Danish cartoonists fear for their lives

[channa18]

TWELVE Danish cartoonists whose pictures sparked such outcry have gone into hiding under round-the-clock protection, fearing for their lives.

The cartoonists, many of whom had reservations about the pictures, have been shocked by how the affair has escalated into a global “clash of civilisations”. They have since tried, unsuccessfully, to stop them being reprinted.

A spokesman for the cartoonists said: “They are in hiding around Denmark. Some of them are really, really scared. They don’t want to see the pictures reprinted all over the world. We couldn’t stop it. We tried, but we couldn’t.”

Mogens Blicher Bjerregaard, president of the Danish Union of Journalists, told The Times: “They are keeping a very low profile. They are very concerned about their safety. They feel a big responsibility on their shoulders. It’s blown up so big. It is tough for them.”

see entire artice from times on line here

[madmark]

1. more salmon rushdie fatwa bullshit; fundamentalists suck

[corporate_mike]

151. I support Denmark

[Cha]

166. You got that right!

"fundamentalists suck"!!

[Raine]

168. YES, they certainly do

no matter what kind of religion it is extremism is dangerous. :thumbsdown:

[LiviaOlivia]

178. I third or fourth that motion: fundamentalists suck

"I, for one am sick and tired of being bullied by fundamentalists of all stripes. The Muslims spend all their time being offended, and the Evangelicals in this country spend all their time on the offensive. I applaud the European papers who have republished the cartoons, and hope that some of that courage sets an example in this country."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007601.php

[Coventina]

2. Welcome to Salmon Rushdie's world.

Religious fanatics of all religions need to be stamped on, hard.

It's the 21st century, time to end this 16th century shit.

[channa18]

3. Really....

Salmon Rushdie must be feeling a little better today.

[Luke21]

7. They give their faith a bad name

I've never figured out why people take something that should make them more loving and gentle and instead become hard, led like sheep, and fanatical.

[thebigidea]

20. yeah, its so hard to understand how religion leads to fanatical idiocy

why, there's almost no historical track record of it or anything. simply baffling. If only Robert Stack were around to figure it out. Maybe Shatner can host a Sci-Fi Channel special to get to the bottom of it.

[genie_weenie]

94. ohhh I love Shattner

You wanna live like Common People



KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!

[corporate_mike]

158. they sure do

[thebigidea]

12. not to be confused with Tunafish Faulkner or William S. Scrodpiece

poor Salman and his devilishly stylish eyebrows...

[barb162]

115. That's how I see it.

[Luke21]

4. I finally saw the cartoons

They aren't easy to find either. I didn't think much of them. Most of the points the cartoonists make are fuzzy and obscure at best. They really aren't a big deal and certainly don't deserve the violence that is being provoked. There are stories about European embassies burning this morning.

I don't know if you remember the Salmon Rushdie incident several years ago. He was an author who ran afoul of these people and had to go into hiding.

[Coventina]

9. The cartoons are just an "excuse". n/t

[channa18]

11. Excuse for what ?

.

[Coventina]

13. An exuse for violence. n/t

[Benbow]

46. Like WMD was an excuse for bombing Iraq

People in glass houses ...

[KittyWampus]

49. Most DU'er Protested Bombing Iraq. Your Point Is?

[Benbow]

77. And it made a difference how? n/t

[Not_So_Right_Wing]

161. Since when do we use the US as the morale standard...?

We all know how shitty the whole Iraq deal is, we know Bush lied, but what exactly does that have to do with these cartoons..?

[rodeodance]

63. until people see that the cartoons are a violent insult to their sacred

Prophet---we will not have peace.

[Endangered Specie]

69. IF they don't like it

no one is forcing them to read it.

[fakeshemp]

129. Until people accept the concept of free expression

we will not have peace.

[EFerrari]

73. He was scheduled to meet with one of my grad seminars

that day. Darn, we all wanted to meet him.

[Seabiscuit]

99. I found them too. But I dare not post the link. These are crazy times.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

5. This is an interesting situation

and I'm intrigued to see where it all ends up.

And yeah, fundamentalists need to take their beliefs back to the mosque and church.

[rodeodance]

34. interesting and Dangerous

[TallahasseeGrannie]

45. I agree

this could explode because tempers are high on both sides. Not a lot of sound reasoning going on.

[rayofreason]

6. Who will dare...

..."offend the sensibilities" of fundamentalist Muslims now?

What will be the next "offence", allowing unveiled women walk past a mosque in Berlin? If Piglet can be banned in a UK council office, why can't other "offensive" things be banned?

[Luke21]

8. They are bullies...

As are all people of violence. They take our goodwill and mistake it for fear.

I'm all for freedom of religion, but these people treat women like their cattle. I can't believe how many fully covered women wearing burkas I've seen of late. Good grief. This is the United States.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

50. No

there is absolutely NO comparison between the treatment of women here and by Muslim extremists. It's like comparing a mud puddle with a flood.

And I know because I am a women here and while there have been some challenges, I have never been told to cover my body (other than my private areas) and I own land; I inherited my own money; I have an education; I work outside the home; I go placed without male relatives; if my family decides to whack me, they will go to jail; I can attend sporting events without watching my sisters die for adultery.... the list is long.

There is absolutely NO comparison at all. Even the most fundamentalist fundamental down at the Assembly of God acknowledges that women vote, work, have legal autonomy, etc. And I have NEVER heard even Rush or Pat or the other dummies suggest otherwise.

[TankLV]

53. Thank you for the rational observation.

[rayofreason]

54. Thanks...

...for calmly, but effectively, slaming another false equivalency.

Some people really have no clue.

