers? That's still not quite an exact analogy, since Islamic culture is founded on their Prophet after a fashion that European culture hasn't been based on Christianity since--perhaps the late Middle Ages. But it will have to do.[/QUOTE]
Christ has not been depicted as a massmurdere that I know off but it is quite possible, but then again I don't read all newspapers in Denmark and I rarely follow the medias when religous people complain - but the Mohammed drawings did not depict him as a massmurder either.
Also such depictions comes in many forms other then the newspapers in Denmark.
An "artist" painted a mural of Jesus with an erect member and has also made a highly controversial movie about the return of Jesus. Just amongst other things.
Now people were upset and outcry occured, but not deathtreats, threats of terrorisme or otherwise such actions were issued. Neither within the country or from other christian countries. We didn't have christian priests traveling around countries showing fake pictures or groups inciting people to kill danes.
That is just one example. Much satire in Denmark uses God(s) and Jesus as well as characters and so on.....
There exists a long history in detacthment between the public realm and religon in Denmark. Religion is deemed personal, and not public, and that is why not many in this country can understand the militaristic reactions.
The government can do nothing - well they can try to alter the laws, but they wouldn't get away with it - this is a privately owned newspaper who did something questionable but still within the law. Demanding the premier minister to appologice just shows lack of understanding of the situation.
[quote="Denethorn] I sincerely empathize with the Muslim community at the moment; atleast the more average ones. Its been a disgraceful case of affairs for both parties; newspapers printing highly inflammatory materal with the very purpose of inflaming the Muslim community"]
It is clear you have no idea about why the drawings where created and shown, by that statement alone.
Insert signature here.
I believe this comes down to a matter of cultures and societies embarking into a hypocritical zone, in which they are allowed to make fun/satire/embellish certain aspects of their faith, but they do not want others cultures to do so.
For instance, I will use the analogy of a bully in a school yard. Let us say this bully is great at dishing out the insults, teasing and general bully like behaviour. Now, let us say someone else begins bully the bully, but the original bully is not so good at handling it.
I believe this is a very similar instance. Christ is commonly depicted in Western culture, satirized even, as being far mor violent then the intentions of the religion. For instance, look at prime time cartoon shows like The Simpsons and The Family Guy. In both those, Christ has been on occasion pictured to have an in your face attitude, and completely intolerant, with one such image showing Jesus and Moses killing Romans with machine guns. Additionally, look at independant films like Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, or some of Joss Whedon's earlier shows of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Angel, in which the Church has been depicted as ruthless and violent, with a pleasant exterior.
Western culture commonly satirizes and criticizes western religion (commonly Christianity), and it is often accepted with the shrug of a shoulder.
The point I am getting at, though, is not that because Western culture and religion commonly makes fun of itself, but that there exists an idea that it is alright to make fun of itself. It is not alright for someone else to make fun of them. In this particular case, inflammatory cartoons of Muhommad were drawn, and shown publically. I can understand where there is displeasure in seeing such images, because it is an indirect insult and jibe at someone else's faith, which are often from sources who lack a proper understanding of such a faith.
Additionally, it put the Islamic prophet into a human body. That is a big no-no for the religion. Essentially creating two issues with one cartoon.
As for Freedom of Speech, well, Xandax is right. There is nothing the government can really do, because part of freedom of speech is that the government cannot (ideally) censor media. This is the sort of issue that will be resolved through public opinion, and hopefully through talks.
For instance, I will use the analogy of a bully in a school yard. Let us say this bully is great at dishing out the insults, teasing and general bully like behaviour. Now, let us say someone else begins bully the bully, but the original bully is not so good at handling it.
I believe this is a very similar instance. Christ is commonly depicted in Western culture, satirized even, as being far mor violent then the intentions of the religion. For instance, look at prime time cartoon shows like The Simpsons and The Family Guy. In both those, Christ has been on occasion pictured to have an in your face attitude, and completely intolerant, with one such image showing Jesus and Moses killing Romans with machine guns. Additionally, look at independant films like Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, or some of Joss Whedon's earlier shows of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Angel, in which the Church has been depicted as ruthless and violent, with a pleasant exterior.
Western culture commonly satirizes and criticizes western religion (commonly Christianity), and it is often accepted with the shrug of a shoulder.
The point I am getting at, though, is not that because Western culture and religion commonly makes fun of itself, but that there exists an idea that it is alright to make fun of itself. It is not alright for someone else to make fun of them. In this particular case, inflammatory cartoons of Muhommad were drawn, and shown publically. I can understand where there is displeasure in seeing such images, because it is an indirect insult and jibe at someone else's faith, which are often from sources who lack a proper understanding of such a faith.
Additionally, it put the Islamic prophet into a human body. That is a big no-no for the religion. Essentially creating two issues with one cartoon.
As for Freedom of Speech, well, Xandax is right. There is nothing the government can really do, because part of freedom of speech is that the government cannot (ideally) censor media. This is the sort of issue that will be resolved through public opinion, and hopefully through talks.
The worst thing about this for me, is that I'm very certain, based on popular opinion, reports in the media and people which I discuss this with, that if the Muslim world had acted differently - by protesting while keeping it civil and directing much of the "anger" towards the newspaper, then they would have gotten very much support from popular opinion, and the newspaper would have felt it on sales and support.
Most seem to think it was bad that the cartoons were published, however the reaction in return (murderthreats, terrorthreats, burnings of flags, demanding appologies from government/royality, boycuts etc) towards the country has had the oppersite effect and made the country rally behind the drawings, and also increased support is comming into the equation, now latest from OSCE.
The latest polls even show a greater divide between what people would vote given an election now. The most rightish mainstream party would not supprisingly gain more votes now, because many in "mainstream" Denmark see our vaules as under attack now and our way of live threatened by the the wanting to enforce Islamic "law" upon other countries.
Most seem to think it was bad that the cartoons were published, however the reaction in return (murderthreats, terrorthreats, burnings of flags, demanding appologies from government/royality, boycuts etc) towards the country has had the oppersite effect and made the country rally behind the drawings, and also increased support is comming into the equation, now latest from OSCE.
The latest polls even show a greater divide between what people would vote given an election now. The most rightish mainstream party would not supprisingly gain more votes now, because many in "mainstream" Denmark see our vaules as under attack now and our way of live threatened by the the wanting to enforce Islamic "law" upon other countries.
Insert signature here.
This is going to be my only set of comments on the matter. I am frankly disgusted with the actions of Europe on the matter and now firmly believe in a clash of civilizations.
1. The issue:
Firstly everybody has the matter wrong. Every one. The reason people are offended is because you drew a picture of the Holy Prophet. That is against our cultue and tradition. It is not acceptible to draw a picture of Allah, the Holy Prophet.
2. Tolerance:
It is intolerant to violate the views of another culture and religion. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you can ridicule and violate the matter.
3. Religion:
This is a sacred thing. Just because europe as a society, europeans as a people have no respect for religion as an institution does not give you the right to ridicule it or insult it. That is intolerant and facist.
4. Hypocrisy
The comment not by xandax but by numerous others around the world with regard to flag burning and the christan cross. It is expected that you insult our religion yet expect us to hold your cross sacred? What are you stupid? Respect is earned. It is not doled out. If you can insult the islamic faith with your comments of freedom of speech - we can just as easily burn the flag in an expression of freedom of speech. Or does that freedom of speech change because europe is on the recieving end this time?
