BS: The right to insult and cause offence

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 11:17 PM

What you said, petr, was this:

on the other hand, I saw no muslim protest or even a peep of outrage at the Afghan judge (and the rest of the Afghan population) that wanted to put the Christian convert to death

And that is what I responded to. If you feel you need to restate your position in light of new information, that is your right, and have at it. But as originally stated, it's a highly prejudiced bit of willful ignorance.

On the subject of religious fundamentalists, I agree that all forms are destructive. But I don't single out any particular one in isolation from the others for my condemnation.

I also am aware that issues such as the one you gave the example of (the rape example), are not exclusively the products of religion, but are, instead, the products of closed societies that embrace old and worn out societal norms. It's not religion that is the problem. It's closed societies that are the problem. Putting an entire religion on the defensive is not a way to open up closed societies. All you will accomplish with that approach is to cause them to become even more closed and even more radicalized.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:26 PM

Carol, I doubt you would argue the scale of Muslim protest around the world regarding the Christian Convert, was anywhere near the scale of protest regarding the Cartoons. Pretty much all the Afghan religious leaders felt he should be put to death, as well as most Afghans that were interviewed on the subject.
(Which is not to say that all afghans felt that way - however Hamid Karzai had a really tough issue on his hands - its tough to get western aid with this kind of thing - people even protested when he was freed for mental health reasons - and he ended up leaving the country. wonder why?)

no doubt there was some muslim protest on the issue, I note the samples are all from Muslim groups in the west, heres what aljazeera had to say on the subject

note the line 'according to sharia law, death is the stipulated punishment for apostasy'

I am not anti-muslim although perhaps you are being wilfully ignorant yourself in drawing that conclusion. I am opposed to all religious zealotry, be it christian fundamentalist or muslim etc..

I do take offense at a system of belief that requires a woman who has been raped to provide 4 male witnesses, or something equally ridiculous as sentencing an innocent sister of a rapist to be raped as punishment for his crime.. the list goes on ..
If you want to jump to the defense of that kind of thinking you are the bigger fool.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:55 PM

My point exactly!

Its O.K. to print cartoons about Muslims but not about Jews.

I wonder if the Danish also print sexist cartoons and homosexual cartoons?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 02:15 PM

This is interesting. According to the Wikipedia site, the Danish editor who commissioned the racist cartoons of Muslims has been put on indefinite leave from Jyllands-Posten for saying he would reprint satirical cartoons from an Iranian newspaper depicting the Holocaust. Free speech indeed.

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

"On 8 February 2006, Flemming Rose said in interviews with CNN and TV 2 that Jyllands-Posten planned to reprint satirical cartoons depicting the Holocaust that the Iranian newspaper Hamshahri planned to publish. He told CNN "My newspaper is trying to establish a contact with that Iranian newspaper Hamshahri, and we would run the cartoons the same day as they publish them". Later that day the paper's editor-in-chief said that Jyllands-posten under no circumstances would publish the Holocaust cartoons. [1] and Flemming Rose later said that "he had made a mistake".[2] [3]. The next day Carsten Juste, the editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten, stated that Flemming Rose was on indefinite leave.[4]"

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:41 PM

...on the other hand, if you really didn't see any mention of Muslim criticism or condemnation of the apostasy ruling in the Western media, that supports what I have been saying about the Western media's racist anti-Muslim scapegoating agenda. As always, it's not that no Muslims were criticizing or condemning this action... it's that no Western media outlets are willing to report when Muslims do criticize or condemn these kind of things. And people like you are just so willing to believe the worst about Muslims, you don't even bother to look past the lies and distortions the mainstream Western media puts before you.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:25 PM

on the other hand, I saw no muslim protest or even a peep of outrage
at the Afghan judge (and the rest of the Afghan population) that wanted to put the Christian convert to death

Looks like you didn't look very hard. Or maybe you prefer to be willfully ignorant. Yours is the kind of anti-Muslim racism I've been talking about all along. Just keep those blinders on, petr. They seem to be working very well for you.

I found this in the first page of a Google search using the search words "muslim condemn afghanistan sentenced death convert christianity" (without quotes).

href="http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/world_full_story.asp?service_id=2176

CAIR calls for release of Afghan Christian convert
3/23/2006 10:00:00 AM GMT

The Council on American-Islamic Relations urged the Afghan government to free a man facing a possible death sentence for converting from Islam to Christianity, The Muslim News reported.