[High Plains]

61. I was in Afghanistan recently.

A woman in Western dress was rare. Four years after the Taliban, most of the women I saw were stilling wearing that head-to-toe burhka thing. Seemed pretty oppressive. But I also saw these burkha-clad women participating fully and vehemently in public debates, not afraid to tear into anyone with whom they had disagreements on policy issues.

I'm not saying women are not oppressed there, but I guess I am suggesting things are perhaps not as black and white as we may think.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

62. It is a nuanced situation

and those women would probably argue that with our rape statistics our women (who show their bodies) are less free.

Frankly, the burqua isn't THAT big a deal with me. I can actually see it as a great thing for bad hair days and such. Hearing they are speaking out (and I am assuming no longer being stoned to death) is the first step.

I'll bet many of them keep the burqua because habits like that die hard.

[hippywife]

91. Has anyone ever considered that many of the women

who wear burka do so because of their own beliefs? Not everyone of those women are slaves to fundamentalist men. They wear them because they prefer them.

[NashVegas]

98. I Think Anyone Who Would Prefer to Wear a Burka

Has been brain-washed. End of story.

[Violet_Crumble]

118. You think wrong...for many it's cultural and what they're used to...

n/t

[smirkymonkey]

153. Exactly. Brainwashed.

[iverglas]

167. brainwashed

I suppose there are other explanations for a woman doing that to her face/body, or anyone finding it attractive ... but I'm not coming up with one just now.

All cultural practices are "brainwashing". People, for the most part, live they way they were reared to live -- when it comes to religion, manner of dress, and all sorts of other things.

I don't notice a whole lot of USAmerican men of European descent walking around in kilts or dressed like Gandhi. Guess they're brainwashed.

[hippywife]

130. And anyone who can't accept the reality that

some of these women also prefer it is closed-minded and ignorant of fact. Many of these women embrace it as part of their faith tradition.

[NashVegas]

135. Their "Faith Tradition" Represses Women and Treats Them as Objects

Or perhaps I'm mistaken and these fundie societies and "cultures" that force the burka or hijab on women are cranking out brilliant female scientists, doctors, politicians, artists and authors by the truckload.

[hippywife]

136. You miss my point.

For many of these women themselves, they are not "forced" but readily accept the traditions of their own beliefs. You assume that they are all prisoners of their culture and discount those that freely embrace it. For many it is a choice they make on their own.

Just because you wouldn't have it a certain way, doesn't mean that all the women wouldn't. This is the same kind of blindness that leads Bush and his cronies to feel they need to spread "democracy" to states that don't necessarily want it.

No one way of life fits all.

[NashVegas]

140. I See Your Point and I Think It's Crap

Bush is not warring to "spread Democracy," and I think to post that is completely disingenuous.

For many of these women themselves, they are not "forced" but readily accept the traditions of their own beliefs.

If this is not oppressive, perhaps you can explain why, in some places, there are 'religion police' whose sole purpose is to brutally punish those who fail to adhere to the code.

In the fundie Moslem countries, women are not given a choice. Get your first period, and it's off to the store you go to pick out your abaya and hijab. Take a young girl out of that situation and put her in a place for, say, five years, where no one is telling her that certain garments and styles are unclean and immodest, OR what's hip and trendy. Then, give her the choice between wearing an abaya and Halston dress and she'll choose old Roy everytime.

P.S. - I'm still waiting for your list of fundie countries that happily accept and encourage female contributions to their culture. While we're at it, perhaps you can name some that allow women the same freedom of movement and determination as their men.

[hippywife]

143. That was your question and

was never a part of my original premise.

P.S. - I'm still waiting for your list of fundie countries that happily accept and encourage female contributions to their culture. While we're at it, perhaps you can name some that allow women the same freedom of movement and determination as their men.

There do exist women in these countries that do prefer to wear the abaya. You are assuming that all women in a Muslim society would get rid of them if they were able and I tell you not all of them would. There are many countries of mixed cultures where some women wear western-style clothing and others, of their own choosing, wear the abaya.

[NashVegas]

146. Your Premise

This 'faith tradition' as you call it, is conditioning. Brainwashing. It is not close-minded to call a spade for what it is.

[hippywife]

147. It is close-minded

to think that none of these women actually choose to wear the abaya. I know some very lovely and loving women who do so. Not all faith traditions are brainwashing. Some adopt the traditions, such as dress, out of a love for and an outward sign of their beliefs.

Not every spiritual journey is fundamentalist.

[smirkymonkey]

173. And what would happen to them if they didn't?

If they were allowed to walk around freely, but still chose the burka, then it's a choice. If they will be punished, beaten or killed for NOT wearing it, then I wouldn't call it choice, I'd call it coercion.

[Darth_Kitten]

152. .

:)

[CJCRANE]

83. I think people also have to realise

that there are about 50 to a 100 muslim-majority countries and they're all different. They all have different classes, rich and poor, urban and rural etc etc.

I only say this because I lived in a small muslim country for a few years in the 90's and life wasn't about suicide bombers and burning flags or fighting infidels or stoning adulterers. Just the same as anywhere else, watching TV, talking about football, working for a living, getting engaged, going to weddings, having affairs etc etc. Some of them wore non-western clothes and spoke a different language but they're by no means obsessed by religion or spend all their time plotting against the "decadent west".

But I can't generalise because I've only in one small part, but that was my experience.

[DemExpat]

172. Documentaries/pictures of Kabul in the 1970s show a very modern

city with many women without burkhas and scarves.

I first heard of this organization on Oprah, I believe, some years ago:
http://www.rawa.org/wom-view.htm

DemEx

[Yupster]

17. I think it really is fear

more than goodwill.

You see cases like Van Gogh and realize it is very serious.

