Submission for Iran's Holocaust cartoon contest

[Behind the Aegis]

source

[madmark]

1. nice, will they have the balls to print it.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. I highly doubt it...

...it could enflame Holocaust deniers. :crazy:

[Chi-Town Exile]

4. Awww, we wouldn't want to do that, would we? nt

[Chi-Town Exile]

3. Fantastic ... don't think it will make the final cut! nt

[Nutmegger]

5. Ah, very apropos. [nt]

[Roho]

6. man

freedom of the press is what's important here right?

Funny that a Danish paper can print racist and insulting cartoons about islam and the west unites around some bogus freedom of the press and speech argument not supported by law in many of the offending countries the cartoon was reprinted in, but as soon as those dirty muslims announce a similar initiative in an iranian paper the western world jumps up to condemn.

Funny how a right wing xenophobic editor in a christian country can solicit inflammatory cartoons to make a point, yet a right wing xenophobic muslim editor can't.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. Way to miss the point!

Instead of burning shit to the ground, these clever people embraced the freedom of Iran to publish their cartoon contest with their own cartoon...instead of rioting!

[Roho]

8. what?

what point?

what people?

your cartoon is making the point that jews are better than the arab dogs that rioted?

please clarify i'm obviously dense.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. What in the hell are you talking about?

My cartoon is showing that the cartoonists are fighting for freedom of the press by submitting their own cartoon!

Who called Arabs dogs?
Who claimed Jews were better?

The answer to both aforementioned questions: YOU!

[Roho]

10. first

your "source" link is broken.

Second you wrote..

"Instead of burning shit to the ground, these clever people embraced the freedom of Iran to publish their cartoon contest with their own cartoon...instead of rioting!"

you imply that "these" + "clever" people "embraced" + "freedom" instead of rioting.

I assumed you meant those that rioted hate freedom and are not clever, and because your link was broken and the cartoon you posted depicts muscular jewish Holocaust survivors I assued you were referring to jews.

but I asked you to clarify because you had failed to address my point and said I had missed yours.

I have seen the anti islam crew out in force here on this progressive forum for several days.

You glib reaction to the cartoon strikes me as more of the same.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. twisted!

Thank you for letting me know the source link was not working; it is fixed.

Your assumptions are hopelessly wrong.

"These clever people" = cartoonists who created the submission.
"embraced the freedom of Iran to publish their cartoon contest" = willing accept that Iran can print what it wants and "embrace" that freedom by submitting their own cartoon.

You had no point, only a strawman.

I have seen the anti-Jewish crowd out in full force for months now.

Your initial response to the posting of a cartoon that shows a current topic strikes me as more of the same.

Muscular? Do you know what those words on their arms mean?! It wasn't a show of force, it was a show of TRUTH!

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Spinoza]

113. Good for you.

But it's hopeless.

[Roho]

119. What is hopeless? n/t

[Jim Sagle]

139. Fuckin' A.

[breakfastofchampions]

24. logical fallacy

ad hominum

[fujiyama]

32. The cartoonist is a RWer...

How does that make a difference regarding his first cartoon, which shows the truth.

Ahmedinaajad is a lunatic and refuses to believe the holocaust happened. The cartoon shows survivors showing their tatoos to him while he refuses to believe it.

The cartoon is not "mocking" the holocaust, but I think most people of any religion would not make light of genocide. This was an open response to the contest and it was spot on mocking how these cartoons have no real analogy to the others.

And I still stand firmly against any and all "Blasphemy" laws. Such nonsense is to be expected in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not a Western Democracy. No person of any group has the right to threaten another's life or property because they were "offended" by something.

[bloom]

131. The links say a lot.

And the extra cartoons as well.


One would think that people would not be able to post right-wing, neocon trash - as if it had value.

[The Magistrate]

19. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Mr. Roho, In Reference To Your No. 10 Above

What do you consider particularly progressive about riots demanding that people who do not subscribe to a particular religious belief nonetheless abide by its directives? That is in fact what these mobs aim to impose; the fact that they lack the power to do so makes no difference to their clearly expressed intent.

On a related note, Sir, what is your feeling about the Iranian leader's recently declared intention to convene a conference to study whether the Holocaust actually did occur?

[Roho]

28. well..

First it is not sir.

I find nothing progressive about the riots.

I also find it shocking that a tiny fraction of Muslims that took part in these "riots" are being held up by progressives as the rule rather than the exception.

Can you post a link to a news story reporting a riot with more than a few hundred participants?

A learned man like yourself must be aware that it takes only one man with a can of gas and a match to burn a building down.

Were you aware that over 2000 mosques have condemned the violence?

Even the oft quoted hezbollah leader called for peaceful demonstrations not riots.

Do you remember the WTO protests? Do you think the hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters should have been painted as anarchists by the same right wing media that is now orchestrating this event?

As you are probably aware several countries including Denmark have laws that prevent these types of offensive material and in the case of Denmark the law only applies to christian blasphemy.

The original objections from Danish muslims centered around the double standard and the provocative nature of the paper as well as the editors dare to artist not to be cowards in there deference to the sensibilities of the muslim population.

Are you aware of Canadian hate speech laws? If so do you think we are less free than Americans? Are we living in fear or cowering to minority groups?

As for the nut job elected in iran.....

I'm sure a man of your intellect can parse rhetoric with the best of them and I'm sure you could probably point to more historical examples than I showing how a population that feels threatened or disrespected will elect a fire brand to be taken seriously.

I remember the First Nations in Canada throwing out their moderate leader after years of Government stonewalling on treaty obligations and territory disputes. After tossing the moderate they elected a real firebrand that called white people names and threatened to block roads and rail bridge until the demands were met in full.

Did any of that happen? No. It was designed to get people to take them seriously and stop pushing them around.

Although the regional sensibilities differ, thus changing the content of the rhetoric, the messages imo are the same.

I don't even think the conference will happen even though I find the idea repulsive.

Seems that people conflate defending Islam and the Iranian people with supporting anti Semites.
I'm surprised you seem to be joining the group.

[The Magistrate]

43. Interesting Comments, Ma'am

As you state you find nothing particularly progressive about the riots, it would seem there would be no particular reason to express surprise or dismay at their being condemned on a progressive forum.

The "elect a firebrand to be taken seriously" line does not wash very well with me. Most often, it only brings discredit and hardens resistance. In the case of the mullah's regime in Iran, further, there is little room for doubt that Anti-Semitism is a pillar of the state ideology, and this is a thing that can be expected to have political effect. It would not surprise me if the conference were actually held, for it is in logical progression with the ideology of the regime there.

Persons who act, as opposed to persons who do not, are always a distinct minority, and so quibbles about the number of rioters have little substance. Further, denunciations of the riots hardly carry in themselves denunciation of all Moslems, or even a claim that the rioters represent all Moslems. What the rioters are are ideological extremists who do not seem to meet any check in Moslem societies, except in countries where there are authoritarian regimes who do not feel their autocratic interests are served at some moment or other by the actions of these sorts. It is obviously very much to the interests of more moderate Moslems to check these extremists in some way, and sooner or later they are hgoing to have to do so.

It would be interesting to learn when the last prosecution for blashpemy against the Christ took place in Denmark. In a number of jurisdictions many archaic regulations remain on the books, languishing un-noticed and unenforced. Laws against blasphemy and apostasy are in the present day, though, applied rigorously in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and certrainly applied in Pakistan and on occassion in Nigeria. The appeal against a double standard is generally a double-edged sword: those who apply such laws in those jurisdictions would have no grounds for complaint, it seems to me, if a Christian country passed laws against Islamic prosetylization, or viewing praise of the Prophet as blasphemy against Christ, and enforced them with the full weight of a state's police powers. Such actions would be rightly condemned by progressives, of course, but so is the enforcement of such laws on behalf of Islam in the Islamic world, or at least it ought to be.

[Roho]

50. ok here goes.

first here is the relevant info re Danish laws and their recent use.