5. The reality on the ground:
These were first posted when? In sept. The danish govt refused to do anything about it. The matter died down. The Muslim ambassador's sought an audience with the danish govt. The danish govt denied the ambassadors that right.
The Govt of Saudi took action against Denmark by banning all danish products.
One danish company i 3 weeks lost 500 million dollars and had to fire 12 plus employees.
All of a sudden the danish govt is ready to talk to the Muslim Ambassadors.
The press in norway reprinted it.
More protests. Not from sept to Jan the muslim countries used diplomatic means to talk to the danish govt. The danish govt refused to discuss and mee with the Muslim ambassadors.
After the Norway press reprinted the cartoons the situation flared up again.
Muslim countries protest, Libya closes down their embasy.
Will finish this later.
1. The issue:
Firstly everybody has the matter wrong. Every one. The reason people are offended is because you drew a picture of the Holy Prophet. That is against our cultue and tradition. It is not acceptible to draw a picture of Allah, the Holy Prophet.
2. Tolerance:
It is intolerant to violate the views of another culture and religion. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you can ridicule and violate the matter.
3. Religion:
This is a sacred thing. Just because europe as a society, europeans as a people have no respect for religion as an institution does not give you the right to ridicule it or insult it. That is intolerant and facist.
4. Hypocrisy
The comment not by xandax but by numerous others around the world with regard to flag burning and the christan cross. It is expected that you insult our religion yet expect us to hold your cross sacred? What are you stupid? Respect is earned. It is not doled out. If you can insult the islamic faith with your comments of freedom of speech - we can just as easily burn the flag in an expression of freedom of speech. Or does that freedom of speech change because europe is on the recieving end this time?
5. The reality on the ground:
These were first posted when? In sept. The danish govt refused to do anything about it. The matter died down. The Muslim ambassador's sought an audience with the danish govt. The danish govt denied the ambassadors that right.
The Govt of Saudi took action against Denmark by banning all danish products.
One danish company i 3 weeks lost 500 million dollars and had to fire 12 plus employees.
All of a sudden the danish govt is ready to talk to the Muslim Ambassadors.
The press in norway reprinted it.
More protests. Not from sept to Jan the muslim countries used diplomatic means to talk to the danish govt. The danish govt refused to discuss and mee with the Muslim ambassadors.
After the Norway press reprinted the cartoons the situation flared up again.
Muslim countries protest, Libya closes down their embasy.
Will finish this later.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Xandax]An "artist" painted a mural of Jesus with an erect member and has also made a highly controversial movie about the return of Jesus. Just amongst other things. Now people were upset and outcry occured, but not deathtreats, threats of terrorisme or otherwise such actions were issued. Neither within the country or from other christian countries. We didn't have christian priests traveling around countries showing fake pictures or groups inciting people to kill danes.[/quote]
But who is saying that it is good to offer death threats based on such things? Nobody in this forum. The reaction is over-the-top to you, but can you understand what it is a reaction against, and why the reaction has occurred? How the lack of any response over continued Islamic representations to the Danish government and newspaper has built, and built? And how a "southern" culture, with its emotional vibrancy, has citizens who have expressed themselves violently? The newspaper is not typical of all Danes? Where does it say that the Arabs who have attacked foreign embassies are typical of Arabs?
MidEastern culture is also, as I mentioned above, a sacred culture in a sense that vanished overall in the West back in the late Middle Ages. There are pockets of sacred culture in the West, but as these are usually associated with anti-scientific, bigotted, hypocritical Luddites like Pat Robertson, everybody here shuns the idea of "sacred culture." So that the basic lack of understanding between secular and sacred cultures is further compounded by each perceiving best (thanks to the media) the worst examples of the other.
That is just one example. Much satire in Denmark uses God(s) and Jesus as well as characters and so on.....
There exists a long history in detacthment between the public realm and religon in Denmark. Religion is deemed personal, and not public, and that is why not many in this country can understand the militaristic reactions.
In the US, perhaps 15, 20 years ago (I haven't checked the exact date), a film was released based on Kazantzakis' wonderful novel-length poem, The Last Temptation of Christ. It portrayed Jesus as having what amounts to a lengthy hallucination as he awaited death, in which he leaves the cross, gathers power, raises an army, marries and has children. Instead of understanding what this all meant, Catholics in the US rose up en masse and picketed theaters where it was being shown, forcibly keeping others out, attacking the filmmaker and anybody else involved in the film. It quickly closed. It was from this and many, many similar instances that have occurred in the US and Western/Central Europe that I made my remarks about hypocrisy. Because you'll find plenty of satire upon the spiritual beliefs and cultures of others, but the large circulation mass dailies and weeklies will never turn that satirical weapon of political cartooning upon their own readers and their beliefs.
If Denmark's newspapers do this, then the more power to them. But I would be curious how they developed a culture so willing to do so, so open to criticism about itself and its own Christian religion. My impression was that to the contrary, many Danes is now blaming immigrants for so much that they find wrong, and are voting in extremely conservative parties to run things. Again, this is just my impression, based on my foreigner's observations of the Red-Green coalition, and the remarkable strength of the far-right Danish Peoples Party. Am I wrong?
That said, a number of the cultures that are now re-running the cartoons have no such tradition. The French, for example, are not noted for their ability to laugh at their own beliefs, traditions, patriotism, and morality. Yet one of their larger newspapers is running these political cartoons, and in a nation where anti-Islamic and anti-Arabic feeling is now very high. If that label of hypocrisy doesn't stick to Denmark (and I can't speak to this, one way or the other), then it certainly does to France, and to a few other European countries that proclaim the right of free speech as long as its barbs are pointed elsewhere.
The government can do nothing - well they can try to alter the laws, but they wouldn't get away with it - this is a privately owned newspaper who did something questionable but still within the law. Demanding the premier minister to appologice just shows lack of understanding of the situation.
But at the same time, would it have been too much for your government to start work on anti-hate legislation? And if it was okay to ignore this matter, as the Danish government did for a long time, would you agree that it makes perfect sense for followers of Islam to boycott Danish goods, in response? Can you understand the perceived snub, and the anger they felt as a result?
But who is saying that it is good to offer death threats based on such things? Nobody in this forum. The reaction is over-the-top to you, but can you understand what it is a reaction against, and why the reaction has occurred? How the lack of any response over continued Islamic representations to the Danish government and newspaper has built, and built? And how a "southern" culture, with its emotional vibrancy, has citizens who have expressed themselves violently? The newspaper is not typical of all Danes? Where does it say that the Arabs who have attacked foreign embassies are typical of Arabs?
MidEastern culture is also, as I mentioned above, a sacred culture in a sense that vanished overall in the West back in the late Middle Ages. There are pockets of sacred culture in the West, but as these are usually associated with anti-scientific, bigotted, hypocritical Luddites like Pat Robertson, everybody here shuns the idea of "sacred culture." So that the basic lack of understanding between secular and sacred cultures is further compounded by each perceiving best (thanks to the media) the worst examples of the other.
That is just one example. Much satire in Denmark uses God(s) and Jesus as well as characters and so on.....
