Four killed in cartoon protests

[muriel_volestrangler]

Three people were killed when police in Afghanistan fired on protesters after a police station came under attack, a government spokesman said.

In Somalia, a 14-year-old boy was shot dead and several others were injured after protesters attacked the police.

Demonstrations have also been taking place in India, Thailand, Indonesia, Iran and Gaza.
...
Monday's deaths were thought to be the first, but officials in Lebanon have now confirmed that a demonstrator died on Sunday after jumping from the third floor of the Danish embassy in Beirut to escape a fire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4684652.stm

Over cartoons. Religious fanaticism - not just a waste of space, but a force for death and destruction too.

[thoughtanarchist]

1. Even I, with a shameless compulsion for gallows humor

am not going to touch that headline.

That headline needs a visual punchline.

Someone needs to draw a cartoon protest.

Sh*t, I said I wouldn't touch it.

:evilfrown:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. Reminds me of a headline from The Onion.

"Cable TV violence inspires network TV violence."

:)

[thoughtanarchist]

30. They had an inkling

so they were rubbed out


:hide:

[malmapus]

14. So the animators stopped drawing four characters?

Ugh now you got me doin it!

[thoughtanarchist]

31. I heard they were blotto...

it is always a tradegy when death results from the careless protesting of colorful characters...


:yoiks:

[buddysmellgood]

32. The mind is strong but the keyboard is weak.

[OrwellwasRight]

2. I wish the press would learn English!

It is more appropriate to say "protest over cartoons" than "cartoon protest" which implies too many confusing and incorrect alternatives, such as:

a "joke/comic" protest (that apparently went awry if 4 people were killed)
a protest carried out by cartoons (AquaMan and Frylock carrying signs and chanting)

But I agree: what kind of people would kill others and set buildings on fire over a CARTOON for pete's sake? Isn't God powerful enough that a little cartoon can't hurt him (even if the cartoon makes fun of his prophet)? And if he isn't powerful enough to protect himself from a cartoon, isn't there something wrong with the religion? Why do we need out of control thugs killing innocent people?

:mad: :grr:

On edit: typo -- and I even used spellcheck!

[DS1]

4. Insecure little shits, is what kind of people

[Catrina]

7. That's a good question, because I don't know a single Muslim who

would even consider such radical and criminal behavior. So, who are these people? And are the majority of the demonstrators really there because of the cartoons, or to show their anger at the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan and now possibly Iran?? That's what I read somewhere and it has been going on in Afghanistan for a long time.

Btw, what kind of people would invade a country, drop bombs on its cities and kill, maim and torture tens of thousands of its citizens, steal its resources, destroy its infrastructure for no reason at all, other than greed and a lust for power while their supporters back home urge them to go ahead and 'kill the ragheads, nail all those camel-jockies' and other vile racist chants, emanating from their mass media, on Internet boards etc.? What sort of people would tolerate one of their generals ordering his troops to 'treat the Iraqis like dogs?'

That sort of radicalism can REALLY hurt people and makes you wonder why the victims and their supporters might not be objecting strenuously to such barbaric treatment, as I said above, they have been in Afghanistan for quite a while.

Funny how we view the reaction to these decades long abuses, as so barbaric, and have no concept of how those barbaric wars might look to their victims, and how much fear they may have generated in anyone 'who looks them' as one DUer said yesterday.

Burning embassies is not to be condoned, but neither is the bombing of cities etc. Which came first though? Personally I expected a huge reaction to the torture photos, to the invasion of Iraq and to Guantanamo Bay, and all the secert prisons etc. way before this.

[OrwellwasRight]

10. This is such a straw man argument.

1) I did not justify, excuse, support, or defend the behavior of the US government. To suggest that I did is a "straw man."

2) Anyone who is appalled by this behavior is not necessarily justifying, excusing, supporting, or defending the behavior of the US government. Again, a straw man.

3) I did not and do not use racial epithets. To suggest that anyone who is appalled over "cartoon killings" uses such terms is a weak and incorrect argument. Another straw man.