"Mogens Glistrup, a tax protester turned xenophobe, was imprisoned for 20 days last year for a racist speech. He compared Turks to rabbits. Back in 1975, Jens Jorgen Thorsen, a multimedia artist belonging to the "situationist school," had a government grant provided to make a film about Jesus taken away. Five thousand young Christians had demonstrated in the street of Copenhagen against Thorsen and his movie and tumultuous scenes broke out. (Coincidentally, a police estimate held that about 5,000 people participated in one of the first demonstrations against the cartoons held in Copenhagen in October 2005.) Respected politicians spoke up and said that Thorsen had free speech, but if the blasphemy law had not been violated then certainly good taste and the feelings of religious Danes had the case dragged on in court forever with no conviction. Fourteen years later Thorsen had his government grant restored, adjusted for inflation. "

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399653,00.html

You seem to think I'm shocked at the condemnation of the tiny fraction of muslims that reacted violently. On the contrary I'm shocked at the outright racism directed at the entire faith by blow hards on this and other American progressive web sites.

As liberals I would have thought it was very easy to see how a rw regime could foment hatred for political ends. It always starts with a perceived slight and builds into complete nonsense. I would argue that what we are seeing in the Muslim world regarding jew hating is exactly the same as the current RW attacks on Liberals in the US only 20 years down the road. To the RW lunatics in the US liberalism DID create the changes in American society they so vehemently disagree with. Fast forward and the RW zealots can be told Osama = Michael Moore and they swallow it up.

The Arabs don't hate jews because they are arabs. They hate because the extremists have taken actual jewish atrocities against Arabs/Muslims and built a self serving narrative designed for POLITICAL gain.

Does that condone it? No, but it does make statements like the following dangerously naive imo....


"Further, denunciations of the riots hardly carry in themselves denunciation of all Moslems, or even a claim that the rioters represent all Moslems. What the rioters are are ideological extremists who do not seem to meet any check in Moslem societies, except in countries where there are authoritarian regimes who do not feel their autocratic interests are served at some moment or other by the actions of these sorts. It is obviously very much to the interests of more moderate Moslems to check these extremists in some way, and sooner or later they are hgoing to have to do so."

How would you suggest moderates take back islam from the extremist?

Could you perhaps provide a list of media outlets in the west(where islam has a PR problem)that would break their "if it bleeds it leads" profit model or RW foreign policy constraints to allow moderate muslim voices to be seen and heard?

You didn't answer my WTO analogy. Do you think the violence in Seattle, quebec city, genoa are representative of the anti globalization community? If not do you think it is incumbent upon those activist to "check these extremists"? Again, what do you suggest they do when the very people interested in creating the misrepresentation control the media and government resources to combat such individuals?

[The Magistrate]

78. Thank You For the Information On Recent Prosecutions, Ma'am

It seems on your evidence the courts have been pretty even-handed in the matter, and so there is no reason to suppose their inaction in this instance derives from anything but a judicious view of the merits.

Your charges of racism on the part of persons condemning the riots do not seem to me to be well founded. That is, of course, the nuclear weaponry of debate in leftist circles, employed to smear a view the user disagrees with, because it is about the worst thing anyone can be accused of here, and the result is that it is employed so frequently and loosely as to convey no real meaning in most instances beyond "I don't like what you said, and I don't like you for saying it!" You seem to feel that persons who denounce the riots are falling into some rightist trap, but opposition to religious obscurantism is one of the core values of leftism, and there is no doubt whatever that the strain of belief behind these riots is profoundly reactionary, and ought to be denounced from the left. Whether the right does so as well is immaterial.

It is always a pleasure to be called naive; it makes me feel young again. You acknowledge that a leading political narrative in the Arab world is based on the systematic promotion of hate for the political gain of some leading elements, and yet do not seem to see this as a reason to confront and oppose that narrative, and expose its essential falsity and moral bankruptcy. That strikes me as odd, and unhelpful.

The problem of moderate Moslems is not in the Western media, but in the Moslem world itself. The extremists are both organized and willing to do violence; the moderates seem to be neither. That is a shame, because the consequences will be very bad for the moderates who doubtless are at present the majority. The hostile actions of the extremists will bring ever greater disfavor and even retaliation onto the Moslem world; the result will be further spread of extremism; the people who suffer most will be those willing to live and let live.

It is indeed incumbent upon anti-global activists to check the splinterists of violent character in their ramnks, and they have been doing a fairly good job of it lately. Marshalls among the demonstrators warn against it, the crowds do not go along with such actions and denounce them loudly, and even sometimes restrain them.

[Roho]

80. ok last one for tonight...

I'm not now, nor ever have called people denouncing the riots racist. I denounce the riots.

I am however jumping in each and every time I see progressives make broad brush racist stereotypical comments about muslims.

Just review this thread or the one titled "Why do we excuse muslim violence" to find such racist slurs flying like it was 1955 alabama.


I in no way condone anti Semites in any form. What you see as approval is actually empathy. Empathy for the muslim masses that don't hate jews, and empathy for the jews subjected to it. It's the same empathy I have for Americans that every day are told their liberal friends are traitors and terrorist sympathizers. Most people at best just have to live with the hate swirling around but for some the hate is a call to arms and liberals face discrimination daily.


You say the problem isn't the western media but then later say that the wto protesters do have a responsibility to control the "splinter groups", and you say they have been successful.

Did you see the G8 in Edinburgh this past summer or it's coverage?

The RW has an agenda that requires it to demonize it's opponents and deny any other message from filtering through their propaganda.

The greatest threat to moderate muslims in the middle east is not the extremists among them. It is the WEST'S "policing" the situation as it sees fit.

I know the history of militant islam and I know the recent history that included western funding and promotion. For us to say "ok you've allowed the extremists to get out of hand and unless you overthrow the regimes we are backing we are going to kill your women and children" is not only hypocritical but also brazenly immoral.

[Behind the Aegis]

82. Explain

" i am however jumping in each and every time I see progressives make broad brush racist stereotypical comments about muslims."

My OP did NOTHING of the sort! And, you will not find an Islamaphobic comment in this post!

[The Magistrate]

83. The Regimes We Mostly Back, Ma'am

Are authoritarian enemies of the fundamentalists. About the only exception is Saudi Arabia, with Musharref a sort of borderline case, for there is no doubt that he constitutes a sort of check of fundamentalist extremists, though hardly a full-fledged enemy of them like Mubarak. The only real Western promotion of it was as a tool against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and that sort of devil's bargain is the common coin of war.

If you think you see genuine racism in comments on the matter, please use the alert function. Obviously, it is not possible for us to read through every comment in every thread on the subject. We take such alerts quite seriously.

[Leopolds Ghost]

92. "a check of fundamentalist extremists"

That's funny, I thought Musharraf was a US-friendly puppet who all too coincidentally overthrew a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED, NON-FUNDAMENTALIST, WOMAN PRESIDENT in a country that is part of the Indian subcontinent,

and then IMPOSED new Sharia laws while casting about for a power base to keep the angry masses from deposing him.

(fundamentalist Pashtun tribesmen, for all their apparent indomitability, make up a tiny portion of the population; a huge portion of the population are Sikhs.)

Apparently this is OK because of the danger pro-bin Laden Pashtun terrorists, acting out people's desire for revenge against the US for helping Musharraf fuck up their country, might take over the enormous, primarily educated urban-Indian and Sikh country of Pakistan.

[The Magistrate]

94. These Matters Are Relative, Sir

Gen. Musharref did not overthrow Ms. Bhutto, whose father was hanged by the earlier Gen. Zia, but a more recent figure whose name escapes immediate recollection, who had made the mistake of engaging in a cease-fire with India that the military felt dis-honored it. Zia imposed Sharia law during his reign, and it was not rescinded after he was replaced.

Musharref is a secular figure, and somewhat hostile to the fundamentalist radicals, at least to the extent that he wishes to run the place and set policy himself. He is by no means a puppet, but a damned shrewd fellow who is very good at the work of autocratic rule with an uncertain power base.

[Leopolds Ghost]

95. My issue is quite simple - We should Endeavor to Not be Hypocritical.

If Denmark has blasphemy laws, then it is Denmark, not Saudi Arabia, who should be blamed for oppressing those poor, Danish cartoonists. That won't happen because Europeans are being hypocritical. They don't see free speech as something absolute -- you either have it or you don't. They see it as a question of taste -- Muslim outrage is more offensive than RW Christian outrage and so the cycle goes. As for Muslim violence directed against Danish interests and citizens, what else is new? People have been killing each other for thousands of years. A truly fearless individual would not let that halt his freedom of speech if he TRULY believed in what he was doing with respect to a cartoon, etc.