Free speech be damned. If you write something critical of Muslims you very well may be hunted down and have your throat slit.

This is a serious issue. Writers should not have to be in hiding.

[CentralEuropeanDude]

24. Women with burkas are harmless

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/020106danishcartoons/im:/060203/481/llp12602031854

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

142. Looks like the same asshole wrote all those protest signs

How very charming.....

I say if they can't stand the heat, they need to get out of the kitchen. The European society goes for free speech, and sometimes speech is insulting. They need to respond in kind, with words, if they have a problem, not threats of violence.

[iverglas]

169. men in neckties are harmless

Your point was?

[High Plains]

59. What goodwill are you talking about?

[iverglas]

165. who are THESE PEOPLE?

Will no one tell me? The posts abound:

THEY have to learn to accept freedom ...
SOME PEOPLE just can't live without oppression ...
THESE PEOPLE have to grow thicker skins ...

How about:

THOSE PEOPLE smell funny ...
SOME PEOPLE just don't want to get jobs ...
THEY just want special privileges ...

If any of the above were applied to African-Americans in the US, or Jews anywhere ... or able-bodied white men ... how long would it take for the howling to start?

these people treat women like their cattle

How do you know this? WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?

THESE PEOPLE is a term used for vilifying all members of a group based on what some members of that group do.

And that is EXACTLY what the editorial materials under discussion did. They held ALL Muslims up to ridicule and hatred by portraying the person that ALL Muslims revere as a mass-murdering bomber, among other things. They legitimized their readers' attitude toward THOSE PEOPLE, when the vast majority of those people are ordinary men, women and children who simply want to live their lives without discrimination, without harassment, without the constant fear of violence, and without being singled out by the media and portrayed as violent, intolerant and fanatical.

The violent, intolerant fanatics are not the people whom the editorial cartoons were intended to harm by legitimizing hatred of them -- simply because the publishers knew full well that the hatred present in the non-Muslim population is directed at ALL Muslims, and that ALL Muslims are vulnerable to the effects of such materials.


I can't believe how many fully covered women wearing burkas I've seen of late. Good grief. This is the United States.

Yeah -- the place where everybody gets to wear what s/he wants -- right??

Yeesh. You can condemn ordinary people for what they wear, but nobody can condemn newspaper publishers for what they publish? Say any vile thing they want, and it's "freedom of speech" ... but wear something you disapprove of, and it's something other than freedom of action?

No, I don't want to hear another cry of "you defend burning embassies??"

I don't defend burning embassies; I condemn it.

I also don't defend publishing materials designed to incite hatred; I condemn it.

What strikes me as odd is how many people rush to condemn burning embassies, let alone what other people choose to wear, and have nothing at all to say about publishing materials designed to incite hatred.

Really, you can do it. You can condemn hate speech without either calling for it to be outlawed or burning an embassy.

[Joe the Revelator]

179. Just to be clear..

you condem the freedom of the press and of speech to create and print cartoon that may be offensive?

[slaveplanet]

181. delete

wrong position

[slaveplanet]

182. This is the United States.

yes it is...

I can't believe how many fully covered women wearing burkas I've seen of late. Good grief.

Yeah -- the place where everybody gets to wear what s/he wants -- right??

can an Amish stay in the sect without proper attire?

can a gang member hang without wearing their colors?

you know damn well the answer is yes, but not if they plan on attending the meetings...


on another note... does anyone know where they found all those Danish flags they're burning so conveniently for those news cameras? just askin..cause I was wondering If I could find that many on short notice

[MrPrax]

23. Your dog...

It might come in contact with a Muslim...be warned.

Best stop leading your life, I guess...

[barb162]

113. That's just it; I see lots in the way of double standards

and it seems the zealots are dictating to the rest of the world. Some of the protest signs I saw, you want another 9-11 or in London they had signs about more 7-7s and I think that's pretty damned threatening and violent

[thebigidea]

10. more like they're planning t-shirts and loving the publicity

when was the last time Danish cartoons were global news?

[Kagemusha]

14. Okay, this is what I read in a Brit paper today:

This cartoon issue didn't get to critical mass before ultra-right Muslim clerics from Denmark went on a tour of Egypt and Saudi Arabia with dossiers of the cartoons plus three illustrations NOT part of the original 12, with "vague sourcing", illustrating:

- Mohammad with the face of a pig
- Mohammad the Molestor
- Moslem male in prayer being "done" by a dog from behind.

Bet you a lot of Muslims think these 3 illustrations are part of what the Danish newspapers published and of course, aren't inclined to go looking at the cartoons to see for themselves. And a Jordanian tabloid editor who did print the authentic 12 has been arrested for blasphemy.

[Yupster]

19. It doesn't matter what the cartoons showed

Cartoonists have a right to draw them without having to fear for their lives.

[rodeodance]

33. you may be onto something here. Do you have a link?

[Benbow]

44. Perhaps this is the start of the Muslim backlash, the "worm" turning -

I am only surprised that it has taken so long. Not buying Danish exports has had an immediate effect. Just wait until the oil-producing countries dump the US dollar.

[AngryAmish]

74. Then what happens?

Do the Asian countries with dollar-denominated debt prop up the dollar because they do not want worthless assets? Or does nothing happen, the dollar devalues and US manufacturing becomes more competitive? Tell me, please.

[Benbow]

79. You are forgetting about the euro n/t

[AngryAmish]

90. Alright, what happens to the Euro?

[barb162]

114. Non-muslims shouldn't be held to their religious rules

Freedom of the press shouldn't be subservient to their or other religious rules

[54anickel]

16. Strange, the uproar came about after a reprint in a conservative

Norwegian magazine? Wonder what the context of that article was? There was no "retribution" when they were orginially published last September. :shrug:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0201/dailyUpdate.html

Although Danish Muslim groups initially welcomed Jyllands-Posten's apology, they have since declared it "ambiguous," reports the Associated Press.