4) In fact, the embassy that was burned was the DANISH Embassy. The Danes have not, in fact, heaped decades of abuse on people of Islamic faith. While the US behavior has been atrocious and inhumane, the killings and burnings referenced in my post were, in fact, in response to CARTOONS published in Denmark, not to US atrocities. So when you say "Burning embassies is not to be condoned, but neither is the bombing of cities etc. Which came first though?" I think that it a good question. The Danes bombing cities? Link please. Or is this a straw man to deflect us from focusing on the fact that these "cartoon killings" are despicable in their own right?

5) Two wrongs don't make a right. Never have and never will. Just telling me to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain doesn't make it right and doesn't excuse the behavior or reduce my right to feel moral outrage (just as powerful as the outrage I feel against BushCo -- what do you think -- I have never posted and just decided to show up and express outrage out of the blue against?). To try to deflect attention onto other wrongs that are not the subject of the argument is also a "straw man."

6) Finally, I am concerned that you are comparing the behavior of the US government, which we are free to condemn and to oppose with our voices, our actions, our money, our political work etc. with the behavior freely engaged in by choice by those individuals who chose to kill and burn. These are two totally different things. The US government commits atrocities "in my name," but I myself am not a participant, and I do what I can to stop it and to oppose it. But choosing of your own free will to become part of a mob that kills innocents is behavior that is wrong, unacceptable, and should be questioned and examined, not justified. There is enough shame to go around. Yes, shame on the US government, but shame on these protesters.

And be careful of using straw men arguments -- it is dangerously close to BushCo tactics. Try arguing on the merits of what I typed on the page.

[Catrina]

19. No, you did not justify the behavior of the US government, but you accept

without question that, what you call the 'behavior of these people' was not in some caused, or even orchestrated by the same government that used forgeries, told lies, demonized an entire people, did all that it could to start a barbaric war in an oil-rich Muslim country. I do not.

I am very suspicious as to what role this neocon government may have in helping to spark riots among people who have legitimate reasons to be outraged over the two barbaric wars already in progress and the ones planned by the same bunch of criminals.

I remember the Iraqi expatriots attending rallies here to incite Americans against Iraq ~ and I know that we now have the equivalent (check the propaganda arm of our government, Fox News) Iranian ex-patriot organizations.

To say that the behavior of this government has nothing to do with what's going on now, is a strawman, imo. Because what we must do is accept that 'these ragheads are all the same' and we need to invade all their countries, just look at them!! And forget about the little wars and torture chambers we have in store for them'.

You may separate these incidents from the barbarism of the noecon plans for Muslim, oil producing countries if you like. But don't tell me to do so, because I will not.

I admired the restraint of Muslims all over the world after the release of the barbaric Abu Ghraib photos, and the horrible pictures of dead Muslim children in Fallujah and elsewhere.

I find it odd that just when the neocons want to go into Iran, a few cartoons, and nothing about Abu Ghraib, is what's causing these riots!! When someone lies to me once, or forges documents, or plants documents in other countries, ie, Iran %. How convenienct for the war-mongering neocons. Why on earth would ordinary Muslims who are against the invasion of Iran, help the neocons along like this?

Sorry you took my comments personally ~ they weren't meant to be. Let's just agree to disagree. I do not believe that connecting these demonstrations to the current crop of neocons running this administration is a 'strawman' or far-fetched. I think we have to be forever vigilent against their Machiavellian tactics and not fall into the traps people fell into last time, like the 'Niger Documents' eg.

So, let's agree to disagree on this.

Imo, until proven otherwise, these 'demonstrations' are very suspicious as to their origin. Who benefits?? Certainly not Muslims or Iran or Syria. The neocons are no doubt rolling on the floor laughting their heads off and clapping their hands. Their war in Iran looks more and more likely with every demonstration. How lucky for them that those Muslims are so dumb they would burn down embassies over cartoons!! Makes you think and wonder, is God really always on their side like this?? Or are they, once again, giving God a helping hand?

On one thing we do agree, whoever uses these kind of tactics are criminals. To stop war, which we all tried to do, is to not fall for their BS, as so many did last time.