Similarly, I have a problem with supporting authoritarianism -- restrictions on assembly, speech, whatever -- in an effort to quell violence amongst various "extremist" groups, some of which may indeed be repulsive, others merely unpopular. Meanwhile violence committed by decidedly non-"extremist" TROOPS goes unchecked.

Thirdly, I do not believe it is somehow the "responsibility" of the masses to control the opinions of the few. People should lead by example, not try and dictate to others what they should believe. The Danes and the Iranians have set a poor example. Since the Danes are already in Iraq I suggest sending them to the front lines in any war with Iran and let the Danes and the Iranians hash it out "mano a mano".

:evilfrown:

[The Magistrate]

98. An Interesting Position, Sir

The question of when it is proper to employ violence is an interesting one, and certainly one of the major criteria must be a proportionality between the provocation and the response. A person who claimed in all seriousness to be moved to a killing rage by a drawing of a man dead fifteen hundred years ago would find few agreeing that was a proper and necessary response. Adding an element of religiousity to the matter does not really effect the consideration. There is no real and concrete harm inflicted by another in such an instance; any perceived harm is, in fact, wholly self-inflicted by the person who claims to have been injured, because that injury is owing to no other thing than that person's choosing to attach a great importance to a trifle. You do not get to hurt someone else in retaliation for injuries you inflict on yourself, of your own choice.

[Leopolds Ghost]

101. You would agree that, say, pissing on the wall of the Holy Chapel

In Bethlehem should not be a cause for violence, then, as some have suggested. (Keep in mind we Westerners sublimate our violence -- we do not tolerate rioting any more because we have become a stratified society in which "pacifist" middle class folks are tightly controlled while "specialist" military folks do all the killing for us. So merely saying "I wouldn't go out and riot" as some have said, does not answer the question of whether some secular liberal and/or Christian Americans are -implicitly- calling down retaliatory violence on the heads of the rioters, especially given our presence alongside the Danes in Iraq.)

Getting back to the Bethkehem exmple someone cited, I say it is blasphemy. 11th Commandment, cited by Mark Twain:

THOU SHALT NOT PISS AGAINST THE WALL. :evilgrin:

As for Holicaust denial cartoons ... amazing how upset people are about those. Because they are mocking the death of 6 million people, just like Mel Brooks did. Only the Iranian cartoonists are people who don't believe in the Holocaust anyhow, for their own twisted insecure reasons, doing the mocking! So a cartoon done by a guy who (misguidedly) doesn't believe in the Holocaust anyway, having been brought up in a RW, anti-semitic environment -- where's the beef? If a Neo-Nazi published a bunch of anti-semitic cartoons, as they presumably do all the time, whould it become an international free speech issue with people saying "Mohammed was OK, but THIS is wrong!!!" If this becomes an international incident, I will eat my hat. It will mean not only hypocrisy but that both the Muslims and Judeo-Christians have failed to understand the 12th Commandment:

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS BAD PUBLICITY.

[The Magistrate]

102. That Would Not Bother Me At All, Sir

But some of the rest of this does not completely hang together. It is quite possible still to get going a good riot, composed of native citizens, in the U.S., or in European countries. Leaving aside mere celebrations of sports victories, the most common recent causes have been court verdicts believed un-just and detestation of immigrants: those are things enough people care enough about on occassion. The resort to violence is one of the indicators of sincerity, after all, and what people will become violent over is what they care most about. Whether that care is wise is a seperate question, as is whether the act is just.

[Leopolds Ghost]

136. Thou shalt not piss against the wall... that is all. Time to riot :-)

God Wills It! Oh, and MTV. Take away MTV and people will riot,
according to an incident someone mentioned recently.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

104. I have a question or two.

If one were to go to some place in america that had experienced a high number of deaths in the current conflict and pissed on the regalia of the the local military in public, what are the chances that that person would receive at least a bloody nose if seen doing such by a few family members of the deceased?

It is a certainty that such an event would become news and that the "bad actor" would be condemned for such action.

I just wonder if you believe that no "violent" reaction would occur?

[Ani Yun Wiya]

105. Just a small note.

What to you is a mere "trifle" is NOT a trifle to those in objection to these provocative images.

Mocking the Prophet Muhammed is no small matter in Islam.

[The Magistrate]

132. And That Is The Real Problem, Sir

Because the importance attatched to it is wholly illusionary. No concrete harm, verifiable by independent observation, occurs. No harm that requires adherence to a particular set of beliefs to count as a harm can possibly count as a real harm, justifying a real response. Further, no person has the right to require another person to act in accordance with religious beliefs that person does not share. A person may, in courtesy, choose to refrain from an action he or she knows may offend a person who believes something he or she does not believe, but there is, and can be, no requirement a person behave in this manner.

[Clark2008]

123. Thank you.

I am however jumping in each and every time I see progressives make broad brush racist stereotypical comments about muslims.

As the ex-wife of a Palestinian and mother to a half Arabic child and the current wife of a Jewish man, I adore and appreciate your well-versed efforts!!

:hug:

[Leopolds Ghost]

90. "Racism employed loosely on DU" "Opposition to Religious Obscurantism"

1. Unlike in the heyday of PC, only the most stuck-in-the-mud, usually young and inexperienced leftie activist I have met in the past 10 years could be accused of bandying about the term "racism" looseley or using it as a bludgeon. I have never seen it here on DU, bizarrely enough.

Far more often, I have seen defensive individuals accuse everyone of calling them a racist when what they are saying is, in fact, stereotypical or prejudicial. Usually these persons get accused of being a troll and banned rather quickly. I don't believe in the practice, but that's what's done here and I bet you don't have a problem with that.

So DU is a board left with just a few "wise old heads" like yourself, Sir, who can get away with the old "racist... how PC" canard without being accused by somebody or other of doth protesting too much.

It's ironic because 10 years ago there WERE alot of people abusing the term "racist". It's no longer the case because it's no longer necessary -- we are in the midst of a racist, classist, fundamentalist resurgence.

INCLUDING on the left, who if it weren't for Black Democrats would be mostly just complaining when it comes to helping black people return to Nawlins or attacking the problems of racism elsewhere. It is NOT the gov'ts job to fix problems of racism, it is OUR job, because let's face it, the gov't IS racist. Especially when run by Republicans. And that's certainly true in Europe, especially France.

The racism the other poster speaks of is racism in EUROPE that is being defended by "progressives" here on this board out of ignorance of European politics, which is extremely anti-immigrant and, in fact, racist (in France almost all blacks are Muslim, and vice versa).



2. As for opposition to religion being the core of leftism, that may be true for yourself, SIR, but do not extrapolate your beliefs to others.

Especially when us radical religious folks (ahem) seem to have a more LIBERAL position than certain posters here on issues like whether anti-globalization protestors are "too radical" or "too violent." I don't have a problem with non-violent active resistance, and neither do most religious movements.

If you meant opposition to blasphemy laws being at the core of leftism, may I politely suggest: nonsense. Opposition to class warfare waged by the rich is leftism.

Opposition to blasphemy laws is irrelevant in Europe, where the EU has authority to pass censorship laws defining "what is and is not free speech" and do so CONSTANTLY. So spare me one's pity for the embattled Danish "free press" whose only enemy is Muslim "censorship".

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. "Splinterists" "Marshalls" "Problem of moderate Moslems"

When you said that opposition to Religious Obscurantism was at the
heart of all Leftism I should have guessed that you were a secular,
authoritarian leftist. My apologies, sir.

I am not very left at all on some issues, being religious and all.
Yet I have no problem with the "degree of disorder" at anti-globalization marches.

I have nothing but contempt for the passively elitist, anti-semitic, authoritarian leftist national organizations who have co-opted that movement with their "marshalls" and turned it into kabuki theater designed to scapegoat the actions of a few for generalized police repression and carefully co-opted permitted Knights of Labor behavior.

[Leopolds Ghost]

89. The Violence in Seattle, Quebec City, etc. was police violence

Just because you consider someone an "anarchist" or an "extremist" does not make it permissible to beat them down on the street and accept the media's verdict that "they must have done something really violent to provoke such a police response."

In the "mainstream" left, meanwhile, there are numerous Anti-Semites and Israel haters who are perfectly peaceful, into passive civil disobedience and forging ties with mainstream Democrats.