"We lack a clear statement where the newspaper apologizes for the offense and stand(s) by it," said Ahmed Akkari, a spokesman for the groups.

The cartoons were published last September by Jyllands-Posten after Flemming Rose, the paper's cultural editor, heard that Danish cartoonists "were too afraid of Muslim militants to illustrate a new children's biography of Islam's Prophet Muhammad," The Christian Science Monitor reported. Depictions of Muhammad are forbidden in Islam, as they are considered idolatrous.

While the cartoons' publication sparked much debate inside and outside Denmark, The Globe and Mail reports that a recent reprinting of the cartoons in a conservative Norwegian magazine gave the issue "new life."

[Karenina]

70. While writing this children's book

how did she manage to MISS the fact that depictions of the Prophet are forbidden? KNOWING THAT, why would she then not take the opportunity to explain WHYS of the differences between how Christians view the Bible and Muslims view the Koran? T'would seem to be info the kids need to have IF her motive was to promote understanding...

[CJCRANE]

84. I agree, it seems pretty stupid to me...

they were afraid to publish sympathetic pictures of the Prophet so they published defamatory caricatures instead!!??

There was a film about Mohamed and they got round the prohibition by simply showing things from his point of view - would've been a fairly simple solution.

[Hoping4Change]

100. Are you saying that religions should be given the go ahead

to enforce their prohibitions to those outside their faith?

[Karenina]

132. Not at all.

It's just puzzling that someone who did enough research to write a book could be so very insensitive to the subject. There are many ways to creatively illustrate a children's book without including depictions of the Prophet. Indeed, the "why" of the prohibition is an important point in understanding Muslim sensibilities.

What is stunning to me is that after the initial dust-up in Denmark which was clearly intended as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick for the local community, the furore was REKINDLED. The response is a no-brainer. The "cartoons" are grotesque racist caricature.

Frankly, I see it all as an exercise to manufacture consent for a wider genocide of Arab peoples. You see those primitive, backward, violent folks who get their knickers in a twist over "just" a cartoon really deserve to be exterminated. Let's not discuss the Anglo-American jackboot that has been on their necks for over a century. Any proud defender of "freedom" should now realize what vermin they are. KICK THEIR ASS! TAKE THEIR GAS!!!

[Hoping4Change]

148. You say not at all but in fact you argue the opposite, b/c you state

that non-Muslims should be sensitive and not depict Mohammed but on-Muslims have always represented historical figures in art why should this be different?

[Karenina]

159. What's an "on-Muslim?"

Freudian typo? :shrug:

[Voltaire99]

133. American Christians argue precisely that.

Have you heard of the movement to end abortion?

[Hoping4Change]

149. Guess what. I oppose to American fundementalist Christians

who want to end abortion but more to the point these people except for wackos aren't rioting and calling for beheadings. Furthermore Americans in Canada aren't rioting because the Canadian government through National Healthcare provides abortion on demand.

[buddysmellgood]

18. That sounds like an Onion headline. Unbelievable. Cartoonists! We are

approaching the end times my friends. When things get so volatile that people will kill over cartoons, common ground is very, very far away.

[rayofreason]

55. The real Onion headline...

Crazed Palestinian Gunman Angered By Stereotypes

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39190

[smirkymonkey]

155. It's amazing how prescient The Onion is sometimes.

[acmavm]

21. Well, thank goodness white rightwing Christian fundamentalists only

say that people who offend them should be smitten (past tense of smite??) by God. Muslim fundamentalists take God's work into their own hands. And their all a bunch of loonies who use God as an excuse to show what their real convictions are. And how opposite their ideas of what Jesus and Muhammed really said are from the beliefs that they have.

[TankLV]

47. God save us from your followers.

Applicable to all religious crazies everywhere.

Specially like Robertson's "unapologizing" for again now wanting Chavez dead.

Funny, how some violence is still officially approved, but others are somehow not.

On edit:

Now that I've FINALLY managed to see the cartoons, I've seen a lot worse depictions for christians, jesus and the pope.

The protestors can take their "outraqe" and shove it up their respective asses.

It's call "freedom" for a reason.

Am I the only one who notices that whenever christ or christians are satarized or slandered, that NOT ONCE has there been riots or a call for "death" to those who did the slandering, including the respective nation of the slanderers?

Just noticing.

[sam sarrha]

22. live by the Pen ...die by the Pen...

[Coventina]

26. Um, unless the cartoonists get stabbed to death with pens your phrase does

not make sense.

[iverglas]

170. live by Le Pen, die by Le Pen?

S/he who chooses to participate in racist/fascist demonization of minority groups might want to think twice when choosing bedfellows?

Standard pre-emptive disclaimer:

I do not condone embassy burning.
I do not condone fatwah issuing.
I do not condone death threats.

I also do not condone racist/fascist demonization of minority groups.

[sasquatch]

25. Could someone post the cartoon please

[NYC]

31. Link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x321592

[PVK]

174. The last one is kind of funny (the line-up).

Otherwise, kind of obscure.

[TankLV]

52. Thanks for your request - I havn't seen them either.

Thanks for the poster who did post the links.

[sasquatch]

67. I can see why they're upset, but not that upset

[Charles19]

108. The reason Muslims are upset

Creating any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad is blasphemy. The prophet Muhammad did not want any depictions of him because he wanted people to worship God, not him or any depiction of him, like a statue or picture. So people over time would look at the message not the messenger.