There exists a long history in detacthment between the public realm and religon in Denmark. Religion is deemed personal, and not public, and that is why not many in this country can understand the militaristic reactions.
In the US, perhaps 15, 20 years ago (I haven't checked the exact date), a film was released based on Kazantzakis' wonderful novel-length poem, The Last Temptation of Christ. It portrayed Jesus as having what amounts to a lengthy hallucination as he awaited death, in which he leaves the cross, gathers power, raises an army, marries and has children. Instead of understanding what this all meant, Catholics in the US rose up en masse and picketed theaters where it was being shown, forcibly keeping others out, attacking the filmmaker and anybody else involved in the film. It quickly closed. It was from this and many, many similar instances that have occurred in the US and Western/Central Europe that I made my remarks about hypocrisy. Because you'll find plenty of satire upon the spiritual beliefs and cultures of others, but the large circulation mass dailies and weeklies will never turn that satirical weapon of political cartooning upon their own readers and their beliefs.
If Denmark's newspapers do this, then the more power to them. But I would be curious how they developed a culture so willing to do so, so open to criticism about itself and its own Christian religion. My impression was that to the contrary, many Danes is now blaming immigrants for so much that they find wrong, and are voting in extremely conservative parties to run things. Again, this is just my impression, based on my foreigner's observations of the Red-Green coalition, and the remarkable strength of the far-right Danish Peoples Party. Am I wrong?
That said, a number of the cultures that are now re-running the cartoons have no such tradition. The French, for example, are not noted for their ability to laugh at their own beliefs, traditions, patriotism, and morality. Yet one of their larger newspapers is running these political cartoons, and in a nation where anti-Islamic and anti-Arabic feeling is now very high. If that label of hypocrisy doesn't stick to Denmark (and I can't speak to this, one way or the other), then it certainly does to France, and to a few other European countries that proclaim the right of free speech as long as its barbs are pointed elsewhere.
The government can do nothing - well they can try to alter the laws, but they wouldn't get away with it - this is a privately owned newspaper who did something questionable but still within the law. Demanding the premier minister to appologice just shows lack of understanding of the situation.
But at the same time, would it have been too much for your government to start work on anti-hate legislation? And if it was okay to ignore this matter, as the Danish government did for a long time, would you agree that it makes perfect sense for followers of Islam to boycott Danish goods, in response? Can you understand the perceived snub, and the anger they felt as a result?
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
Woozaii
- Posts: 231
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:00 am
- Location: The land that flows with milk and honey.
- Contact:
Well, your answers were most insightful, and very interesting, but i myself have another perspective of it.
This entire episode, kind of resemble some children playing in the barn with a box of matches, and suddenly they set fire to something that they cant control.
The newspaper WAS executing freedom of speech, but the complete lack of respect is sickening me. There was no logical motive for them to print those drawings, except for provoking some people on a very sensitive subject. My thought is that it just became the last drop. The moslems anger simply exploded, and then they went for help and frankly, i can understand them. Of course there is no reason to start burning flags or taking over embassies, but they really did try the diplomatic way first.
First they file a complaint... They are ignored
Then they demonstrate... They are ignored
Then they suggest a meeting with the prime minister... They are ignored
Am i the only one seeing a pattern here? When all peaceful options are exhausted, then i am not surprised when someone chooses violence over words.
I personally dont think that we should take all of those threats too seriusly. Of course it is shocking when someone takeover an embassy, but i doubt that it is governmental groups. The way i see it, a ton of minor and major ronin militias and organisations are sending threats to Europe, and then some people put it on the front page saying: MIDDLE EAST BOMB-THREATS DENMARK. Thats not lying, but it is twisting the truth.
Also, despite the fact that we are in the 21st century today, the civilisation is still very very young, and immature. When Europe keeps poking the Middle-East, i really think it is to test their limits. How much can they take before they explode. What is the right thing to say, what is the wrong thing to say, etc, etc. I cant speak on behalf for the Middle-East, because i dont live there, so i could only guess on their behalf.
What i think is lacking here is constructive dialogue. We need to get together, and figure out how to fix this mess without harming or breaking the constitutional rights, and without the moslems going into a rage. Actually, the danish prime minister called for a meeting with all the Middle-East leaders a couple of days ago, and they have agreed. Lets hope it is a step in the right direction (Now, if he had just agreed to meeting with them five months ago, we wouldnt be in the mess we are in now, would we?).
As for the moslems burning danish and swedish flags (thus burning the christian cross) i think it is overinterpreting. They are trying to demonstrate their anger, and what should they burn, if not the danish flag? Should they cut out the cross, stitch the remaining pieces together and then burn that?? Wouldnt that seem rather stupid??
This entire episode, kind of resemble some children playing in the barn with a box of matches, and suddenly they set fire to something that they cant control.
The newspaper WAS executing freedom of speech, but the complete lack of respect is sickening me. There was no logical motive for them to print those drawings, except for provoking some people on a very sensitive subject. My thought is that it just became the last drop. The moslems anger simply exploded, and then they went for help and frankly, i can understand them. Of course there is no reason to start burning flags or taking over embassies, but they really did try the diplomatic way first.
First they file a complaint... They are ignored
Then they demonstrate... They are ignored
Then they suggest a meeting with the prime minister... They are ignored
Am i the only one seeing a pattern here? When all peaceful options are exhausted, then i am not surprised when someone chooses violence over words.
I personally dont think that we should take all of those threats too seriusly. Of course it is shocking when someone takeover an embassy, but i doubt that it is governmental groups. The way i see it, a ton of minor and major ronin militias and organisations are sending threats to Europe, and then some people put it on the front page saying: MIDDLE EAST BOMB-THREATS DENMARK. Thats not lying, but it is twisting the truth.
Also, despite the fact that we are in the 21st century today, the civilisation is still very very young, and immature. When Europe keeps poking the Middle-East, i really think it is to test their limits. How much can they take before they explode. What is the right thing to say, what is the wrong thing to say, etc, etc. I cant speak on behalf for the Middle-East, because i dont live there, so i could only guess on their behalf.
What i think is lacking here is constructive dialogue. We need to get together, and figure out how to fix this mess without harming or breaking the constitutional rights, and without the moslems going into a rage. Actually, the danish prime minister called for a meeting with all the Middle-East leaders a couple of days ago, and they have agreed. Lets hope it is a step in the right direction (Now, if he had just agreed to meeting with them five months ago, we wouldnt be in the mess we are in now, would we?).
As for the moslems burning danish and swedish flags (thus burning the christian cross) i think it is overinterpreting. They are trying to demonstrate their anger, and what should they burn, if not the danish flag? Should they cut out the cross, stitch the remaining pieces together and then burn that?? Wouldnt that seem rather stupid??
Equalization is good.
Payback isnt.
Payback isnt.
-
Maharlika
- Posts: 5991
- Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Wanderlusting with my lampshade, like any decent k
- Contact:
I think it was really stupid on the part of the Danish newspaper. For the sake of argument, let us say that what is depicted in the cartoons is true... then these morons responsible for the cartoons have just signed their deathwish. 
On the other hand, the muslims should take this opportunity to prove that it is not true by not stooping down to the level in which they were depicted. They should make the appropriate reactions and protests without having to resort to violence. Extreme but understandable measures would be something like the Saudi government did (assuming of course, that the Danish government is responsible for NOT addressing the issue and facilitating it into the proper forum).