On the issue of the cartoons, we agree, except to point out that us Americans have no respect for your (Canadian) anti-free speech laws or Danish anti-free speech laws.

But I agree they have em, which is precisely why all the progressives defending these Danish RWers should shut up. (at least the Muslims aren't pretending to believe in an ideal they are entirely unfamiliar with, in a country that still has blasphemy laws!)

What concerns me is the hypocrisy of the RW Danish "Christians" (who started this bullshit in an effort to foment a response, who REJECTED a similar set of cartoons featuring Jesus because it would violate the blasphemy statute) and the RW so-called "Muslims" who may or may not speak for their faith but are in any case hypocritical and misguided in their pursuit of state repression of Christian (anti-Muslim) cartoons while publishing Muslim (anti-Jewish) cartoons.

[Roho]

103. After reading your last three post...

I'm sure any misunderstanding you have about my position regarding the WTO protester is 100% my fault.

I was only trying to use a leftie cause that the RW corporatist media had misrepresented through pictures and lies to illustrate how easy it is to manipulate the message of thousands of people by highlighting the extreme actions of a few.

My comment about it only taking one man, a can of gas, and a match to br a building down was also an attempt to insinuate the possibility of agent provocateurs without being labeled a conspiracy theorist for saying it overtly.

[Leopolds Ghost]

134. That's cool, No misunderstanding

I was in a bad mood and venting at The Magistrate.

[PsychoDad]

A question...

I've been out of the news loop as of late.

If I recall correctly, the Iranian leader was originally bringing into question the numbers often cited for the Holocaust. Is he now questioning the event itself?

Many thanks in advance.
Peace.

[Behind the Aegis]

42. Yes...

Iranian leader denies Holocaust

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has courted further controversy by explicitly calling the Nazi Holocaust of European Jewry a "myth".

"They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets," he said.

source

His comments and his "contest" are what inspired the cartoon.

Salaam (I think that is the correct trasliteration.)

[PsychoDad]

109. How sad.... I wonder if he believes what he states?

As the events of the Holocaust fade with the fog of history it becomes more and more important to bring forward evidence of the atrocities perpetrated mainly upon the Jewish people of europe, and also upon many other "undesirable" minorities, into the light to remind us of what the whole of humanity is capable of at it's worst.

The sheer numbers involved stagger and numb the mind. Many people today in their comfortable lives cannot fathom the horror that was the Holocaust. It's quite inconceivable, and it's that same distance from times and the facts that revisionists exploit.

It is a shame that a supposedly well educated individual such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is echoing and spreading this tripe of denial.

Perhaps, Insha Allah/God willing, Mr Ahmadinejad will have the occasion to meet with some of the few remaining survivors, before they pass on, so he may learn form those who were there of the reality of the Holocaust from it's very victims.

Otherwise, he may have to face all of them on the last day, and explain to them and the Almighty why he disgraced them and their deaths.

Shalom, and Salaam Alikum, Peace be to you my friend.

[Behind the Aegis]

115. What a beautifully stated post!

It is one of my fears that as the last of Holocaust survivors die, revisionism and denial will only become stronger. Look how strong it is now and there are people with live accounts! As you say so eloquently, the fog of history has enveloped more than one atrocity. All we can do is educate and pray bigotry doesn't win the day!

Salaam and Shalom to you, friend!

[The Magistrate]

45. To My View, Sir

There is no real distinction between the two things. Minimizing the number of deaths is one of the chief "gateway" tactics of Holocaust deniers. To press the idea that, say, there were perhaps nearly a million killed as opposed to six millions moves the thing into reach of claiming it was merely harsh imprisonment or sporadic action, rather than the planned attempt of a state to exterminate a people. It also opens the door to claiming that the thing is a propaganda exaggeration for base purposes, since of course the generally accepted figures would be deliberate lies if the claims of the minimizers are in fact true.

[PsychoDad]

106. I agree...

Arguing over the numbers is often a straw man argument presented by the historical revisionists. While I agree exact numbers will never be known, and the actual toll may be greater or less than the often used numbers, I see the extermination of any number of people as a heinous crime no matter how low or high the number may be.

The leader of Iran arguing over numbers may have simply been ignorance of the facts and foolish hubris, denying the whole event goes far beyond that... Outright attempts at historical denial and revision.

Thank you for your reply
Peace.

[ShaneGR]

112. Muscular?

Did you stop to think that the cartoonist simply wanted to have the names of the death camps stand out, and so he made their arms larger?

[Roho]

118. with fists clenched?

From a right wing, islamophic cartoonist?

I'm not sure but it's not a point worth arguing imo because as has pointed out to me the contest doesn't require the holocaust be made light of.

[Jim Sagle]

138. I don't know if the rioters are clever, but they are worthless pieces of

shit, every one.

And so is anyone who excuses or defends them.

[MrSlayer]

11. Please say you're kidding.

The cartoon is making the point that the holocaust did indeed happen. The Iranian president is being depicted like a typical three-year-old who puts his fingers in his ears and yells so he won't have to hear what he doesn't want to hear. He is denying the holocaust in the face of overwhelming evidence, which is represented by the tattoos of the names of the death camps on the inmate forearms.


But I think you know all this.

[Roho]

14. how does this cartoon

in anyway fall into the category of cartoons that make light of the holocaust?

The cartoon contest was to make a point. il-conceived yes but a very simple point that the op is clearly missing if he thinks this cartoon fits the bill.

This cartoon also has very big muscular jews towering over a child like iranian president.

I hardly think this cartoon was a response to the contest. Rather it seems a not so veiled threat.

You do know that cox and forkum publish RIGHT WING bullshit cartoons right?

here's one you might like....

[MrSlayer]

21. Well under those circumstances you are right.

It certainly isn't making light of the holocaust but I don't read the hostility into it that you do. I think the OP's point was that this should be sent in as a "fuck you" type entry, which most people would agree is a fun thing. I wouldn't expect anyone here to promote something that would be appropriate in such a contest.

The cartoon you posted is indeed extremely Right Wing but I thought the first one was dead on.

[madmark]

27. the contest was for cartoons about the holocaust; it didn't spell out

that it was to make fun of the holocaust or deny it even though that was likely the odious intent of the sponsor. And besides, what's the sin the of cartoonist? Improper submission of the a cartoon to a pos contest sponsor? Too fucking bad.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

33. As always, straight to the point, MrSlayer.

:toast:

[fujiyama]

12. What is YOUR point?

I find it quite different to mock a religious prophet and compare it to genocide. As offensive as the Danish cartoons were, I don't recall them mocking Palestinians getting shot at by Israelis, or Iraqis getting bombed by Americans...

And what the hell is with their obsession over Jews anyways? Denmark is officially Lutheran.

Either way it's irrelevant. Nobody gives a shit about these Iranian cartoons and nobody is challenging their right to print it. Anti semitic cartoons in the region are nothing new anyways.

[Roho]

17. oh but you are misinformed

You might not give a shit about the contest but just have a look at the international condemnation of the contest compared to the outpouring of "support" a Danish right wing editor recieved for printing the cartoons he solicited to make a point.

You did know that he "dared" cartoonist to stop being cowards and draw the offensive cartoons didn't you?

http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&ned=ca&q=iran+cartoon+contest&btnG=Search+News

[fujiyama]

23. Yes I am fully aware

of the rules of their stupid contest. The reason this may receive more condemnation is simple - the holocaust was a genocide resulting in the death of over 6 million people.

I'm sorry, but mocking a religious character is not nearly as crass and tasteless as mocking deaths of victims of genocide. None of the Danish cartoons did that.

And yes, I understand the Danish cartoons were also meant to get a reaction. I understand how they could be considered offensive. The mobs bought into hook line and sinker though by the violent reaction. A few thousand people ignoring the thing, sending a few thousand letters, and a few peaceful protests would have had a much different outcome. Rather, it sparked a boycot by the Saudis, and the crazy imams went around with three cartoons that were never published.

[Roho]

39. Any idea how many muslims have died at the hands

of or financed by western powers in the last 20 years?

Any chance muslims might think they were being targeted for annihilation?

Any chance the nuance of this cartoon situation is being purposely left out of the right wing media debate?