These cartoons are depicting the Prophet Muhammed in a negative dishonest way. If there are things Muslims do that are bad they are fair game for whatever criticism they deserve but it should be directed at them not the Prophet Muhammad.

It was already perceived the Danish were hostile towards Islam. This comes off looking like more hostility towards Islam. Note I said "perceived", I have no idea what their true feelings are I don't live there.

[QC]

111. My moral beliefs are offended every day,

but I have yet to burn down an embassy or demand that people who do not share my beliefs be subject to them.

Maybe it's time for these people to grow up a bit.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

171. miss something, did you?

From the post you replied to:

These cartoons are depicting the Prophet Muhammed in a negative dishonest way. If there are things Muslims do that are bad they are fair game for whatever criticism they deserve but it should be directed at them not the Prophet Muhammad.

It was already perceived the Danish were hostile towards Islam. This comes off looking like more hostility towards Islam. Note I said "perceived", I have no idea what their true feelings are I don't live there.

An awful lot of people here just don't want to address the issue.

My moral beliefs are offended every day, but I have yet to burn down an embassy or demand that people who do not share my beliefs be subject to them.

Maybe you could hazard a guess at what proportion of Muslims in Europe, and worldwide, are not burning down embassies.

Maybe then you'd like to address the issue of the objections of a lot of Muslims in Europe, and worldwide, to editorial material that portrays them as followers of a mass-murdering prophet.

Maybe it's time for these people to grow up a bit.

And once again, "these people" rear their heads.

Maybe it's time for not just European newspaper editors to stop stereotyping and vilifying and misrepresenting.

[brentspeak]

27. If anything does happen to them if they're in Denmark

The backlash against Danish Muslims will be extreme. Relations between the Danes and the Muslim immigrants are already pretty frayed.

[Taxloss]

28. This entire situation is so far out of hand.

Hats off to Germany's government for having the cojones to defend free speech. Britain and the US should be ashamed of themselves for pandering to extremism. But the behaviour of the Middle Eastern governments who are condoning this behaviour with silence is disgusting. Especially Syria, sitting on its hands.

[Benbow]

36. Sorry, disagree - free speech comes with responsibilities

You know as well as I do that the Muslim world currently feels more threatened than it ever has by the the grotesquely belligerent attitudes of Western leaders such as Bush. With good cause. These cartoons were provocative, insulting, culturally stupid, and - for Muslims - added insult to injury (invasion of Iraq on a lie, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, "axis of evil", posturing at Iran, the abuse of the human rights of Palestinians). If the current row causes Western countries to think twice before trampling on Islamic sensibilities again, well and good.

[Taxloss]

41. I disagree.

I'm aware that the Muslim world does feel threatened, with reason, by Western foreign policy, but to couple that with an editorial cartoon in a Danish newspaper is absurd. The states of the Middle East - especially Syria where, surprise surprise, the worst violence has been - sit on their hands and allow these situations get out of control because letting their people be angry at the West diverts attention from their own failings.

Free speech does come with responsibilities, but so does membership of a community of nations. The elites of these countries, whether they are our cronies or not, have little interest in civil society and use this sort of ourburst as a valve to control mob pressure.

It's interesting that you should mention Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and so on. All those situations created far more outrage, rightly so, in the Middle East as they did everywhere, but there was none of this violence because the states kept a lid on it. They did not want to escalate with the USA. But because this is "only Denmark", they're happy to sit back.

[Benbow]

42. "Only Denmark" - was a member of the "coalition of the willing"

that invaded Iraq. If the Muslim world felt that this was a good opportunity to settle a few scores, I would not be surprised.

[Taxloss]

43. That may have been the attitude of the mob, but not the states.

The regimes in Syria, Jordan, Egypt et al aren't stupid. It's interesting to contrast the scene around the cartoon with the riots over the ferry deaths. In the latter, you can see the Egyptian state firmly re-imposing control. In the former, the Syrian state apparatus seems reluctant to act.

[rodeodance]

65. Norway was in for a while also.

[Benbow]

80. And Norway's embassy in Syria is burned tonight, too n/t

[nsd]

71. This has nothing to do with Iraq. Any more than the Salman ...

Rushdie affair had anything to do with real politics. Fundamentalist fanatics, of whatever religious affiliation, crave opportunities to impose their will.

[Benbow]

82. You are wrong - there is huge anger about the US in Iraq n/t

[nsd]

95. I didn't say that there wasn't anger about Iraq. What I did say ...

was that this uproar isn't caused by the Iraq war. It's caused by religious extremism. Opposition to the Iraq war is no reason to turn a blind eye to extremists just because they happen to be Muslims.

[Hoping4Change]

101. Great post. nt

[rinsd]

160. By that logic, Israel should bomb the shit out of Iran...

maybe then Islamic countries will think twice before calling for the destruction of Israel.

[Not_So_Right_Wing]

163. Bullshit...

basically you are saying that this temper tantrum is justified because threats of violence may teach others not to speak freely...?

Free speech has no duty to be responsible, because responsibility is a subjective standard of measure and once we start judging what is acceptable speech based on the sensibilities of others, we lose the very fabric of what free speech is.

There is no freedom from offense, nor should there be.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bushy Being Born]

96. Oh right, here comes one now with thinly veiled insinuations

I recognize and welcome that fact, but non-fundies are not the issue here; the ones burning down embassies and threatening grave physical retaliation in response to the exercising of a basic human right are. These people just elevated those cartoons from satire to truth.

[Hoping4Change]

102. Cartoon now elevated from satire to truth. Well said. nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

104. The "truth" that Mohammed is a terrorist?

[Hoping4Change]

150. You are assuming there is only one Mohammed.

Granted only one lived and died but since his death there seems to be more than one. So are you referring to the Muhammad Muslim zealots claim as their own who according to the zealots condones violence or are you referring to Muhammad revered by other Muslims as a man of peace?