True, the government was not responsible for the actual making/publishing of the cartoons, but refusing to meet up with the ambassadors (doing a Pontius Pilate, methinks) is a point against them. These people were trying to have this issue settled through proper channels and yet were denied audience?
Freedom of Speech becomes Right to Anarchy if there is the absence of Social Responsibility.
On the other hand, the muslims should take this opportunity to prove that it is not true by not stooping down to the level in which they were depicted. They should make the appropriate reactions and protests without having to resort to violence. Extreme but understandable measures would be something like the Saudi government did (assuming of course, that the Danish government is responsible for NOT addressing the issue and facilitating it into the proper forum).
True, the government was not responsible for the actual making/publishing of the cartoons, but refusing to meet up with the ambassadors (doing a Pontius Pilate, methinks) is a point against them. These people were trying to have this issue settled through proper channels and yet were denied audience?
Freedom of Speech becomes Right to Anarchy if there is the absence of Social Responsibility.
"There is no weakness in honest sorrow... only in succumbing to depression over what cannot be changed." --- Alaundo, BG2
Brother Scribe, Keeper of the Holy Scripts of COMM
[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/"]Moderator, Speak Your Mind Forum[/url]
[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/sym-specific-rules-please-read-before-posting-14427.html"]SYM Specific Forum Rules[/url]
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=CM]1. The issue:
Firstly everybody has the matter wrong. Every one. The reason people are offended is because you drew a picture of the Holy Prophet. That is against our cultue and tradition. It is not acceptible to draw a picture of Allah, the Holy Prophet.[/quote]
Fas, this issue wasn't overlooked, at least, by some of us. The problem is, it's a non-starter in the West. Practically nobody can understand it. The great anti-iconoclastic/iconoclastic furor that resulted in riots and pitched battles in Christendom ended more than 1000 years ago in an iconoclastic victory. There have been anti-representational forces in the Protestant camp since then, but with very few exceptions (and none recently) they haven't stirred the pot. Even Protestants like their imitation-Italian Rennaissance mass-produced plaster Mary and Baby Jesus on Christmas lawns.
So trying to make the West understand what it's like to display an image of your Prophet, when no such image is allowed--that will just raise blank looks. From the point of view of trying to get an audience to understand your perspective, focusing on other issues (such as the way a spiritual leader is depicted, and the idea of social responsibility) stand a much better chance of being understood.
The rest of your points are excellent ones. If the Danish government had offered its apology immediately instead of waiting so long, until the economic bite settled in, the whole matter might have been quickly and effectively sidelined. Cultural misunderstandings should not be made subject to petty national politicking, though it has to be said that it happens a lot in countries with elected governments. (And the US is one of the worst, if not the worst, in this respect.) I think the economic boycott was frankly the best and smartest way for followers of Islam to make their feelings known on this matter. Peaceful picketting of embassies might have worked, as well. The emotional sincerity expressed by violent picketting has unfortunately been lost in the West behind the general disgust of violence. So once again, we have a cultural misunderstanding occurring.
That the other newspapers should pick these cartoons up out of solidarity in "freedom of speech" is the most farcial element, yet. These aren't organs of free speech, eager to represent all views equally and express the truth above all, but multi-national conglomerates whose main goal is to outsell the competition by appealing to the broadest readership, possible. (That's not to say that they necessarily oppose the truth, or multiple viewpoints. It's a matter, as one of my old university professors liked to say, with a wink, of priority.) There appears to be no recognition that they have a primary responsibility for presenting the truth at all times, for offering an opportunity to opposing views, and to concentrating on substantive issues. In the modern, smaller, interrelated world they keep telling us we live in, they are cultural representatives to other parts of that world. But it is easier to completely ignore this, the difficult role, and justify simply running things as a profit-making business by hiding behind "freedom of speech."
Firstly everybody has the matter wrong. Every one. The reason people are offended is because you drew a picture of the Holy Prophet. That is against our cultue and tradition. It is not acceptible to draw a picture of Allah, the Holy Prophet.[/quote]
Fas, this issue wasn't overlooked, at least, by some of us. The problem is, it's a non-starter in the West. Practically nobody can understand it. The great anti-iconoclastic/iconoclastic furor that resulted in riots and pitched battles in Christendom ended more than 1000 years ago in an iconoclastic victory. There have been anti-representational forces in the Protestant camp since then, but with very few exceptions (and none recently) they haven't stirred the pot. Even Protestants like their imitation-Italian Rennaissance mass-produced plaster Mary and Baby Jesus on Christmas lawns.
So trying to make the West understand what it's like to display an image of your Prophet, when no such image is allowed--that will just raise blank looks. From the point of view of trying to get an audience to understand your perspective, focusing on other issues (such as the way a spiritual leader is depicted, and the idea of social responsibility) stand a much better chance of being understood.
The rest of your points are excellent ones. If the Danish government had offered its apology immediately instead of waiting so long, until the economic bite settled in, the whole matter might have been quickly and effectively sidelined. Cultural misunderstandings should not be made subject to petty national politicking, though it has to be said that it happens a lot in countries with elected governments. (And the US is one of the worst, if not the worst, in this respect.) I think the economic boycott was frankly the best and smartest way for followers of Islam to make their feelings known on this matter. Peaceful picketting of embassies might have worked, as well. The emotional sincerity expressed by violent picketting has unfortunately been lost in the West behind the general disgust of violence. So once again, we have a cultural misunderstanding occurring.
That the other newspapers should pick these cartoons up out of solidarity in "freedom of speech" is the most farcial element, yet. These aren't organs of free speech, eager to represent all views equally and express the truth above all, but multi-national conglomerates whose main goal is to outsell the competition by appealing to the broadest readership, possible. (That's not to say that they necessarily oppose the truth, or multiple viewpoints. It's a matter, as one of my old university professors liked to say, with a wink, of priority.) There appears to be no recognition that they have a primary responsibility for presenting the truth at all times, for offering an opportunity to opposing views, and to concentrating on substantive issues. In the modern, smaller, interrelated world they keep telling us we live in, they are cultural representatives to other parts of that world. But it is easier to completely ignore this, the difficult role, and justify simply running things as a profit-making business by hiding behind "freedom of speech."
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
fable] But I would be curious how they developed a culture so willing to do so wrote: My take is it started around the late 60s where huge shifts in the attitude of the nation.
Denmark is very much "individualistic" behind our "collective front". People don't really care much about what the next guy does as long as he is not hurting anybody. That is why religon now is almost strictly personal - it is only due to our heritage and because it is easy that most danes are still members of the christian church, even if it is out "state-religon". Thus such areas of life is very much open up to comedy, satire ... and most of all dicussion, and these cartoons where for danes just part of a longer ongoing debate.
The reason the Premier Minister didn't meet with the diplomats in the first time, was because the diplomats and embassadors wanted the minister to intefeere with the newspaper. They wanted it punished, and they were told that only the courts could do this and the courts didn't find any violation of any danish legislation.fable] My impression was that to the contrary wrote:
That is the "tabloid" view. There is much debate going on in Denmark about immegrants, in particular islmaics, because we have huge problems with integration. THe reasons for this is that it is difficult for others from a vastly diffierent culture to integrate into a culture as "open minded" as ours. This then in return cause some people to become more rightish because they see their values and ideals and freedoms under preassure.