Any chance the peaceful protests and boycotts turned violent AFTER european papers reprinted the cartoons?

Maybe some find the provocation ANOTHER sign the west will continue its campaign of death and occupation unabated.

Yes dissing Mohammad is only a minor offense to us in the west, but perhaps it is only a symptom of a much DEADLIER syndrome muslims feel they have.

Remember wing nutz don't do nuance. We do.

[The Magistrate]

68. How Broad Do You Want To Make This, Ma'am?

How many Moslems have been killed by Moslem governments in the last twenty years, the last fifty? The fundamentalist regime in Khartoum has enged for years in genocide against pagans and Christians in the south of Sudan, and currently against Moslems in the Darfur region. Noslems in the Indoneasian mlitary have been accused of massacres on the Moslem island of Aceh, and certainly conducted masacres among the Catholics of East Timor. This, like the Iraq-Iran War, it is fashionable in some circles to blame on the U.S., but it was something the Indonesian government wanted to do, and not a thing they were put up to or made to do by anyone. The Iraq-Iran War is a similar case: Hussein had his own reasons for action, that the U.S. thought the thing served its interests was merely icing on the cake. And of course, the United States broke the power of Serbia, a power engaged in wholesale slaughter of Moslems in the last decade.

[Jim Sagle]

141. Let me know when you're ready to start doing nuance.

[unschooler]

34. So joking about some guy who thought God was speaking to him is equal

to joking about the slaughter of 6 million Jews and 5 million Gypsies, gays, leftists and other "undesirables"?

The Iranian government's "joke" is, without question, far, far more objectionable morally. But nobody in the west is losing sleep over it, much less resorting to violence.


God. What a stupid argument. :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Behind the Aegis]

37. Liked your post.

Totally off topic...I really like your sig line!!! :toast:

[unschooler]

41. Thanks! I borrowed it from evolvefish.

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/stickers.html

:toast:

[Leopolds Ghost]

93. Mel Brooks thought so.

I'm getting sick and tired of this stuff. If neither country has free speech, then it is just a pissing match. No reason to give either contest free publicity by condembing those that protest, riot, whatever. People need to get a grip and realize that far more violent and more conseqential things are happing in the world. Unless of course all they are worried about is defending the secular RW Danish Christians non-existent 1st Amendment rights, which many gullible people seem to be doing in a pavlovian response that the cartoons (both sets of cartoons) are clearely engineered for.

Now what about the Jesus set, when are we going to see the cartoons Jyllands-Post censored? Presumably they can be published here in the US, where we have no blasphemy laws.

[unschooler]

116. Sorry. I don't get the Mel Brooks reference.

Mel Brooks thought that making fun of a 7th century "prophet" was the moral equivalent of making fun of the Holocaust?

I agree way too much has been made of this. Just wondered what exactly you're saying about Mel Brooks (guess I must have missed that movie).

[NoPasaran]

107. "Bogus freedom of the press and speech arguement"???

This post has a high bogosity content of its own!

[Roho]

110. Please cite the laws

in Denmark guaranteeing free speech or freedom of the press.

Others have articulated this point much more eloquently than in this thread so i'll defer to their analysis.

[Hosnon]

114. Much of Europe doesn't have a written constitution but it still exists.

Plus, the doctrines of International Law would make a strong case that freedom of the press has gained a (certain level of) global (recognition) and is effectively a law of nations.

(Could you link to the more in depth posts?)

() on Edit

[Roho]

121. ok here is the qoute

Here is the relevant info re Danish laws and their recent use.

"Mogens Glistrup, a tax protester turned xenophobe, was imprisoned for 20 days last year for a racist speech. He compared Turks to rabbits. Back in 1975, Jens Jorgen Thorsen, a multimedia artist belonging to the "situationist school," had a government grant provided to make a film about Jesus taken away. Five thousand young Christians had demonstrated in the street of Copenhagen against Thorsen and his movie and tumultuous scenes broke out. (Coincidentally, a police estimate held that about 5,000 people participated in one of the first demonstrations against the cartoons held in Copenhagen in October 2005.) Respected politicians spoke up and said that Thorsen had free speech, but if the blasphemy law had not been violated then certainly good taste and the feelings of religious Danes had the case dragged on in court forever with no conviction. Fourteen years later Thorsen had his government grant restored, adjusted for inflation. "

[Hosnon]

124. It seems that from those two examples the principle of free speech

was upheld in Denmark.

The principles that we are used to in the Bill of Rights evolved in countries such as the U.K. much the same way that Common Law developed in the U.S. Common Law is law but it is not codified.

Plus, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of speech, was adopted by Denmark in the forties. Although not legally binding, it is a strong indication that freedom of speech has become a foundational international law principle.

[NoPasaran]

128. Sorry I can't be as eloquent defending freedom in this thread

As you are in advocating its suppression.

[Roho]

135. Which freedom

have i suppressed?

Not speech because it has been pointed out over and over that no speech is free anywhere in the world.

"Fire" yelled in a crowded room could get you arrested if there was no fire n the good ol usa.

So again what freedoms am I suppressing?

[OffWithTheirHeads]

16. I don't want to interrupt your argument

but, excellent cartoon! Kind of reminds me of the freeper chick who debated Randi Rhodes. La,La, La, I can't hear you! As for the wack jobs rioting and burning and killing because of a cartoon, fuck em, nuke em. I am sick to death of religious nuts, christian or Muslim, trying to impose their twisted fairytales on everyone else. Funny, you don't see Buddhists doing this.

[Roho]

20. yea fuck em

funny you mention buhdists in the same paragraph you say fukem, nuke em.

Any idea where to send the nuke?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

29. He said you DON'T see Buddhists being extremists.

[Roho]

31. I know what he said

he also said fuck em, nuke em right after presenting the Buddhist as exemplary.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

35. Actually, he said "fuck em, nuke em" BEFORE mentioning Buddhists.

but, excellent cartoon! Kind of reminds me of the freeper chick who debated Randi Rhodes. La,La, La, I can't hear you! As for the wack jobs rioting and burning and killing because of a cartoon, fuck em, nuke em. I am sick to death of religious nuts, christian or Muslim, trying to impose their twisted fairytales on everyone else. Funny, you don't see Buddhists doing this.

And I think you're overreacting.

[Behind the Aegis]

36. No...that is not true.

He did say "fuck em,nuke em," but it wasn't "right after presenting the Buddhist as exemplary." Even if he had, your comment is nonsense and makes no point, but is yet another "strawman."

[OffWithTheirHeads]

56. Oh fuck all of you!

People who believe in things that you are not supposed to offend, like, don't you dare burn the flag because it's some sort of symbol, are full of kaka. A piece of cloth means about the same as a cartoon of Mohamed. It's just symbols. No one on the face of the earth has ever seen Mohamed, so we can't depict him. No none has seen Jesus, so we can't depict him either. You wanna KILL PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THIS? What horse shit! Damn, you want to hear "dead guy on a stick" jokes? I have got a dozen of em but no one riots about them, yet...

[Behind the Aegis]

64. Did you mispost?

Because I was agreeing with you.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

47. yeah, how about

to everyone getting into full riot gear about a cartoon.

[sandnsea]

18. What religious leader is portrayed??

None? Oh yeah. This isn't a cartoon ridiculing Moses, Mohammed or Jesus; which is against the law in Denmark, by the way.

[fujiyama]

26. Even if it had a religious leader

it would not spark this sort of ridiculous reaction. No one really cares if Jesus or Moses or Buddha is mocked.

And blasphemy laws are bullshit. I have heard they exist in Denmark, and that's unfortunate because I find them to be an egregious infringement on free expression.

I'm sorry, but even if the paper was guilty of being hypocritical by not printing the Jesus cartoon (and it shows they likely had an agenda by refusing to do so) , there isn't an excuse for this kind of reaction. I see some very real double standards in the way the world deals with Islam from any other religion regarding any forms of satire or humor. Islam and its prophets shouldn't be free from being ridiculed any more than any other religious figure. And any western nation that has "blasphemy laws" on the books has failed in allowing its people true free expression. Blasphemy laws are something we expect to be found in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not Denmark or Great Britain.

[Roho]

30. Canda has hate speech laws

what do you think of those?

[fujiyama]

38. I am not completely familiar with Canada's hate speech laws

but I believe societies should tolerate even the vilest and most offensive speech. It's the reason the ACLU defended even scum like the KKK's right to march.