[OrwellwasRight]

20. I can't agree to disagree

1) because you again tell me what I "accept" when you do not know what I "accept" or "do not accept."

2) and you again accuse me of using racial epithets when you have no evidence of such, nor do you have any idea of my background. personality or anything that would lead you to believe I am such a person. Just because I disagree with the people who burned the Danish embassy and killed people in Afghanistan does mean I am some sort of racist.

3) you again change the topic. If you want to know what I think about the march to war in Iran, then ask. Don't assume I support it just because I didn't talk about it. My comments were about the unjustified "cartoon killings" period. NOTHING else.

If you can agree to stop putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about what we do or do not agree upon, I can agree to end this conversation here.

[DemInDistress]

33. Orwell...I have to agree with your opinion..somehow

I feel its the bush crime family behind all the strife and chaos in today's world not just starting with 911 but last Feb. 2005 when Hariri was killed by 2k lbs of car bombs,why would Syrians want to kill him? There was relative peace in Lebanon for 15 yrs. then he was murdered,later the bombings in Jordan, then the fire attacks in France,not today we have the cartoon chaos..wow sniff sniff, I smell PNAC.
PNAC's utopia = a pro-western friendly nations from Lebanon (friendly) Syria ( unfriendly) Iraq (we now own)
Iran ( war on the table) Afghanistan ( we own) Pakistan ( friendly) India ( friendly) to the doorstep of China where we can monitor the goings on of the Chinese,..and to make Iraq the centerpiece on this fake war on terror why,"MASSIVE OILFIELDS"..
SOMETHING SMELLS AND i THINK ITS THE "BUSH CRIME FAMILY--ARAB DIVISION

[OrwellwasRight]

36. I think it was Catrina that was making this argument

but I can't disprove it. As you state, this sadly fits in with the behavior and tactics we have seen from the Administration and does seem to smell of PNAC.

I would like to believe that BushCo is not that powerful and have not infiltrated that completely, but I also don't live my life based on the view from rose-colored glasses. Sad. Sigh.

[Marie26]

49. Well,in this case the interests

of the neocons & the religious fanatics are the same. They both want a holy war, and it's starting to look like they're going to get it.

[Bacchus39]

76. is flying planes into buildings to be condoned??

as you say which came first? 9/11, torture fotos, Iraq, secret prisons??

muslim countries have been oppressive long before current events.

[superconnected]

5. Propaganda kills.

[Warpy]

6. Gee, and it all might have been avoided with a timely APOLOGY

which is all the fire-breathers from the ME I know via IRC said they wanted.

Yeah, it's a stupid overreaction. So was clinging to a bunch of offensive cartoons like they were graven in stone and passed down through the ages.

Both sides are being stupid. The offended are more dangerous than the offenders, though.

[Dutch]

21. Yes, all it required was to be craven in the face of violent fanaticism...

[Joe the Revelator]

45. An apology for what?

exercising the Danish right to a free speech and a free press. I'm not willing to give an inch on either of those rights, be it my country or someone elses.

Would be let the christian right get away with this in this country?

[Jacobin]

8. Fricking Fundamentalist Soothsayers of ALL stripes will be the

end of civilization.

[OrwellwasRight]

11. Word. Nt.

[Ilsa]

9. Mob-mentality and displaced anger.

I think there are poeple who wouldn't do this if they were the only ones in the street, but they'll gladly join a mob to take out their frustrations and perceived slights.

I really can't even understand it. I wish people everywhere were a little more thick-skinned, and I wish publishers weren't so quick to insult everyone.

[Taxloss]

12. The death toll is now five.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4684652.stm

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Karmakaze]

17. Take this racist bullshit somewhere it might be appreciated...

I recommend freerepublic.com

[Igel]

28. It may be racist,

it may be an unmerited generalization based upon the state of affairs in a particular community.

Sa'udi Arabia has a really high incidence of birth defects because of generations of intermarrying between close relatives. It's not a secret. Just deemed offensive, and therefore publically ignored--we can't have an honored tradition responsible for suffering, that would be shameful. It's the tradition in some clans, and it's made even things like the incidence thalassemia worse.