[smirkymonkey]

156. I am sure that somewhere, some guy named Mohammed is or

has been a terrorist.

[Hoping4Change]

You know I've been thinking about that as well. I work with about

10 Mohammeds (surname for some, first name or others). If the name Mohammed so so sacred why is the name is use?

[barb162]

112. How do you know that. Have you seen some stats somewhere?

Same thing with fundamentalist Xians...even here I don't know the % they comprise of the entire Xian population

[Violet_Crumble]

121. Most people know that most Muslims aren't fundies, barb...

And the poster said 'most Muslims'. You don't need to know the % of fundies in the population when it comes to either Christians or Muslims to be aware that most of them aren't fundamentalists.

Violet...

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Leopolds Ghost]

103. Gosh! Those "brown people" and their superior attitudes! nt

[IndianaGreen]

109. Iraq's Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani condemned the cartoons

Do you want to put our troops in dire danger by triggering a Shia revolt?

What has caused all the grief was not the original publication of the cartoons, but the endless reprinting of them by people hell-bent on adding insult to injury. The offensive cartoons were even posted in DU and at least one of the posters said that he found them funny. So much for sensitivity!

[Igel]

30. The humorous--if I may use the word--thing about all of this

is that the reason the cartoons were solicited in the first place was illustrators' fear of publishing a kiddie book about Muhammed that would have ****respectfully**** portrayed him.

After van Gogh, many were afraid and said 'no' when asked to sign on. And the cartoons were an act of defiance against repression.

Stupid dhimmis.

[rayofreason]

58. Even respectful images of Mohammed...

...are strictly forbidden.

I guess this experiment proved the point well beyond expectation.

[donco6]

81. But so are a lot of other things.

Why doesn't our eating pork offend fundamentalist Muslims? Or allowing women to show too much skin? Or - for that matter - to hold office and be leaders?

I ask because I believe THIS particular incident is simply some strategic manipulation by some Muslim fanatics to drum up support. Why - I don't know. But it worries me.

[rayofreason]

89. other offensive things

Yes, eating pork, or even depiction of pigs, DOES cause offence and in some places has been banned.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/10/04/do0402.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/04/ixportal.html

And ads that show too much flesh are under fire.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1451224,00.html

With regard to your suspicion that "THIS particular incident is simply some strategic manipulation by some Muslim fanatics to drum up support." - you are partly correct. Apparently, a group of fundamentalists when to the Middle East and included with the cartoons published in Denmark other, much more incendiary ones, such as a cartoon showing a dog raping a praying Muslim. Those were added to up the ante and fans the flames of reaction.

I, for my part, am eating sausages and drinking wine tonight, while watching a movie that contains scenes of scantily clad women. Maybe one day Islamic fundamentalists will demand that I not be allowed to post such "offensive" statements on the DU.

[AngryAmish]

145. Please don't show them the video "Baby's Got Back" by Sir Mix-A-Lot

That wil really get them 'riled up.

[Igel]

157. By some Muslims, they're forbidden.

So the question is: Should the US abide by all the proscriptions against denigrating the Prophet (pbuh -- or else!)? Should China? Where's the limit, and how much do we exactly have to submit to deserve tolerance on the part of Muslims?

I, for one, find many of Islam's precepts offensive. Should I threaten Muslims, and are *they* going to respect my beliefs? Should I bomb the Sa'udi embassy because the mufti in Mecca says something I and many Xians find objectionable, and he's not locked up?

Duh.

I don't buy arguments whose very rationale is based on the assertion of unprincipled asymmetry.

[CJCRANE]

87. Seems strange to me though

that they decided not to do a respectful version and decided to publish caricatures instead? Where's the logic?

[rodeodance]

32. see this DU thread.

....http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2085845

[rodeodance]

35. Nominate

[seriousstan]

39. HERE ARE THE CARTOONS.....

[TallahasseeGrannie]

56. Uh oh

Now you've done it..

we're all screwed now.

[seriousstan]

57. Bring it on

[Leopolds Ghost]

106. Lets Go Get Those Muslim Bastards!

Terrorism! First here, now in Europe. Something Must Be Done.

Otherwise our European Children will grow up without 1st Amendment rights! Only confrontation of the Enemy can preserve our rights.

[seriousstan]

154. You would benefit from anger management.

[hezekkia]

88. i have to admit...

I laughed at the one that says, "Stop, Stop! We've run out of virgins."

[Straight Shooter]

93. So prescient, the cartoonist looking over his shoulder in fear.

I am having a hard time comprehending the outrage over a depiction of their prophet. What if it had not been cartoonists, what if it had been artists of the magnitude of Michaelangelo, and the artistry had been refined and glorious?

This is so bizarre. The world is truly upside-down and inside-out.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

176. looks just like those KuKluxKan Kartoons with monkeys on a boat to Afrika

Bigot art can even be funny--but is it acceptable?
Has anyone else seen those KKK cartoons I'm talking about?
--they make black people look silly -
give them monkey faces and have them in all sorts of stereo typed roles--

Funny in one respect but meaner'n hell and ignorant in another.

Now what's the harm with bigot art?

Nothing as long as you're not the minority being stereotyped right?

[demosincebirth]

48. Muslims have to join the modern world or get left behind.

Stop wasting energy on something thats a "freedom of speech" issue and worry about how to advance the standard of living of their own people.