Unless one is threatening another person's life or property, I don't believe speech should be banned and that includes offensive speech such as the Muhammad cartoons (which are really quite tame when taken into perspective).

[Roho]

44. wat if they are threatening?

What if the cartoons or speech incites violence or property damage?

Let's say I printed off a flyer calling on all god fearing people to seek revenge against gays for committing a horrible crime I attribute to them. Should that form of free speech be protected?

[Behind the Aegis]

52. Did you not read his post?

You say: "wat (sic) if they are threatening? What if the cartoons or speech incites violence or property damage?" Why did you even ask this when he clearly said: "Unless one is threatening another person's life or property, I don't believe speech should be banned..."

So, fujiyama, has already answered your inane question about printing off of a flyer. Clearly, he doesn't think that should be protected speech.

BTW, you false analogy is odious. The cartoons, as odious as some were, never called for anyone to "seek revenge" on Muslims or Arabs!

[Roho]

75. oh but free speech is sacred.

I'm going to respond to fugiyama if you care to read.

[The Magistrate]

79. What Restrictions On It Would You Suggest, Ma'am?

Especially knowing that those same restrictions might well be turned against you?

[Roho]

84. here is a good summary link of what we have here in Canada

After months and months of public debate I think what we finaly agreed on was a good fit for our values.

here is a snip from the link..
"
At 6:49 PM of 2003-SEP-17, the speaker of the House declared that the bill had passed. According to the Canadian Broadcasting Commission, the vote was 143 in favor and 110 opposed. (According to my ears, and the report in the next day's Toronto Star, it was 141 to 110. This was one of the rare private member's bills to be passed by Parliament.

All Alliance members voted against the bill. Forty-one Liberal backbenchers also voted "nay." But most Liberals and almost all Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party members voted in favor.

After the vote, outside Parliament:
- An emotional Svend Robinson said: "It's been a good week for equality in Canada. I feel proud to be a Canadian. What this bill is about, fundamentally, is sending a message to the gay bashers. It's about sending a message to those who promote hatred and violence and the death of gay men like Aaron Webster, who was beaten to death with a baseball bat in Vancouver." When asked about whether the freedom of speech of some religious folks would be adversely affected by the bill, he said: "It's a mask for homophobia for people who don't want to be honest about the real reason why the don't want to include sexual orientation in the law."
- Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said that the vote on the New Democratic Party's private members bill is "part of the government's position to protect sexual orientation....Tonight this is exactly what we did. We're talking about minorities. We offer them a much better protection as regards hate propaganda."
- Peter MckKay, leader of the Progressive Conservatives, supported the bill. He said that it strikes reasonable a balance between the protection of minorities and freedom of speech.
- Former Conservative leader, Joe Clark, also voted for it. He said "that kind of protection has to be extended to people vulnerable to those kinds of attitudes."
- New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton drew a connection between hate speech and hate-motivated violence. He said: "I have watched as the gay community has been attacked in downtown Toronto. In fact, an acquaintance of ours was killed. This is a huge issue and it needs to be addressed."
- Canadian Alliance Member of Parliament, Vic Toews, expressed unbelief at the Liberal support for "a dangerous bill that will toss fundamental Canadian freedoms out the window...Instead of passing a law that would ensure the protection of Canadians without curtailing fundamental freedoms, the Liberals have simply bowed down to the demands of certain special interest groups."
- Liberal Member of Parliament John Effort voted against the bill. He says that the "good faith" provision is "not good enough." He fears that "any preacher preaching from the pulpit" could be charged. 5"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm

[fujiyama]

61. As I said, threats should not be covered

If someone is calling to "seek revenge" on all members of X group (whether it's gays, Jews, Muslims, etc) then they should be prosecuted. That clearly is a threat to whichever group. That is clearly incitement.

I did not see incitement in the cartoons I saw. I saw a few clumsily addressing the lack of dissent in Islamic countries (the cartoonist looking behind himself), two mocking the editors and cartoonists themelves ("Stop it's just some silly Dane" and "the paper is a bunch of agent provacuetueers)), one mocking the idea of suicide bombers getting virgins, and I saw one or two possibly portraying Islam as violent or backwards. IMO most were juvenile and kinda stupid.

Look, I'm not saying Muslims didn't have the right to be offended. That offense and even anger is understandable and most voiced their frustration in non violent ways. I personally found boycotts of Danish goods misguided (this was one newspaper, not the entire country or government that published the cartoons), but hey that's their pjerogative, because it's non violent. I also found nothing wrong with those protesting.

But it's the violence that has resulted from this and the death threats that disturb many of us. We saw a similar reaction by extremists with Salman Rushdie several years ago. A translator of his book was killed and he was forced into hiding. Also there was a filmmaker Van Goh (forgot the first name) that was killed because of a film that some Muslims found offensive.

Those living in Muslim countries need to understand that in the West, all religious figures are fair game for mockery, satire, and humor. No one would be stupid enough to go into Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, or some other Islamic state and print these things, because those are their laws.

[Roho]

77. we are on the same page

But,

You are applying your sensibilities to what is deemed threatening and/or offensive. you are also now saying all speech isn't free.

so if we in the west can determine that dangerous speech isn't free then we must take into account what threats others see in the speech we allow.

You were able to point to the deaths of two westerners that dared disrespect islam in the last 20 years. I will even give you five more for argument sake. How many abortion providers have been killed by extremist christians in the past 20 years?

If there is a culture of oppression, racism, and racially motivated attacks in a country or city does a cartoon that furthers stereotypes or fuels the racial tension leading to a continuance of the prejudice or violence not fail into the incitement category?

The hate laws in canada were designed to protect homosexuals and minorities from exactly the type of garbage this rw editor tried to pull on the Danish muslims.

I am referring to the bomb in the turban cartoon in particular.

[Behind the Aegis]

81. Round and round

"You are applying your sensibilities to what is deemed threatening and/or offensive. So did the rioters!

"you are also now saying all speech isn't free." No. fujiyama was quite consistent, including his title of the post to which you respond: "As I said, threats should not be covered" See, he said that before when he said, "Unless one is threatening another person's life or property, I don't believe speech should be banned..."

"so if we in the west can determine that dangerous speech isn't free then we must take into account what threats others see in the speech we allow." This makes no sense. What you call for is called precognition.

"You were able to point to the deaths of two westerners that dared disrespect islam in the last 20 years. I will even give you five more for argument sake. How many abortion providers have been killed by extremist christians in the past 20 years?" He pointed to deaths of Westerners, what about deaths of "Easterners" who "disrespected" Islam? Do you really want to play the numbers game? Yes, those deaths would be according to their "rules," so why should they be compared to those who follow "Western" rules? As for abortion providers killed by extremists Christians, I doubt it even comes close to "offenders" of Islamic law.

"If there is a culture of oppression, racism, and racially motivated attacks in a country or city does a cartoon that furthers stereotypes or fuels the racial tension leading to a continuance of the prejudice or violence not fail into the incitement category?" What a curious question. Consider the number of anti-Semitic cartoons/editorials/articles that appear in Arabic/Persian papers, do they not contribute to the stereotypes and fuel 'racial' tension in the ME? Why are THEY not held to the same standards of the Danish press?

"The hate laws in canada were designed to protect homosexuals and minorities from exactly the type of garbage this rw editor tried to pull on the Danish muslims." So Canadian law applies to Denmark? I am sure that is not what you meant.

"I am referring to the bomb in the turban cartoon in particular." Well, I refer to this...

[Roho]

85. ....

The islamic world IS thoroughly condemned for these horrendous cartoons. You need to make this an us vs them fight as if muslims get a pass.

That is absurd, as is your precognition argument.

Are you a jew? If so can you not see the similarities between jews in 1930's europe and muslims there today?

One does not need precognition to know what might be deemed hurtful or highly offensive. Certainly the editor of the Danish paper didn't.


"So Canadian law applies to Denmark? I am sure that is not what you meant."