Another reason it might seem that way, is because the current government doesn't have absolut majority. It relies on the right-ish Denmarks Peoples Party) for parliamentary majority. And thus this party which prior to this incident only represented about 10-12% of the voters seems to have more power. Combined with the fact that the top politicians from this party is very much always in focus when they are in the media, because of their views. However, this incident will only furtur go to show that our values of life is hard to mingle with that of people thinking their religon rule supreeme, and cause more to move rightish. However it will also cause many others to move more leftish as a response to counter it. So the political scene will be more fragmented on the "egdes" of the cultural battle.
So the impression you get is based on headlines which doesn't tell the story as it is, but I can understand how one might get the perception, but it is something very much more complex then Danes is now blaming immigrants which is a simpliciation such as that the US population is behind the actions in Iraq because Bush is the president.
Often danes have been portraied as being "racistic" in various medias because we actually dare to discuss these topics, such as what happens when islam conflicts with danish law.
fable] But at the same time wrote:
We have an "anti-hate" legislation. However, it stretches to the degree where you either spread false information (a cartoon is not), or incite/encourage lawbreaking in others (a cartoon is not).
Thus when hibutz tahir or nazies suggest that all should kill jews where ever they find them it is illegal. Or when a danish politician says he belives muslims to be worth less, it is illegal.
But printing cartoons is not.
Unwise to print - perhaps yes - but illegal, no.
Thusly he could do none of the things which were demanded, thus it was decided that a meeting would be fruitless.
If somebody comes to your door demanding things you can't give them - is there any point in continuing talking to them?
When somebody travells the middle east showing pictures which weren't published, and people demand an appology from somebody else based on that ... can you give it to them?
No peacefull solution were attempted, instead it was a "our way - or the high way" attitude presented to Denmark from people that wanted their islamic laws to govern our national laws.
The question is here that they target and demand a country to subject themselves, whereas only the newspaper can do so.
Insert signature here.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Karembeu]....a 1.4 billion minority group... [/QUOTE]
Come on, now. In Finland, ethnic Finns are a huge majority, and possess large numbers. Here in the US, they are a tiny minority. Surely you can see why believers in Islam are called a minority in Denmark? For the same reason that Buddhists are a minority in Iraq, and Christians a minority in Jordan. There are very few of them when compared to the majority population. They have little ethnic clout, if we define ethnic clout as the ability to bring focused pressure upon national governments and achieve some important, immediate goal.
What I suspect (and I admit, this is purely my suspicion; no factual evidence!) happened was that the Danish government miscalculated just how much international ethnic clout followers of Islam in Denmark could bring to bear in the situation. After all, the situation wasn't directly linked to anything economic: who would care if Saudi Arabia, for example, boycotted a Danish newspaper? Boycotting *all* Danish goods may not have occurred as an option to the Danish government; or perhaps they thought that such a boycott would again have very little effect. It's difficult for many people to realize that we live in a very small, tightly knit world, these days. I know that most of my fellow Americans will never get this, and their politicians go out of their way to feed the myth that the US needs nobody else. With such a strong conservative majority in control of the Danish government, possibly they were playing to their constituency?
Regardless, to return to your main point: numbers without context mean little. But a lot of context in, and it's amazing what numbers can do for you.
[/QUOTE]Come on, now. In Finland, ethnic Finns are a huge majority, and possess large numbers. Here in the US, they are a tiny minority. Surely you can see why believers in Islam are called a minority in Denmark? For the same reason that Buddhists are a minority in Iraq, and Christians a minority in Jordan. There are very few of them when compared to the majority population. They have little ethnic clout, if we define ethnic clout as the ability to bring focused pressure upon national governments and achieve some important, immediate goal.
What I suspect (and I admit, this is purely my suspicion; no factual evidence!) happened was that the Danish government miscalculated just how much international ethnic clout followers of Islam in Denmark could bring to bear in the situation. After all, the situation wasn't directly linked to anything economic: who would care if Saudi Arabia, for example, boycotted a Danish newspaper? Boycotting *all* Danish goods may not have occurred as an option to the Danish government; or perhaps they thought that such a boycott would again have very little effect. It's difficult for many people to realize that we live in a very small, tightly knit world, these days. I know that most of my fellow Americans will never get this, and their politicians go out of their way to feed the myth that the US needs nobody else. With such a strong conservative majority in control of the Danish government, possibly they were playing to their constituency?
Regardless, to return to your main point: numbers without context mean little. But a lot of context in, and it's amazing what numbers can do for you.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=fable]<snip>
What I suspect (and I admit, this is purely my suspicion; no factual evidence!) happened was that the Danish government miscalculated just how much international ethnic clout followers of Islam in Denmark could bring to bear in the situation. <snip>[/QUOTE]
The government could not miscalculate anything at all, period, because it was not the government that published these cartoons. It was a private buisness, outside governmental control, other then by legislation.
The newspaper did with 100% certaincy miscalculated and did not clearly think the actions through, but you can't place the government into that equation, which people continuely does and which is a reason that this situations appears to be in a deadlock.
If even the government knew what the paper would print and what effect it would get - they would still not be able to do anything about it.
I wonder why that specific concet is so difficult to bring across, I mean in theory, even the US supposedly has a free press.
What I suspect (and I admit, this is purely my suspicion; no factual evidence!) happened was that the Danish government miscalculated just how much international ethnic clout followers of Islam in Denmark could bring to bear in the situation. <snip>[/QUOTE]
The government could not miscalculate anything at all, period, because it was not the government that published these cartoons. It was a private buisness, outside governmental control, other then by legislation.
The newspaper did with 100% certaincy miscalculated and did not clearly think the actions through, but you can't place the government into that equation, which people continuely does and which is a reason that this situations appears to be in a deadlock.
If even the government knew what the paper would print and what effect it would get - they would still not be able to do anything about it.
I wonder why that specific concet is so difficult to bring across, I mean in theory, even the US supposedly has a free press.
Insert signature here.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Xandax]The government could not miscalculate anything at all, period, because it was not the government that published these cartoons. It was a private buisness, outside governmental control, other then by legislation.[/quote]
This is where I think the government miscalculated, quoting you: The reason the Premier Minister didn't meet with the diplomats in the first time, was because the diplomats and embassadors wanted the minister to intefeere with the newspaper. They wanted it punished, and they were told that only the courts could do this and the courts didn't find any violation of any danish legislation.
Deciding not to meet with the diplomats--or for that matter, not to reply to numerous, increasing calls for an apology by various groups--was the miscalculation. Because if the PM couldn't immediately give what the diplomats wanted, he could have given his attention and time to hear them out in private, and tried to engage in what diplomats refer to the world over as "constructive dialog," meaning seeking some common, face-saving ground. Even just paying attention in private to them, hearing their grievances, amounts to a positive reaction, because it indicates that the government is interested in, and listening to, what they have to say.
By simply refusing to meet with them, he was issuing another sort of answer, that I'm not interested in hearing what you have to say. I'm far from being alone in thinking that this refusal to at least meet with the diplomats, and to allow this matter to fester for so long without acknowledging the reality of their point of view, could be considered a miscalculation.