[Behind the Aegis]

51. They should be afraid.

Considering the recent attack on the Danish embassy in Syria, they should, understandably, be frightened.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Odin2005]

64. An attack on free speach is an attack on Western Civilization.

the PC nuts ranting on about "sensitivity" and "respect" to other cultures can kiss my ass.

[rodeodance]

66. the Danish English paper has not much on this crisis.

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/93771.html

Demonstrators in Damascus stormed Denmark's embassy in Syria and burned it to the ground Saturday afternoon after rumours that copies of Muslims' holy book, the Koran, were going to be burned in Copenhagen.

Demonstrators who had gathered in front of the embassy in protest over the action went 'out of control' and set fire to the complex, according to embassy counsellor Hans Schou.

None of the embassy's six staff members were present during the attack.

Sweden and Chile's embassies, located in the same building, were destroyed. The demonstrators continued on to the Norwegian embassy.

Denmark’s minister of foreign affairs, Per Stig Møller, called a crisis meeting Saturday evening to evaluate the escalated situation initiated by caricatures of the prophet Mohammed printed in daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten more than four months ago.

[rodeodance]

68. Sweden and Chile's embassies were also destroyed--then they hit Norway's

emabassy.


......Sweden and Chile's embassies, located in the same building, were destroyed. The demonstrators continued on to the Norwegian embassy.

[channa18]

75. I hadnt heard that.

that really sucks.

[mainer]

144. What's with the attack on Norway?

I wasn't aware they were involved in the cartoons.

[Leopolds Ghost]

105. The EU Constitution and British Common Law are an attack on Western Civ?

Please clarify and revise your statement, thanks.

* For the hard of thinking: the First Amendment is an American thing. Conservatives in Europe find it useful to pander to the post-Cold War, anti-immigrant crowd by appealing to American ideals their constituents themselves do not understand, and would never sign off on. The EU committee on censorship is trying to resolve this debate "fairly" even as we speak, and christians, socialists and neocons have joined to pass dress-code laws in countries like France, in order to forcibly assimilate the Muslims to Western norms of conduct, so they will abide by our enlightened beliefs.

[QC]

120. Free expression is purely an American value?

Silly me! All this time I thought it was an Enlightenment thing!

[MetaTrope]

72. "If I said no, I was a coward who contributes to self-censorship"

Oh yeah, there's a real sense of personal responsibility in that statement. Who was "forcing" them to draw these cartoons that might well just illuminate their own personal religious bigotry anyway?

I just did a Google search, and couldn't find a single image portraying Christ as an abortion clinic bomber. And the only leftist imagery I could find putting Christ in juxtaposition with Republican bloodlust portrays him as the victim. Odd that.

[Leopolds Ghost]

107. I Say We Publish A Series of Such Cartoons in The Nation--see what happens

Let's do it 6 months before the next election, just to prove that we won't be swayed by accommodationists!

Jesus at the Pearly Gates: "Stop! we've run out of abortion clinic bombers!"

Jesus as a pedophile priest, sitting in the famous "teaching the children" pose.

Jesus bestride Iraq, raining down bombs on it, a la Cecil Rhodes.

Anyone who says we shouldn't do it is kowtowing to the violent extremism that would be a sure side effect of our resulting electoral defeat!

[Not_So_Right_Wing]

164. more likely vocal and not violent..

A boycott will be launched, ala Dixie Chicks, but I seriously doubt that there would be any violence or rioting.

[Joanne98]

76. These rioters must be related to Fred Phelps!

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chicofaraby]

85. The problem isn't the cartoons

The problem is fundamentalist religion.

If the fundies don't like the cartoons, they don't HAVE to look at them. But the cartoonists certainly have the right to draw whatever they want.

[Joanne98]

86. Here's a petition to support the cartoonists............

Pass it around if you believe in free speech.....

http://www.petitiononline.com/danmark/petition.html


On the 30th of September, the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten published 12 cartoons in its edition, representing the Prophet Mohammed. However, in Islamic culture it is forbidden to show any drawing of Mohammed. So it isn't unreasonable that there would follow a reaction towards the cartoonists from the Muslim World.

But in a democratic society, such as our Western World, it's unacceptable that two of those cartoonists had to go into hiding after some calls in which they were threatened by dead. Some Islamic countries, such as Saoudi-Arabia, have already declared that they would boycot Danish wares and goods because of the cartoons. The Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen was asked by a number of ambassadors of Islamic countries to undertake measures against Jyllands Posten. Fortunately Rasmussen declared that Denmark is a country in which the freedom of press is a high-valued good. And in the city of Gaza (Palestinia), a number of 15 armed men attacked the office of European Union-embassy. These are all facts that cannot be accepted as a legitime reaction against the cartoons.

Because our Western society, to which Denmark also belongs to, is in danger after those threats of an agressive anti-democratic group of Muslims; this petition has been started to show the sympathy and empathy towards Jyllands Posten and the Danish society in general. The democracy thanks you in advance to sign this petition.

Note: If the amount of 1,000 undersigned have been reached, please send the link of this petition to the redaction of Jyllands Posten: [e-mail]



------------------------------------------------------------------------

[DemExpat]

92. Thanks, Joanne,

I support their vital right to free and offensive to some speech.

DemEx

[Joanne98]

97. You're welcome...........

[IndianaGreen]

110. I won't support people that draw racist cartoons

which is exactly what these cartoons were.

The problem is that the cartoons continue to be republished and posted on the internet by people that derive pleasure from insulting others. Islamophobia and homophobia are actively encouraged and accepted in the USA.

[QC]

116. Please stop lumping together Islamists and homosexuals.

You've been doing it ever since this story broke, and it's insulting.

Speaking as an actual gay, I don't care to have my cause conflated with that of people who think I should be hanged from a crane, thrown off a tall building, or have a stone wall toppled onto me.