The Washington-based advocacy group says that Abdul Rahman�s conversion is a personal matter that shouldn�t be handled by the government.

CAIR sought consultation on the issue from members of the Fiqh Council of North America, an association of Islamic legal scholars that interprets Muslim religious law, then issued a statement saying;

"Islamic scholars say the original rulings on apostasy were similar to those for treasonous acts in legal systems worldwide and do not apply to an individual's choice of religion. Islam advocates both freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, a position supported by verses in the Qur�an, Islam's revealed text, such as:

1) �If it had been the will of your Lord that all the people of the world should be believers, all the people of the earth would have believed! Would you then compel mankind against their will to believe?� (10:99)

2) �(O Prophet) proclaim: 'This is the Truth from your Lord. Now let him who will, believe in it, and him who will, deny it.'' (18:29)

3) �If they turn away from thee (O Muhammad) they should know that We have not sent you to be their keeper. Your only duty is to convey My message.� (42:48)

4) �Let there be no compulsion in religion.� (2:256)

"Religious decisions should be matters of personal choice, not a cause for state intervention. Faith imposed by force is not true belief, but coercion. Islam has no need to compel belief in its divine truth. As the Qur�an states:�Truth stands out clear from error. Therefore, whoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks.� (2:256)

"We urge the government of Afghanistan to order the immediate release of Mr. Abdul Rahman."

CAIR, the U.S.�s largest Muslim civil rights group, has 32 offices, chapters and affiliates in the U.S. and Canada. Its mission is to improve the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil rights, support American Muslims and promote justice and mutual understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 12:49 PM

in the above post of 2:19 CarolC perfectly proved Wolfgangs point...

...on the other hand, I saw no muslim protest or even a peep of outrage at the Afghan judge (and the rest of the Afghan population) that wanted to put the Christian convert to death

Well let's use Wolfgang's logic then, petr. Where did you look for Muslim outrage about the Afghan judge wanting to put the Christian convert to death?

And would you please provide some examples of the coverage you saw about the peaceful protest? So far, I have not seen any examples provided by anyone at all.


I don't know which kind of definition I prefer, Wolfgang. I wasn't aware of the definition I highligted in bold until the day I posted it in this thread. It has opened up some new avenues of thought for me and I'm considering all of the implications before I decide which use I feel most comfortable with. It is definitely providing me with some very interesting food for thought.

But nevertheless, as I said before (and independently of the definition I highlighted above), racism doesn't depend on the group in question being technically a different race. All that is needed is for them to be treated as if they are a different race, and to be discriminated against for that reason.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 04:54 PM

Interesting, Carol.

I see you would consider an expression like 'the Muslim race' to be a correct description in analogy to 'the English race'.

I don't agree with you there at all. Muslims come from all parts of the world and from all subgroups of our species. I don't consider it a good idea to call them a race.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 12:26 PM

in the above post of 2:19 CarolC perfectly proved Wolfgangs point.

as for peaceful protests (by the Muslim population), there were plenty here in Canada. We heard about them nonstop for a period of several weeks..

on the other hand, I saw no muslim protest or even a peep of outrage
at the Afghan judge (and the rest of the Afghan population) that wanted to put the Christian convert to death, Which I regard as a much worse violation of human rights than insulting any religion.

imagine if some western govt had such a law..

and yet they were offended by an image of an angel with the words thou shall not kill - the whole thing is about as ridiculous as the Muslim man who muttered 'I divorce you' to his wife in his sleep - and
the village elders made them get a divorce - required her to sleep with someone else before they could re-marry....

this kind of mentality went out in the west centuries ago..

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 05:42 AM

" BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type"

Like folksingers?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 08:28 PM

BTW, definition of "race"...

2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics "the English race"
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type

From here...

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/race

(click on "race[3,noun]")

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 02:19 PM

We all know, Carol that if you cannot argue the facts you argue the motives of posters with which you do not agree.

What a hypocrite you are Wolfgang. The tactic described above is the one you use the most.