The newspaper did with 100% certaincy miscalculated and did not clearly think the actions through, but you can't place the government into that equation, which people continuely does and which is a reason that this situations appears to be in a deadlock.
But the government was placed dead center in this crisis as soon as it was appealed to as the highest national authority, for some relief by an injured party. It could be said, as you rightly point out, that no laws were broken by the newspapers, so that legal redress wasn't necessary. But this whole affair has international/cultural overtones that take it beyond matters of justice alone. That's where governments get involved. Even *not* getting involved becomes a political/cultural statement.
If even the government knew what the paper would print and what effect it would get - they would still not be able to do anything about it.
I wonder why that specific concet is so difficult to bring across, I mean in theory, even the US supposedly has a free press.
Absolutely. As I just mentioned, no laws were broken. We agree on this point. But this became a diplomatic incident, because it is considered by many a slur upon Islam. Two points: first, from what little reading I've done of MidEastern culture, government is expected to employ the law creatively to redress wrongs is in the spirit of the Qu'ran, creatively being the operative word. This sounds to the West like an excuse for despotic sway, but it's a case of a cultural concept that doesn't translate well. Second, the insult was a cultural, international one, rather than a legal one. If I (in the US, where hate is regrettably a tool of politicians rather than a cause for legislation) wielded international power through a media empire and called the XYZ religion or race by several derogatory terms, I would break no law. But arguably, I have transcended national law, and breached international codes of conduct by which nations conduct their daily rounds of activity. I think that was the point those diplomats were attempting to deal with.
It's a mess, regardless.
This is where I think the government miscalculated, quoting you: The reason the Premier Minister didn't meet with the diplomats in the first time, was because the diplomats and embassadors wanted the minister to intefeere with the newspaper. They wanted it punished, and they were told that only the courts could do this and the courts didn't find any violation of any danish legislation.
Deciding not to meet with the diplomats--or for that matter, not to reply to numerous, increasing calls for an apology by various groups--was the miscalculation. Because if the PM couldn't immediately give what the diplomats wanted, he could have given his attention and time to hear them out in private, and tried to engage in what diplomats refer to the world over as "constructive dialog," meaning seeking some common, face-saving ground. Even just paying attention in private to them, hearing their grievances, amounts to a positive reaction, because it indicates that the government is interested in, and listening to, what they have to say.
By simply refusing to meet with them, he was issuing another sort of answer, that I'm not interested in hearing what you have to say. I'm far from being alone in thinking that this refusal to at least meet with the diplomats, and to allow this matter to fester for so long without acknowledging the reality of their point of view, could be considered a miscalculation.
The newspaper did with 100% certaincy miscalculated and did not clearly think the actions through, but you can't place the government into that equation, which people continuely does and which is a reason that this situations appears to be in a deadlock.
But the government was placed dead center in this crisis as soon as it was appealed to as the highest national authority, for some relief by an injured party. It could be said, as you rightly point out, that no laws were broken by the newspapers, so that legal redress wasn't necessary. But this whole affair has international/cultural overtones that take it beyond matters of justice alone. That's where governments get involved. Even *not* getting involved becomes a political/cultural statement.
If even the government knew what the paper would print and what effect it would get - they would still not be able to do anything about it.
I wonder why that specific concet is so difficult to bring across, I mean in theory, even the US supposedly has a free press.
Absolutely. As I just mentioned, no laws were broken. We agree on this point. But this became a diplomatic incident, because it is considered by many a slur upon Islam. Two points: first, from what little reading I've done of MidEastern culture, government is expected to employ the law creatively to redress wrongs is in the spirit of the Qu'ran, creatively being the operative word. This sounds to the West like an excuse for despotic sway, but it's a case of a cultural concept that doesn't translate well. Second, the insult was a cultural, international one, rather than a legal one. If I (in the US, where hate is regrettably a tool of politicians rather than a cause for legislation) wielded international power through a media empire and called the XYZ religion or race by several derogatory terms, I would break no law. But arguably, I have transcended national law, and breached international codes of conduct by which nations conduct their daily rounds of activity. I think that was the point those diplomats were attempting to deal with.
It's a mess, regardless.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=fable]<snip>
Deciding not to meet with the diplomats--or for that matter, not to reply to numerous, increasing calls for an apology by various groups--was the miscalculation. Because if the PM couldn't immediately give what the diplomats wanted, he could have given his attention and time to hear them out in private, and tried to engage in what diplomats refer to the world over as "constructive dialog," meaning seeking some common, face-saving ground. Even just paying attention in private to them, hearing their grievances, amounts to a positive reaction, because it indicates that the government is interested in, and listening to, what they have to say.
By simply refusing to meet with them, he was issuing another sort of answer, that I'm not interested in hearing what you have to say. I'm far from being alone in thinking that this refusal to at least meet with the diplomats, and to allow this matter to fester for so long without acknowledging the reality of their point of view, could be considered a miscalculation.
<snip>[/quote]
That could very well have been a miscalculation indeed. But he would still not have been able to say what they wanted to hear. And even now that he's publically on various medias - also arab - television taken as much distance to the drawings as he can - he can not give an appology for the publishing the drawings. And personally now - I hope he'll never do. The government does not have the madate to ever give that appology which is demanded, withouth violating our entier constitution.
And even if they did - it wouldn't be genuine because again - they have no basis for making such an appology.
I do however think the newspaper should appologize for their misjudgement. But not the government as a proxy for the entier country .... never.
[QUOTE=fable]<snip>
But the government was placed dead center in this crisis as soon as it was appealed to as the highest national authority, for some relief by an injured party. It could be said, as you rightly point out, that no laws were broken by the newspapers, so that legal redress wasn't necessary. But this whole affair has international/cultural overtones that take it beyond matters of justice alone. That's where governments get involved. Even *not* getting involved becomes a political/cultural statement.<snip>[/quote]
Even so - there is no mandate for the government to interfere withouth violating our constitution seeing as no laws have been broken.
So irregardless of the fact that it has turned into a diplomatic crisis, it has done so in a manner where the danish government can't give what the other parties want because it isn't theirs to give. So the other parties (tries to) punish entier Denmark in return, with economical boycut and with more fundamentlistic elements threathening with terrorisme and murders, as they always seem to do.
Deciding not to meet with the diplomats--or for that matter, not to reply to numerous, increasing calls for an apology by various groups--was the miscalculation. Because if the PM couldn't immediately give what the diplomats wanted, he could have given his attention and time to hear them out in private, and tried to engage in what diplomats refer to the world over as "constructive dialog," meaning seeking some common, face-saving ground. Even just paying attention in private to them, hearing their grievances, amounts to a positive reaction, because it indicates that the government is interested in, and listening to, what they have to say.
By simply refusing to meet with them, he was issuing another sort of answer, that I'm not interested in hearing what you have to say. I'm far from being alone in thinking that this refusal to at least meet with the diplomats, and to allow this matter to fester for so long without acknowledging the reality of their point of view, could be considered a miscalculation.