Thank you.

[Violet_Crumble]

117. Do you know what 'Islamophobia' means??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia

Indy talked about Islamophobia as well as homophobia. How is that 'lumping together Islamists and homosexuals'? What she's doing (and rightly so) is talking about Muslims and homosexuals. If a Muslim is offended by that bigoted cartoon, that doesn't make them an Islamist...


Violet...

[QC]

119. If they think that the proper response to a tasteless cartoon

is to burn down embassies and threaten terrorist attacks, then they are certainly Islamists and thus no friends of "the gays."

[Violet_Crumble]

122. Who are 'they'??

Do you think the only Muslims in the world who were offended by that cartoon raced around torching embassies? You act as though no-one else was offended. Have you got some inside knowledge about how billions of Muslims weren't offended by that bigoted cartoon?

And the definition of Islamophobia hasn't changed since I posted the definition. So if you don't mind I'm going to embark on a bit of pointing out how Islamophobia and homophobia is rampant in the US...

Violet...

[QC]

123. "They," as my comment clearly indicates, are the rioters and arsonists.

Objecting to their actions is not "Islamophobia," despite the best efforts of the local apologists to make it seem that way.

As for those who choose to express their offense in civilized ways, the overwhelming majority of the world's Muslims, more power to them. That's not who we're talking about here, though.

Since you are so fond of Wikipedia, I'll offer this link. Perhaps it will clear things up a bit for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist

On edit: Do you think you might also point out how prejudice is rampant in Australia as well? Or do you only deal with other people's moral failings?

[Violet_Crumble]

124. Except Indy was talking about all Muslims...

And painting all Muslims as extremists is Islamophobia..

Here's Indy's post again. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2086241&mesg_id=2087430

Read it and tell me where she talks about rioters and arsonists. She expresses the very valid opinion that the cartoon is bigoted and an example of Islamophobia...

I'm not fond of Wikipedia, and I'm not interested in reading an internet definition of a word I already know the definition of. I posted the definition of Islamophobia because you didn't seem to know it...

About yr edit: Nope, not interested in getting into ridiculous diversionary tactics. This discussion is about the Danish cartoons. Here's a much more relevent question. Do you think the Danish cartoon was bigoted?

Violet...

[QC]

125. "not interested in getting into ridiculous diversionary tactics" LOL!

I figured as much. Let's not talk about Australians rioting against Muslim immigrants and Howard's determination to be Bush's #1 poodle when we can rail against those oh-so-gauche Americans instead! Why spoil the fun?

As for the rest of your post, there was more than one cartoon, as anyone who has followed the story would know. I would say that some are bigoted and some are not. Even the most bigoted cartoon, however, does not excuse violence; hence the issue of Islamophobia in the U.S. has nothing at all to do with the violence in Syria and Indonesia. Any attempt to tie the two together is nothing more than apologetics for uncivilized behavior, which is why I originally objected to having my own cause tied to it.

Since you are in the mood to ask questions, here's one for you: If the fundy snakehandlers who are so upset about Brokeback Mountain responded by burning down movie theaters, would they be justified, on the grounds that the film portrays things that their "Holy Prophet" forbids? Or would they just be murderous fanatics intent on forcing their sectarian beliefs on the rest of the world?

[Violet_Crumble]

126. If yr so fascinated by it, start a new thread...

Be my guest. We've been discussing it in the Australia forum, so head over there if yr actually interested in genuine discussion rather than trying to take cheap shots at me. Because yr comments aren'tmaking a lot of sense, and I'm sure the other Aussies who post at DU would love to talk to you.....

I don't recall saying that bigotry excused violence, and would argue the point with anyone who thought that it did, so that should answer yr brokeback mountain question. But if you read Indy's post, you'll notice that she's talking about the cartoon being bigoted, and that it is an example of Islamophobia. Just the same way as bigotry doesn't justify violence, the violence doesn't justify the bigotry. It doesn't make the bigotry go away, which is why Indy was spot-on saying that the cartoon was Islamophobic...

Violet...

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cobalt Violet]

138. But it's such a "peaceful religion".

:hide:

[jarjarbinksisgod]

162. a racist cartoon.

wow, now i've heard it all. a cartoon is "racist," which entitles me to go burn down buildings, exclaim "massacre those who insult Islam," and chant "Death to America." all those actions obviously pale in comparison to the existence of an inanimate cartoon. so, wise one, which of those cartoons do you deem racist?

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

177. look up the KKK cartoons of monkey black people- you are 1 sheltered pup

to deny there are racist cartoons is ignorant--
Bigots target races, reigions, and any other group for any reason with CARTOONS.

DOH !

[Andromeda]

183. Signed...

Over 18,000 now!

[Behind the Aegis]

131. Question?

Do you think that Holocaust deniers fear for their lives? What about the countries that allow that filth to be published, do you think they fear violent reactions?

BTW...this is not directed at the OP, but just a general musing.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Strong Atheist]

141. Once again, brought to you by the "religion of peace"

:eyes:

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

175. "Witch"one? the Kristchenz the Jewz the Hidewz the Muzlimz the Cathlix?

"Witch" one?

The Non-Theist materialists are thee peacful ones--not greedy or cut-throat at all !

My group's better than yer group--my group's better tha yers !!!

[Gullvann]

180. No only him. Also muslims

who have spoken out against the violence like an Imam in Denmark and also Naser Khader.

and in Oslo, muslim demonstrators for free speech received deaththreats if they went through with the protest.

These are true heroes.

I perhaps explains why we "seldom" hear from the moderate muslims. They are held hostage by the radical fundies.

[Moderator]

184. locking

No longer Latest Breaking News.