Racism doesn't depend on the group in question being technically a different race. All that is needed is for them to be treated as if they are a different race, and to be discriminated against for that reason. This is what you and many others do with regard to Muslims.

But I do note that you have not yet provided any real documentation to support your assertion about the "peaceful protests" being covered in Western media.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 06:00 AM

Sorry for not reading carefully. I was reading and whose peaceful protests were never covered in the Western media not as an addendum to 'demonstrations' how it may have been meant but as a statement on its own.

But the fact that peaceful demonstrations have been covered in the European press remains the same.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 05:44 AM

We all know, Carol that if you cannot argue the facts you argue the motives of posters with which you do not agree.

BTW, Muslims are not a race.

Some online definitions of protest
A demand for an apology is a protest according to some of the definitions. And it is peaceful

But if you did mean with with "peaceful protest" demonstrations there have ben hundreds of repüorts about them all of Europe and they are easy to google.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:35 PM

I don't see any mention of peaceful protests in the link you provided, Wolfgang. I only saw mention of one demand for an apology.

You should really learn about the Muslim concept of lying for the sake of the own community.

I don't need to learn about that. It's hardly a Muslim concept. I see people lying for the sake of whatever community they identify with here in the Mudcat, in the Western media, and in Western governments every single day. I could, if I were as obsessed with trying to trip you up as you are with me, suggest that posting a link to the Guardian article as an example of peaceful protest, and your comment about "the Muslim concept of lying for the sake of the own community" (now there's a fine bit of racist propaganda if ever I saw one) is an excellent example of you distorting the truth for the sake of your own community (in this case your community being defined as everyone who isn't Muslim).

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 10:47 AM

Have you read, heard, or seen any mention of peaceful demonstrations in the Western media? (Carol)

Sure I did, but then I do read European media and do not rely solely upon propaganda sites from an interested party. Here's how the Guardian reported back then. Our newspapers were full of reports, more so of course about violent protests later (that's why they started the violent protests, to get TV time) but also about peaceful protest. You should really learn about the Muslim concept of lying for the sake of the own community.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 09:07 PM

back to the cartoons, there were many, many negative opinions about Muslims in the Australian media when the riots happened around the world in response to the publishing of the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. The opinion pieces in many of our main papers served to whip up further distrust of Muslims in Australia based on the actions of people overseas.

None of those commentators noted that no Australian Muslims rioted or did anything objectionable related to the cartoons.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: heric
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 09:06 PM

Holey moley. Maybe the world is moving to an advanced stage of civilization where all wars can be fought with cartoons.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 09:02 PM

This article about Dr Wafa Sultan, focuses on the extremes discussed in this thread. When Dr Sultan was a medical student at the University of Aleppo, in northern Syria, gunmen of the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the university and killed her professor as she watched. aid.

Al Jazeera invited her to debate an Algerian cleric on the air last July. In the debate, she questioned the religious teachings that prompt young people to commit suicide in the name of God. "Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up?" she asked. "In our countries, religion is the sole source of education and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched."

Her remarks set off debates around the globe and a clip of her February Al-Jazeera appearance had been viewed more than a million times.

"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations," Dr. Sultan said. "It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality."

She is now subject to a fatwa.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 08:46 PM

Meanwhile, in the Antipodes, the cartoon debate hotted up when Australia granted refugee status to some West Papuan asylum seekers. West Papua is colonised by Indonesia, the asylum seekers were indigenous activists escaping persecution.

The Indonesian government was deeply offended by the suggestion that it could persecute anyone - and placed strong pressure on the Australian govt not to grant asylum to the West Papuans. Their reaction when news of the granting of refugee status came out was pretty tetchy, and one of their local papers published this cartoon, which depicts our Prime Minister as a dingo, buggerising our Foreign Minister. In that image, a shaking Howard is mounted on Downer with the prime minister saying: "I want Papua!! Alex! Try to make it happen."

A few days later, one of our newspapers published a cartoon of the Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as a tail-wagging dog mounting a startled-looking Papua dog and saying "don't take this the wrong way". The caption under the cartoon reads "no offence intended".