I'm done talking to you.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

40. Just identifying regional differences

The distinction is that the cartoon depicted a religious leader and Islam does not support mocking ANY of them. The OP had absolutely nothing to do with the current situation. Everybody doesn't have to do things the way they're done in the US, I thought that was the entire point of protesting the US butting into the world's affairs. Your opinion on what is or isn't fit to print is completely irrelevant. Denmark has laws, the Muslim world has their laws and/or traditions. If we can't figure out how to express ourselves while respecting the laws and practices of other people, then none of us has any business uttering the word civilized. I'll say it again, this is truly the stupidest debacle I have heard of in the history of mankind. Printing and reprinting the cartoons, protesting the cartoons, complete idiocy.

[unschooler]

46. Free people are not required to "respect" any religion, nor are Danes

bound by the laws, traditions, desires or whims of the leaders of any country but Denmark.

[sandnsea]

53. It's Danish law

So yeah, the people in their own country actually are required to respect their own laws. Otherwise, see #51.

[unschooler]

58. Sounds like it's not Danish law any more.

Apparently, the Danish courts clued into the fact that "blasphemy" laws infringe free speech. Same reason the courts here would invalidate any "blasphemy" laws passed by some wingnut state legislature.

However a court case brought against the paper that printed the Danish cartoons by 11 Muslim groups last October was thrown out, with the judges considering that the issue of freedom of expression was more important than the ban on blasphemy.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1894686,00.html







edited for typos

[sandnsea]

63. The law is still the law

One judge's decision doesn't change the fact of the law. They haven't changed the law so they must still believe hate speech isn't protected speech. I wonder how many people have to die until this judge admits his little act of defiance wasn't worth it.

[unschooler]

66. So abortion is still illegal in Texas? After all, the statute didn't

didn't disappear just because a few judges chose to defy it. :eyes:

[sandnsea]

67. Law doesn't work that way

One judge doesn't overturn law. But nice try anyway.

[fujiyama]

48. The point is though

that Denmark ISN'T an Islamic country and while it would be nice if all the world was always polite and respectful of others, that's NOT how the world works. Denmark does not have to abide by Iran or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia's laws regarding blasphemy. I'm sorry, but I do NOT really respect their laws or practices on ANY of these matters. I would rather live in a society which allows me to mock any dead religious figure I want and not have to face a death threat.

And yes, I consider these ideals more civilized than those of the Saudi state. Fuck them and their laws and practices. Their laws and practices also include executing women for getting raped. Are these laws and practices we should also respect? If I wanted to live under those laws and practices, I'd move to one of those countries!

[sandnsea]

51. They're Danish laws

I've said that twice already. And you can go on with your bad self bluster all you want. You mock the wrong person in the US and you can end up with a bullet in your head in 5 seconds flat and it doesn't even have to be a dead spaghetti monster. That's just people and I would suspect you don't talk that shit in the wrong neighborhoods in this country either.

[unschooler]

54. And the person who put the bullet in his head would be, um, arrested.

not defended as being somehow justifiably "offended."

[sandnsea]

59. And the dead is somehow, not... dead???

Excuse me, but whatever excuse somebody might use to kill me is certainly not near as stupid as my insisting on drawing a friggin' CARTOON that I knew was going to get me killed.

[unschooler]

60. Funny you should quote Tom Paine in your sig line. He didn't let

fears of offending the religious powers of his time silence him.

[sandnsea]

65. He drew stupid cartoons?

Absolutely pointless cartoons that had no purpose except to cause death and mayhem?? I don't recall that. Saying something thoughtful, like hate begets hate, that would be speech worth protecting.

[unschooler]

69. He offended people's religious sensibilities. He was hated by the

religious establishment of his time (and ours).

[sandnsea]

71. To make a point?

Or for the sheer fun of pissing people off?

The cartoons were devoid of all reason and purpose, printed purely for inflammatory purposes and those too stupid to know they were being led into a nuke the raghead lynch mob.

Sheeple. All over the place.

Gotta go now.

[unschooler]

111. I thought pretty much all speech was worth protecting.

:shrug:

[Roho]

117. "Pretty much" says it all.

Does that stament mean that their are things you shouldn't be allowed to say? And If so how and who should decide what is worth protecting?

[unschooler]

125. Yes. You shouldn't say "fire" to a man with a gun pointed at my head.

Any questions?

[Leopolds Ghost]

97. When did merely, offending religious people, become a stated goal

of progressives? How about the fact that you guys're being played by a bunch of right wing zealots in both camps? And they don't even know it because their target is each other -- Believing Christians and Muslims in a Propaganda war with one another. Some folks on DU are just naive enough to believe it's about "secularism" and the "right to offend religious people if I so choose". Well yeah you have that right -- in America. Not in Denmark or Iran. Get off yo' lazy ol' butt and exercise it in person, my man! ;-)

[Behind the Aegis]

73. Are they cartoonists or psychics?

What an odd statement you made. Shouldn't you be allowed to draw anything you want, no matter how odious, the exception being calling for the death and destruction of people and places, be protected?

Your statement is stupid. It is no different than saying Matthew Shepherd deserved what he got for getting in the car with those psychos, despite knowing what their reaction would be.

Hey, as a 'fag,' I know that I could get my ass beat if I kiss my partner on an Army base. Should I expect the same in a gay bar? What is the comparison? The cartoons were published in a Danish paper, not the NY Times, LA Times, BBC, etc. I don't often read Danish newspapers...you? you think Danish newspapers are a staple in the ME? The idea that these cartoonists should have known their cartoons could get them killed is also a bit Islamaphobic, because it assumes that a violation of Islamic law will result in death.

[fujiyama]

70. I know they are Danish laws

and I stated above that I find these laws to be bullshit anyways and yes, if such laws are on the books, the state is somewhat guilty of hypocrisy in not enforcing it in this incident (we know the paper is likely guilty of hypocrisy in not printing some Jesus cartoon) but still we're not sure how blasphemy laws are enforced there. Most would assume that any such cartoon mocking Jesus wouldn't cause too much of a stir anyways in any Western European country.

But, nevertheless, it is time that Muslim nations also understand that their religious figures are as much fair game for mockery and satire as anyone else. They are guilty of the much greater hypocrisy in allowing their own press to mock Hindu, Jewish, and Buddhist figures all the time.

I agree this whole uproar is ridiculous, but it's the reaction that was stupid. The publishing of the cartoons may have been in poor taste and a clear provocation, but it should have been responded by a more tempered and even handed response.

[sandnsea]

72. Give me an example

Of religious icons being mocked in Arab press. The actual religious "gods" themselves. That is what Islamic law forbids.

And they did respond in an even tempered manner, for several months. It wasn't until these cartoons were printed over and over and over that the rioting began. I'm not justifying it, I'm just saying it was easily prevented with just the teensiest bit of common courtesy. These cartoons were just not that fucking important in the scheme of things.

gotta go.

[fujiyama]

76. Why should I find an example?

Anti semitism for one is commonplace in Arab press. Islamic law is not as tolerant as many on the left would like to believe. Maybe "People of the Book" are treated well (well Jews really aren't), but it's never mentioned that others (Pagans, Hindus, and Buddhists) were not treated with the same respect or courtesy, and their religions never were either under these societies.

Sorry, I have no sympathy for rioters and I really don't care too much about this being offensive. There is stuff all the time that offends someone. They don't burn shit over it. If you don't like it, ignore it. Write letters to editors. Organize non violent protests. Boycott advertisers to the papers. Most Muslims did such things. And I have no problem whatsoever with them voicing their dissatisfaction with the cartoons.

Cartoons should be protected as free expression, just as poetry, books, or any other form of seech. It is vital to free societies every where that people be allowed these rights without fear of being killed.

I too have nothing else to say on this matter. I just hope the violence stops. Unfortunately our own government is not helping matters by using this as an opportunity to attack Syria and Iran.

[unschooler]

122. My congratulations to the Islamic press for following Islamic law.

Very culturally sensitive. If we are going to hold the privately held western press responsible for ensuring that its satirical cartoons, which are a well-established form of expressing substantive opinion in this part of the world, do not offend anyone, we should also hold the ME press responsible for ensuring that the garbage they run about non-Muslims day in and day out in the news (not opinion) portions of their state-run papers more offensive to us than satirizing a "religious icon."

Of religious icons being mocked in Arab press. The actual religious "gods" themselves. That is what Islamic law forbids.