<snip>[/quote]
That could very well have been a miscalculation indeed. But he would still not have been able to say what they wanted to hear. And even now that he's publically on various medias - also arab - television taken as much distance to the drawings as he can - he can not give an appology for the publishing the drawings. And personally now - I hope he'll never do. The government does not have the madate to ever give that appology which is demanded, withouth violating our entier constitution.
And even if they did - it wouldn't be genuine because again - they have no basis for making such an appology.
I do however think the newspaper should appologize for their misjudgement. But not the government as a proxy for the entier country .... never.
[QUOTE=fable]<snip>
But the government was placed dead center in this crisis as soon as it was appealed to as the highest national authority, for some relief by an injured party. It could be said, as you rightly point out, that no laws were broken by the newspapers, so that legal redress wasn't necessary. But this whole affair has international/cultural overtones that take it beyond matters of justice alone. That's where governments get involved. Even *not* getting involved becomes a political/cultural statement.<snip>[/quote]
Even so - there is no mandate for the government to interfere withouth violating our constitution seeing as no laws have been broken.
So irregardless of the fact that it has turned into a diplomatic crisis, it has done so in a manner where the danish government can't give what the other parties want because it isn't theirs to give. So the other parties (tries to) punish entier Denmark in return, with economical boycut and with more fundamentlistic elements threathening with terrorisme and murders, as they always seem to do.
Insert signature here.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Xandax]My take is it started around the late 60s where huge shifts in the attitude of the nation.
Denmark is very much "individualistic" behind our "collective front". People don't really care much about what the next guy does as long as he is not hurting anybody. That is why religon now is almost strictly personal - it is only due to our heritage and because it is easy that most danes are still members of the christian church, even if it is out "state-religon". Thus such areas of life is very much open up to comedy, satire ... and most of all dicussion, and these cartoons where for danes just part of a longer ongoing debate.[/quote]
I see. So the older Danish view, the more parochial one displayed in (but not endorsed by) the films, for example, of the great Dreyer, no longer holds true? I know you actually have a state religion enshrined in your constitution--Evangelical Lutheran, isn't it? Does that church have much effect on poltics, or even society, or is it a case of which society: rural/urban, upper economic/lower economic, etc? Has the Red-Green coalition, of the far right, tried to push a "back to religion" movement just as the far-right does, in the US?
I can see where such an ongoing discussion would be a big plus if truly it was a matter of give and take, honest discussion among differing groups, in the urban forum of a newspaper. But is that appreciated by all Danes? Does the Danish Peoples Party object to satirization of Christianity? Because they are a very strong party, from what little I can tell, based on parliamentary representation.
That is the "tabloid" view. There is much debate going on in Denmark about immegrants, in particular islmaics, because we have huge problems with integration. THe reasons for this is that it is difficult for others from a vastly diffierent culture to integrate into a culture as "open minded" as ours. This then in return cause some people to become more rightish because they see their values and ideals and freedoms under preassure.
Another reason it might seem that way, is because the current government doesn't have absolut majority. It relies on the right-ish Denmarks Peoples Party) for parliamentary majority. And thus this party which prior to this incident only represented about 10-12% of the voters seems to have more power. Combined with the fact that the top politicians from this party is very much always in focus when they are in the media, because of their views. However, this incident will only furtur go to show that our values of life is hard to mingle with that of people thinking their religon rule supreeme, and cause more to move rightish. However it will also cause many others to move more leftish as a response to counter it. So the political scene will be more fragmented on the "egdes" of the cultural battle.
So the impression you get is based on headlines which doesn't tell the story as it is, but I can understand how one might get the perception, but it is something very much more complex then Danes is now blaming immigrants which is a simpliciation such as that the US population is behind the actions in Iraq because Bush is the president.
Often danes have been portraied as being "racistic" in various medias because we actually dare to discuss these topics, such as what happens when islam conflicts with danish law.
I see why you took offense at my remarks regarding hypocrisy within Danish newspapers. I withdraw them, though I still think that printing those cartoons was an example of exceptionally bad taste. They also missed a golden opportunity to engage in the very in-your-face dialog you indicate they like, when they didn't invite many important members of the Danish Islamic community to respond both with essays and cartoons of ther own. I still think power, any kind of considerable power, entails a great deal of responsibility.
We have an "anti-hate" legislation. However, it stretches to the degree where you either spread false information (a cartoon is not), or incite/encourage lawbreaking in others (a cartoon is not).
Thus when hibutz tahir or nazies suggest that all should kill jews where ever they find them it is illegal. Or when a danish politician says he belives muslims to be worth less, it is illegal.
But printing cartoons is not.
Unwise to print - perhaps yes - but illegal, no.
Point well taken. What I was thinking in suggesting the pursuit of anti-hate legislation was not of any legalistically beneficial result, but of the example of "good faith" so necessary to the discourse of nations and cultures. It dates all the back to the earliest known written records of humanity: the exchange of gifts between six self-proclaimed "great leaders" in the Mesopotamian area. None of them actually needed the gifts. They were all wealthy beyond dreams, according to the perceptions of their cultures. But the gifts were the embodiment of assurances of respect and wishes of good will. If your nation had no anti-hate legislation, then immediately working on this in parliament would have been such a "gift," an indication of respect and a form of apology. But with it in place, something else would be needed.
Denmark is very much "individualistic" behind our "collective front". People don't really care much about what the next guy does as long as he is not hurting anybody. That is why religon now is almost strictly personal - it is only due to our heritage and because it is easy that most danes are still members of the christian church, even if it is out "state-religon". Thus such areas of life is very much open up to comedy, satire ... and most of all dicussion, and these cartoons where for danes just part of a longer ongoing debate.[/quote]
I see. So the older Danish view, the more parochial one displayed in (but not endorsed by) the films, for example, of the great Dreyer, no longer holds true? I know you actually have a state religion enshrined in your constitution--Evangelical Lutheran, isn't it? Does that church have much effect on poltics, or even society, or is it a case of which society: rural/urban, upper economic/lower economic, etc? Has the Red-Green coalition, of the far right, tried to push a "back to religion" movement just as the far-right does, in the US?
I can see where such an ongoing discussion would be a big plus if truly it was a matter of give and take, honest discussion among differing groups, in the urban forum of a newspaper. But is that appreciated by all Danes? Does the Danish Peoples Party object to satirization of Christianity? Because they are a very strong party, from what little I can tell, based on parliamentary representation.
That is the "tabloid" view. There is much debate going on in Denmark about immegrants, in particular islmaics, because we have huge problems with integration. THe reasons for this is that it is difficult for others from a vastly diffierent culture to integrate into a culture as "open minded" as ours. This then in return cause some people to become more rightish because they see their values and ideals and freedoms under preassure.
Another reason it might seem that way, is because the current government doesn't have absolut majority. It relies on the right-ish Denmarks Peoples Party) for parliamentary majority. And thus this party which prior to this incident only represented about 10-12% of the voters seems to have more power. Combined with the fact that the top politicians from this party is very much always in focus when they are in the media, because of their views. However, this incident will only furtur go to show that our values of life is hard to mingle with that of people thinking their religon rule supreeme, and cause more to move rightish. However it will also cause many others to move more leftish as a response to counter it. So the political scene will be more fragmented on the "egdes" of the cultural battle.