The Australian cartoon can be found here, by going to Bleak's daily cartoon and clicking.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 06:33 PM

I'm going by what people are saying they "know" about the situation, here in this thread and elsewhere, Wolfgang. Have you read, heard, or seen any mention of peaceful demonstrations in the Western media?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 03:48 PM

whose peaceful protests were never covered in the Western media (Carol)

How many of all Western media have you read to come to such a general conclusion, Carol?

Or is it just your idiosyncratic way of trying to say that you have not read about peaceful protest being covered?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 10:25 PM

Thank you for your kind words, Guest,me.

I think my point is that many of the people who were rioting and committing other kinds of violence in response to those cartoons, as well as many of the people who were demonstrating peacefully (and whose peaceful protests were never covered in the Western media) are saying that their anger is not because of the Prophet being depicted, but because they feel that they are being descriminated against. This feeling seems to me to be a valid one, since the same magazine (Jyllands-Posten) decided to not publish a cartoon with a disrespectful depiction of Jesus because it might cause offense.

The point I am trying to make is that although the Western media wants everyone to believe that the anger is only because of the fact that some of the cartoons depicted the Prophet, and not because of any other considerations, that is just not the case. Some may be angry about the fact that the Prophet was depicted, but many are angry because they feel discriminated against, marginalized, dehumanized, and ignored. Many are angry about what they feel is a double standard... one standard for Muslims, and another standard for everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: GUEST,me
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 10:14 PM

We're back to the beginning again. I think every possible argument one way or the other has been made on this thread, and I don't think anyone's point of view has changed at all. Come to think of it, that's an interesting question: Has anyone's opinion changed the least little bit as a result of this prolonged and lively discussion? Or, has it had the effect of hardening the position you already held?

Okay, I will make a BRIEF response to melodeonboy's rhetorical questions - I don't see it as a matter of us being "allowed to laugh at ourselves but not at certain other groups in case they threaten to kill us"; I see it as a matter of sensitivity.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: melodeonboy
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 07:49 PM

'"our" way is not necessarily the only valid way of looking at things'

Yes, Guest me, I agree with your comment above (I hope I haven't quoted it out of context). My concern is that many in the Muslim world believe that "their" way (reinforced and controlled by imams and theocracies) is the only way of looking at things.

Let us remember that the original cause of offence, the cartoons, were published in Denmark. I don't pretend to be an expert on Denmark, but as I understand it, their society, like Britain, permits lampooning of the "great and good". Far from being oppressive, a situation where a pauper may laugh at a prince, or a peasant at a prime minister, is something that I, along with most Westerners, I suspect, find liberating. Most Muslims come from countries or societies which do not allow this kind of behaviour, where one is expected to kowtow to those with greater economic, social or religious power. In this context, of course they find these cartoons shocking. But they were published in Denmark, not in the Muslim world. If Muslims don't want to see them, they don't have to go to Denmark. As I understand it, it is Muslims who made these cartoons widely available in Mulsim countries; I'm not aware that the Danes had any intention of exporting them.

Are we to exist in a situation where we are allowed to laugh at ourselves but not at certain other groups in case they threaten to kill us? Who's oppressing who here?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: GUEST,me
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 01:58 PM

Here's to CarolC.

I just stumbled onto Mudcat recently, but I've observed that most "discussions" here in which people have opposing strongly-held views start to degenerate into schoolyard name-calling by the fourth or fifth post - relatively speaking, this thread has gone on an extraordinarily long time before sinking into such childishness, and I think much of the credit goes to Carol. Facing relentless opposing arguments, some intellectual bullying, and some ridicule, she has maintained her decorum while continuing to try to open minds to the possibility of another point of view on the issues in question. Some of you are so intent on watching for her to slip up in the course of making an argument that you're missing her general point: she's not calling for the beheading of cartoonists and more suicide bombing; as I understand it, she's suggesting that the "Muslim world" may have some valid - or at least, understandable - beefs with the West, and that "our" way is not necessarily the only valid way of looking at things. I don't know why that's bothering people so much ...

As for a certain "gentleman" - casting aspersions on the mental health of someone because they don't agree with you in the context of a rational discussion hardly seems "the behaviour of a gentleman". And "chronologically challenged"? What's that supposed to mean anyway? That Carol is old and therefore senile, or young and therefore ignorant, or that her life expectancy is limited due to her expression of unpopular views? Whatever the case, it's distasteful.