[Leopolds Ghost]

96. Best Post Yet on the Cartoon Subject; thanks sandnsea

I wish I was that concise. :evilgrin:

[breakfastofchampions]

25. There is a good example

of how to respond to an inflamatory cartoon

[kinchdedalus]

49. I think it's hilarious...

...that Iran thinks they're going to teach the West about free speech with this cartoon contest. It's a shame that they think that this is what embodies free speech. David Brooks wrote a great article discussing this topic in the NYTimes today. Also, there was a fascinating article in the Nov. 21 issue of the New Yorker about a young Iranian blogger who was arrested and tortured for discussing reform on his blog. It gave me some insight into what the situation is like over there for common Persians.

BTW, is the Anne Frank/Hitler cartoon the best they could come up with? I mean, you'd think with their resources/experience they'd be able to come up with something a bit more clever. Perhaps what they need are some Jewish writers. Nu?

[Behind the Aegis]

55. I am sure this will be an entry...

Al-Ittihad, January 24, 2006 (UAE)
Translation:
Top - The Robbery
Over Gun - The Holocaust


Then again, they may submit this...

Al-Wifaq, February 6, 2006 (Iran)
Translation: The Jewish\Israeli devil is saying: "I don't admit the limits of freedom of speech except the Holocaust."

[breakfastofchampions]

57. Whatever they print will just make me LOL

[unschooler]

62. The whole world will be laughing at those cartoons.

And the clueless buffoons who print them.

[norml]

74. Here's mine.

Hitler ---> :(

[Stockholm]

87. Nice one

But who are coxandforkum.com anyway, what is their agenda?

Let´s see if the following titles of recent cartoons will enlighten us?

Must-See TV
Undeniable
Western Dhimmitude
Mohamed ElBaradei
A Right to Blasphemy
Idle Worship
The Greenspan Standard
Image Problem
Fidel Castro
A Yen to Censor
Thugocracy
JIB Awards, Final Round
Driver's Seat
John Kerry
Huff and Puff
SNN Interview, Part II
Brokeback Diplomacy
The Looters
Cotton Picking Mind
Angela Merkel
Sheltering Guise
SNN Podcast Interview

Interesting, especially the one about Hillary or the cartoon of John Kerry. Wait, maybe the sites they are linking to could serve as a clue?

Little Green Footballs
InstaPundit
4 Mile Creek
9/11 Families for America
A Little More To The Right
Argghhh!
Aaron's cc
Able Kane Adventure
AlphaPatriot
American Mind
American Realpolitik
Andrew Sullivan
Andrew's Notepad
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Army of Mom
At Ground Level
Atlas Shrugs
babalu
Bad Example
Basic Training
Belmont Club
Blackfive
blogoSFERICS
Blogs of War
Camp Katrina
Captain's Quarters
Charlotte Capitalist
Chequer Board
Chuck Ziegenfuss
Citizen Smash
Cold Fury
Confederate Yankee
Conservative Thinking
Daily Blitz
Davids Medienkritik
Dean's World
Defense of America
Democracy in Iraq
Detroit News Weblog
Dhimmi Watch
documentary:BLOG
DoggerelPundit
EGO
Fourth Rail
Free Iran News
Free Thoughts
Friends of Micronesia
Gateway Pundit
Gus Van Horn
HobbsOnline
Hog on Ice
INDC Journal
Inoperable Terran
Internet Haganah
Iran Press News
Iran Va Jahan
Iraq the Model
Israpundit
IsFullofCrap.com
israellycool.com
It's Almost Supernatural
James Lileks
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Kapitalismo
Les Jones
Macker's World
Matt Margolis
Media Drop
MEMRI
Michael Yon
Michelle Malkin
Milblogging
Moore Lies
Mudville Gazette
Nashville Files
National Debate
No Pasaran
Nous Poetikos
O.E.S. Project
One Hand Clapping
Opinionnation
Outside The Beltway
Partamian Report
Pink Kitty
Political Teen
POMO Blog
Power Line
Producer Advocate
Protein Wisdom
Random Probabilities
The Raphi
Rational View
Regime Change Iran
Right Wing News
Roger L. Simon
Rule of Reason
samaBlog
Scared Monkeys
Secular Foxhole
Shots Across The Bow
Silent Running
Sisyphean Musings
Sixth Column
Snapshots
SoapBox Politics
SoCalLawBlog
Sound Politics
Spirit of Man
Strategy Page
Take Back The Memorial
Tempus Fugit
TigerHawk
Tim Blair
TMan in Tennessee
Todd A
Toe In Water
Transterrestrial Musings
Two Minute Offense
Word Unheard
USC Objectivist Club
USS Neverdock
Watcher of Weasels
Winds of Change

Seriously Behind the Aegis?

[Scurrilous]

99. cox & forkum vs. the nazis:

http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/slideshow1.html


BTW...someone needs to contact the good folks at Cox and Forkum and advise them to cull 'Daily Blitz' from their blogroll. I checked it out and it seems that Blitz, an tombstoned disruptor, has called it quits as a blogger and no longer updates his crappy little anti-DU site.

[Behind the Aegis]

108. Seriously Stockholm...

You think the cartoon is wrong? I didn't post any other cartoon or information because I don't agree with their POV. However, on this topic, they are dead-on! Or do you disagree?

On edit: Do read post #32. Also, it is a shame that it was a RW cartoonist that had to draw up the truth.

[unschooler]

126. Not every issue is a right-left issue. Liberty belongs to us all.

[Roho]

130. What truth?

Truth that the Holocaust happened? The truth that the Iranian president called it a myth? The truth revisionism occurs on both side of the Jewish/Muslim middle east issue?

What truth?

Oh and please consider this quote from CAIR it seems to dispute your contention that this cartoon you posted in your OP somehow fits the contest "rules"...



CAIR Condemns Iranian Holocaust Cartoon Contest

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 2/8/06) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations today condemned a plan by an Iranian newspaper to solicit cartoons denying the Nazi Holocaust.

Iran’s Hamshahri newspaper says the contest is in reaction to the publication in Europe of cartoons mocking Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. The controversy over those cartoon sparked worldwide protests.
--------

Also is it only a mater of scale that Jewish revisionism regarding the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is never brought up when discussing the ME?

[rinsd]

140. So the cartoon is off limits just because Cox & Forkum are rwers?

I'm sorry, do you disagree with the cartoons message?

Or are you looking to shift the focus to who did it?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

143. A stopped clock is right twice a day(n/m)

(n/m)

[Joe Fields]

100. Donj't you think enough is enough? n/t

[Hatalles]

120. CAIR Condemns Iranian Holocaust Cartoon Contest

http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=1982&theType=NR

[unschooler]

127. Good for them.

:applause:

[Nye Bevan]

129. The Jewish Street EXPLODES!

April 1, 2006. New York -- In response to a series of offensive cartoons published in an Iranian newspaper and subsequently printed in every newspaper around the globe, including many which had refused to publish the now-forgotten "anti-Muslim" cartoons last winter, the "Jewish street" erupted. At Brandeis University, a course on Lesbian motifs in Yiddish literature was briefly interrupted as students asked their professor what he thought about the controversy. In Washington D.C. a flurry of letters to the editor and press releases poured out of Jewish organizations. In New York, Commentary magazine -- a leading organ of the "neoconservative" Jewish Right -- announced it would run three articles on Iran in its next issue as well as an extensive letters section.

"This is outrageous but expected," thundered a furious Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League on a longer-than-normal appearance on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews."

Elsewhere Jewish tempers weren't running so hot. At Artie's Delicatessen on the Upper West Side of New York, Josh Greenberg ate a pastrami sandwich with a friend, Abe Kolman, hoping to avoid all the furor in the Jewish street. "Zabar's is a mad house today," Greenberg observed. When asked about the Iranian newspaper controversy, Greenberg said "What are you going to do?"

Kolman, an orthodontist, added "I'd stop eating Iranian pistachios, I guess."

The White House continued to plead with Jews across America to stay calm

http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_02_05_corner-archive.asp

(Warning-- I think this is a RW site as this was forwarded to me by a repuke at my job. But I thought it was quite amusing)

[breakfastofchampions]

137. I hate religious whackos

[izzybeans]

133. That's awesome!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

142. Some of the responses here are hilarious

They seem offended that the OP has violated the rules of the "contest".

[davidinalameda]

144. locking

unfortunately, this thread has gone straight into the toilet