So the impression you get is based on headlines which doesn't tell the story as it is, but I can understand how one might get the perception, but it is something very much more complex then Danes is now blaming immigrants which is a simpliciation such as that the US population is behind the actions in Iraq because Bush is the president.
Often danes have been portraied as being "racistic" in various medias because we actually dare to discuss these topics, such as what happens when islam conflicts with danish law.
I see why you took offense at my remarks regarding hypocrisy within Danish newspapers. I withdraw them, though I still think that printing those cartoons was an example of exceptionally bad taste. They also missed a golden opportunity to engage in the very in-your-face dialog you indicate they like, when they didn't invite many important members of the Danish Islamic community to respond both with essays and cartoons of ther own. I still think power, any kind of considerable power, entails a great deal of responsibility.
We have an "anti-hate" legislation. However, it stretches to the degree where you either spread false information (a cartoon is not), or incite/encourage lawbreaking in others (a cartoon is not).
Thus when hibutz tahir or nazies suggest that all should kill jews where ever they find them it is illegal. Or when a danish politician says he belives muslims to be worth less, it is illegal.
But printing cartoons is not.
Unwise to print - perhaps yes - but illegal, no.
Point well taken. What I was thinking in suggesting the pursuit of anti-hate legislation was not of any legalistically beneficial result, but of the example of "good faith" so necessary to the discourse of nations and cultures. It dates all the back to the earliest known written records of humanity: the exchange of gifts between six self-proclaimed "great leaders" in the Mesopotamian area. None of them actually needed the gifts. They were all wealthy beyond dreams, according to the perceptions of their cultures. But the gifts were the embodiment of assurances of respect and wishes of good will. If your nation had no anti-hate legislation, then immediately working on this in parliament would have been such a "gift," an indication of respect and a form of apology. But with it in place, something else would be needed.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=fable]I see. So the older Danish view, the more parochial one displayed in (but not endorsed by) the films, for example, of the great Dreyer, no longer holds true? I know you actually have a state religion enshrined in your constitution--Evangelical Lutheran, isn't it? Does that church have much effect on poltics, or even society, or is it a case of which society: rural/urban, upper economic/lower economic, etc? Has the Red-Green coalition, of the far right, tried to push a "back to religion" movement just as the far-right does, in the US?
I can see where such an ongoing discussion would be a big plus if truly it was a matter of give and take, honest discussion among differing groups, in the urban forum of a newspaper. But is that appreciated by all Danes? Does the Danish Peoples Party object to satirization of Christianity? Because they are a very strong party, from what little I can tell, based on parliamentary representation.
<snip>[/QUOTE]
I was starting to write a long piece, but figured it'd be off topic because it'd discuss the political constructions in Denmark. (oh one note on the political differences: In Denmark conservative/liberal is blue and socialists are red , so we currently have a blue government with red oppersition)
However, generally speaking - we have no religous influencial policitcal parties or organisations/movements in Denmark.
The chuch does not hold any power in everyday life of the dane nor in the political.
Whether all Danes like this I strongly doubt - but that is what we can do in civilized countries, disagree (withouth burning down embassies which I've just learned has happened in Syria).
However, bottom line is that religon plays only a part for the individual that so chooses to subscripe to it.
Eventhough this - most danes are a member of our state religon, but as stated in an ealier post, it is mostly convience that governs this. Funerals, Weddings, Christenings, Confirmations - all these things are made easier because of membership of the church, however only few people goes to service outside these events and on holidays. And these events are mostly only celebrated for the event itself, and not for the religous association ... just like christmas is now a time to celbrate with your family as opposed to celebrate christ.
It is mostly only a cultural heritage, moreso then actually support of christianity, for the average/common dane.
The newspapers are not as much a forum for this ongoing debate of religon anymore, because it has no newsvalue. Thus we use satire and humor to deal with this - which is where the drawings comes into the place. If you have viewed the drawings then some of these drawings are examples of a very danish mentality and sense of humor.
[quote="fable]
I see why you took offense at my remarks regarding hypocrisy within Danish newspapers. I withdraw them"]
We can easily agree with the fact that the drawings proberly shouldn't have been published due to the insulting factor. However, the drawings are out there now. They have been published. Thus it is easy to sit in hindsight and say that they shouldn't - because they are.
Also "important" members of the danish muslim society travelled the middel east shortly after with fake drawings to rally support, exagerating and lying. These people should have no influence on anything in this country when they don't wish to participate in the process of which they enjoy their freedoms to lie and decive.
And to sum up, then I've seen now that the Jordanian editor which showed the pictures in a newspaper (with the comments that what was worse, a few drawings or pictures of muslim terrorists bombing civilians or executing hostages) have been arrested.
A danish, and according to reports swedish, embessy in Syria has been burned down, along with other "attacks" on EU officies.
Over a couple of drawings.....
I can see where such an ongoing discussion would be a big plus if truly it was a matter of give and take, honest discussion among differing groups, in the urban forum of a newspaper. But is that appreciated by all Danes? Does the Danish Peoples Party object to satirization of Christianity? Because they are a very strong party, from what little I can tell, based on parliamentary representation.
<snip>[/QUOTE]
I was starting to write a long piece, but figured it'd be off topic because it'd discuss the political constructions in Denmark. (oh one note on the political differences: In Denmark conservative/liberal is blue and socialists are red
, so we currently have a blue government with red oppersition)However, generally speaking - we have no religous influencial policitcal parties or organisations/movements in Denmark.
The chuch does not hold any power in everyday life of the dane nor in the political.
Whether all Danes like this I strongly doubt - but that is what we can do in civilized countries, disagree (withouth burning down embassies which I've just learned has happened in Syria).
However, bottom line is that religon plays only a part for the individual that so chooses to subscripe to it.
Eventhough this - most danes are a member of our state religon, but as stated in an ealier post, it is mostly convience that governs this. Funerals, Weddings, Christenings, Confirmations - all these things are made easier because of membership of the church, however only few people goes to service outside these events and on holidays. And these events are mostly only celebrated for the event itself, and not for the religous association ... just like christmas is now a time to celbrate with your family as opposed to celebrate christ.
It is mostly only a cultural heritage, moreso then actually support of christianity, for the average/common dane.
The newspapers are not as much a forum for this ongoing debate of religon anymore, because it has no newsvalue. Thus we use satire and humor to deal with this - which is where the drawings comes into the place. If you have viewed the drawings then some of these drawings are examples of a very danish mentality and sense of humor.
[quote="fable]
I see why you took offense at my remarks regarding hypocrisy within Danish newspapers. I withdraw them"]
We can easily agree with the fact that the drawings proberly shouldn't have been published due to the insulting factor. However, the drawings are out there now. They have been published. Thus it is easy to sit in hindsight and say that they shouldn't - because they are.
Also "important" members of the danish muslim society travelled the middel east shortly after with fake drawings to rally support, exagerating and lying. These people should have no influence on anything in this country when they don't wish to participate in the process of which they enjoy their freedoms to lie and decive.
And to sum up, then I've seen now that the Jordanian editor which showed the pictures in a newspaper (with the comments that what was worse, a few drawings or pictures of muslim terrorists bombing civilians or executing hostages) have been arrested.
A danish, and according to reports swedish, embessy in Syria has been burned down, along with other "attacks" on EU officies.
Over a couple of drawings.....
Insert signature here.