By the way, FWIW, I'm speaking as someone who recently had a close family member injured in an attack by a gang of what could be described as "Muslim youths", an attack in which there were clearly racial overtones; I'm not living in some la-la land.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 10:28 AM

He's a very nice man in person, Alba. I'm sure you will enjoy meeting him.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: Alba
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 09:13 AM

Giok is a gentle man with a personal opinion.
I am looking forward to meeting him at the Getaway this year:).

Jude

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 09:04 AM

My goodness, Mr. MacKenzie. You have no problem accusing others of bias, but when your own bias is pointed out, you have no better response than to make vicious attacks rather than reasoned arguments. You surprise me. Hardly the gentleman I met at the Getaway. Maybe your powers of reasoning go dormant when you get your dander up. Either way, I will take you at your word when you say you will withdraw from the debate. Good bye.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 02:00 AM

I merely stated a fact, one of the basic tenets of research is to provide provenance for your points of argument. I merely stated the antecedents of those who provided your backup information, and pointed out what would be obvious to any sane person.
Until you can argue sensibly and properly on a subject I shall not waste any more words on you, you are obviously incapable of logical or reasoned argument.
I would also point out that if you may be chronologically challenged.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:43 PM

The same arguments can be applied to the feelings many Muslims around the world have toward the West, melodeonboy. If they have anger at Western governments and countries, doesn't it make sense to ask why?

Can it be the colonialism that Western governments have been forcing on them for many decades? And the wars and occupations Western governments have been waging against them (mostly for oil) for many decades? And the lies and trickery Western governments have used in order to manipulate the people of many Muslims countries to do their bidding? And the killing of hundreds of thousands of Muslims throughout the world by Western governments over the decades, all for the purpose of gaining supremacy in the region, and for access to oil?

You might not like their presence in your country, melodeonboy, but have you ever even bothered to wonder how they feel about the presence of your government and your country's military in their countries? Of course not. That would be treating them like human beings, wouldn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: melodeonboy
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 07:07 PM

If people in Britain and other European countries are wary of or even hostile to Muslims, and it's probably true to say that many are, shouldn't CarolC be asking why?

Speaking as a Briton, I believe it's true to say that the majority of Britons (certainly the majority of the English) are not greatly concerned about religion. It's therefore not been of great concern to most of us what religion someone belongs to.

This laissez-faire attitude is changing, and what is interesting is that it is changing only in regard to Muslims. Why are we not reacting in the same way to the large numbers of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and adherents of other religions that live in Britain?

Might it not be that we do not see members of these other communities setting up their own parliament; that we see these communities integrating into British society and not trying to create a state within a state; or that we do not see members of these communities openly declaring war on British society; that we have not experienced terror attacks from these other communities; and, possibly most importantly, that it is the Muslims, not these other communities, who are the one religious/political faction that is trying to change the way that British people live and to interfere with our rights and freedoms. Is it therefore any surprise that many British people are concerned about Muslims and the political (oh yes, there's more to this than just religion) effect that they are having on British society?

The Muslim world is full of anti-Islamic conspiracy theories. It ill behoves Westerners to become apologists for such nonsense; they should know better! CarolC take note!

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 04:57 PM

A Moslem convert to Christianity, a leader in the South African Palestinian Solidarity movement, and a Moslem Activist.
That's who the 3 authors of that article are, not likely to be written from a neutral point of view!

These are your words, John 'Giok' MacKenzie. Please advise me of any possible interpretations of these words besides the one I articulated in my 30 Mar 06 - 03:40 PM post. If you are unable to come up with any, I will attribute your accusations against me in your 30 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM post to the lateness of the hour where you live.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM

"The fact that you consider anyone who is now or has ever been a Muslim to be automatically suspect or inherently dishonest shows how biased and lacking in neutrality your own perspective is."

That is an outright lie, and I think you should retract it. Your rabid defence of your viewpoint with utter disregard of the facts has gone too far.
I prefer to dispute or discuss a point of view with someone who has a balanced viewpoint, and not someone who will not be wrong in spite of evidence to the contrary.
You are troubled CarolC, I think you should consider seeking medical help.
John 'Giok' MacKenzie

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 03:40 PM

John 'Giok' MacKenzie, nobody writes from a neutral point of view. The only people who believe they are doing so are the ones who are so ignorant of other possible points of view, they consider theirs to be the only possible valid one.

The fact that you consider anyone who is now or has ever been a Muslim to be automatically suspect or inherently dishonest shows how biased and lacking in neutrality your own perspective is.

I found this while searching the Mail & Guardian website. This is the kind of thing that represents the culmination of the kind of agenda Western governments have toward Muslims around the world. The way the government in question (the US government in this case) is behaving toward human beings is no better than anything that is being done or has been done to human beings by any Muslim regimes, or even terrorists. In fact some of the tactics are very reminiscent of tactics used by the Nazis in their prison camps. This is the kind of thing we are being inured to by Western governments. It is the reason they are trying to portray Muslims throughout the world as less than human, as the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten did. If we don't see Muslims as human, we won't mind so much when our governments (and our servicemen and women) treat them as less than human.

http://www.mg.co.za/articledirect.aspx?articleid=39347&area=%2finsight%2finsight__international%2f

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 01:16 PM

A Moslem convert to Christianity, a leader in the South African Palestinian Solidarity movement, and a Moslem Activist.
That's who the 3 authors of that article are, not likely to be written from a neutral point of view!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:58 PM

What about the right not to be bullied into compliance with someone else's "rules" -- bullied by threats of murder? (Robinia)

That's the point, exactly. Threats of death or injury come from a totalitarian mindset. People who think what they believe has to be shared by anyone else.

I like you example what they did in the town. I personally wish the whole EU would have acted and published the cartoons simultaneously when the first death threats came and embassies were burned just to show that this is not the way of protesting that we accept.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:45 PM

Here's the editorial as it appeares in the Mail & Guardian:

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=263804&area=/insight/insight__comment_and_analysis/

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:29 PM

bfdk, I'm not the one who used the words "large numbers of attacks". Those words come from the South African newspaper, the Mail & Guardian. This is the quote I found in the editorial I excerpted...

"'Further, they were published in Denmark, which has been named by the European Union Commission on Human Rights as the most racist country in Europe. It has witnessed a large number of attacks against Muslims, some resulting in the killings of Muslim immigrants."

I don't know anything at all about the Mail & Guardian, but I'll see what I can find out. And I'll try to find out specifics of what they were referring to when they made that statement.

And on the subject of a "free press"... there is no such thing in the US. All of our media are beholden to government, corporate, and special interests. Nothing is published in any major news outlets without their say-so. It looks like that is the case in your country as well. Prior to my posting, did you know that a couple of years ago, Jyllands-Posten decided against publishing a cartoon that showing a disrespectful depiction of Jesus, with the reason given that they felt it would cause offense?

If your answer is that you didn't know, how can we expect anything from the press in your country to be unbiased and representative of what actually happened?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: bfdk
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 04:05 AM

Carol, I notice that "..a large number of attacks against Muslims, some resulting in the killings of Muslim immigrants" has by now been downgraded to "I have found at least one person who claims that there was violence against Muslims in Denmark"..

Okay, so could you please supply some details as to which Muslim(s) has/have been attacked when and where? If we're talking about one specific incident, it wouldn't be so hard to come up with some facts, so the rest of us can check it out for ourselves? Was your informant Danish? Muslim? a Muslim Dane?

The D Notice mentioned by Giok is a British concept. We don't have anything like that here. So, there's no way the Danish government could have imposed any prior ban on the cartoons as you seem to think when writing "If they were, they wouldn't have been so reluctant to put a 'D Notice' on those cartoons, would they?".

The Danish government *cannot* impose any kind of D Notice or ban on anything a paper might decide to print. The papers are answerable to the courts, if they print something that's against the law of the land - derogatory, defamatory or what have you. Whoever's offended by what they write may take the matter to court. But the press *never* has to ask ahead whether or not it can print this or that article or - in this case - cartoon. Equally, the Danish government is not in any way resonsible for anything the Danish press prints.

I realize that this can be hard to understand for people living in countries where you don't get one peep out of the press without government say-so, but I rather did think a person living in the USA might understand the concept of "free press".

Bente

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 11:54 PM

The Muslim riots were fomented by Muslim leaders after a Muslim living in Denmark failed to get the retractions/ apologies he sought from the Danish papers, then personally and through every means of support he could find, worked up to international Muslim leaders, and in so doing he not only used as evidence the cartoons that were actually published, which by Western standards are in no ways extreme, but included some blatent rabid anti-Muslim cartoons that were beyond nasty. In so doing he blended actual publications with others which were nothing but an emotional appeal to incitement. When he was being interviewed he made no defense of this tactic.

The Muslim newspapers throughout the Middle East do not stint from much nastier stuff than has ever appeared in the major periodicals of the rest of the world. And The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has made it into a television series.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 11:59 AM

on the day the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered (shot 8times, and an attempt was made to decapitate him) by an Islamist in Denmark, an Artist painted a mural of angel on the outside of his studio with the words "though shall not kill." Some passing Moslem men were offended by this, claiming it to be racist and anti-muslim. Police were called and the image was ordered removed.. even the journalist recording the event, was arrested cameras seized and tape destroyed..
(later the Mayor of Rotterdam apologized)

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: robinia
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 09:15 AM

Just curious -- was my comment deleted as too "off thread"? I was trying to refocus the discussion. . .

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: robinia
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 07:02 AM

What about the right not to be bullied into compliance with someone else's "rules" -- bullied by threats of murder? So some fanatical Christians describe doctors who work in abortion clinics as "murderers" and actively promote lethal violence against them. I think only one doctor has thus far been killed, but that murder (along with posted "death lists") has had an understandably chilling effect on the availability of abortion throughout much of America. So after the two very public murders (BEFORE the Danish cartoons) of Dutch artists who dared to break the rules of the Koran, European artists are, to say the least, intimidated. And not just artists -- the list of people who are said to be "in hiding" because they have offended radical Islam includes, I am told, moderate Muslim leaders themselves. And of course governments are intimidated, not to mentions editors. After all, who wants to be a target for murder (or simply for mob violence)?

I don't have an answer -- what's happening is truly scary -- but I remember how a small (Southern?) town a few years stood up to the violent bullying tactics of a hate group that started trashing Jewish homes. The town residents all decided to display the menorah in solidarity with the targeted Jewish residents, i.e. to broaden the target to include everyone. No, it's not a perfect analogy -- I'm not keen on throwing more fuel on the fire -- but I am distressed to see murder and threats of murder achieving their goal. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 03:04 PM

I'm not blaming bfdk for his/her government's actions, John 'Giok' MacKenzie. I'm trying to highlight a problem that he/she (and quite a few other people) appear to not be aware of.

Brass Monkey, the censorship is just as bad or worse in my country (USA). There is still a majority percentage of people here who believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks on this country on September 11, 2001. This is not by accident. It is by deliberate design of the government and media of this country. And it looks like the situation in Denmark isn't much (if at all) better.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: Brass Monkey
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 02:40 PM

CarolC, I really advise that you come over to the Gulf states and see what the censorship here is like.
I live in what is regarded as a moderate muslim country. The population here is mainly made of cheap labour, it operates a multi-tiered salary scale according to nationality. The situation of Nepali and Indian workers and some Phillipinos/Thais that are employed as housemaids is never reported. Murders and rapes happen here that are not reported, this is to promote the idea that this is the safest country in the world. The difference between rich and poor is astounding. We think that slave labour has been abolished, think again. This is a third world country with a third world veneer.

These countries are most definitely 'prejudiced'.
I don't buy the Gulf papers anymore, the stories aren't real. In fact they are quite often 'comical'.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 02:37 PM

That's OK then, so although you're not to blame for the actions of your government, the people of Denmark are at fault because of the actions or inactions of their government?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 02:30 PM

Absolutely not John 'Giok' MacKenzie. We're every bit as bad as they are.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 02:29 PM

...and you can't possibly be suggesting that the government are concerned about inter racial strife. If they were, they wouldn't have been so reluctant to put a 'D Notice' on those cartoons, would they? So it has to be prejudice against immigrants. In other words, only showing the immigrants in a bad light and only showing their own people in a positive light.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to insult and cause offence
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 02:23 PM

Do you agree with all the actions of the US government Carol, things they profess to do in the name of you and all your countrymen/women?
Giok