[Karmakaze]

52. So Saudi Arabia is "all muslims"?

1/4 of the earths population is inbred?

Like I said racist bullshit.

[Joe the Revelator]

46. Before you start hollering racism...

take a look at the fact, and understand that in some Islamic cultures, intermarriage IS promoted and there IS a higher rate of birth defects etc. Lets not let facts become clouded here.

[Karmakaze]

53. SOME Islamic cultures = ALL?

That is racist and you know it.

The poster extended the claim to ALL muslims, not some. I could as easily say ALL Americans are inbred simply because some are. And you defend that? Please.

[magellan]

24. I guess US democracy is doomed as well then

...since inter-family marriage is still practiced by, oh, TONS of people in the South.

Gee, aren't generalizations fun?

:sarcasm:

[mainer]

27. Without freedom of the press, there can be no real democracy

And clearly, freedom of the press is not being tolerated. If drawing a few cartoons can get you a death sentence.

[dysfunctional press]

15. i don't suppose one of them was that Ramirez guy from L.A....?

because on most days, that would be cool with me.

he really chaps my hide...

[hogwyld]

16. All of this could be avoided

by simply giving in, and submitting to Islam. We would then understand their righteous anger. :sarcasm:

[Karmakaze]

18. If you think this is about cartoons...

then you really need to learn more history.

For a thousand years, the western world has advocated everything from enslavement to genocide of Muslims. For the last fifty years we have been ratcheting up the rhetoric to the point that Bush felt free to say "crusade" in reference to a war in the Middle East. And you think this is about cartoons?

This isn't even Religious Fanaticism. Sure in this particular case it is religion that is being used as the trigger, but what it is really about is the culture clash. The west has pretty much said that we will no longer tolerate Muslim culture, and that we are willing to kill any Muslim who refuses to convert to our culture, or any who just get in the way.

What would have been the reaction to offensive cartoons about Jesus? Pretty much the same I think.

[brentspeak]

22. Uh, yeah

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Swede]

23. You're joking,right?

[genie_weenie]

25. History?

Hmmm, does this have to come down to a right side and wrong side?

Because if I recall my history, the Levant was not a Muslim controlled area until 1400 years ago, and I think the Zoroastrians in Persia might consider their obliteration a "genocide" or the Armenians in 1915. And the how about the Roman Sicilians who were bred out by the Muslims, or the Greeks, or the enslavement of thousands Christian boys to become the fanatical Muslim warriors the Janissaries, or how about the destruction of 1500 year old Buddhist statues, by Muslims in the 21st century?

Peddle your racist bull somewhere else, don't try to pass this off as a Noble reaction to an oppressed people, Islam like almost every religion was spread through fear, death, genocide, deliberate rape, destruction and hate.

[Marie26]

51. How about this history

In Europe about 500 years ago, Muslims were extremely tolerant & respectful of other religions, compared to the fanatical Christians who were creating Inquistions of any non-Catholics. The Moorish occupation of Spain was considered a Golden Age - a pluralistic society in which Muslims, Jews, and Christians were all free to exercise their faith. There were no forced conversions, there was no requirement to believe what the Moors believed. And culture & literature really flourished under Moorish rule. At the same time, in the Christian-ruled area of Spain, Jewish people were being sent into exile. When I compare the historical tolerance of Islamic rulers in Spain long ago, and the fanatical intolerance today, I wonder what the hell happened. How did a culture which had such a tolerance for diversity 500 years ago become one w/such little apparant tolerance in the modern day? I don't understand.

[genie_weenie]

62. History of Spain prior to Reconquest

Okay, the problem with your retort is this is a thread about *current* intolerance.

If you would like to start a historical thread pointing out the various evils of civilization A, B or C, please feel free. Then we could tally up which civilization had the most pogroms, genocides, wars of conquest and we could crown a worst offender.

However, I also feel I must counter your historical facts because they are slightly wrong. The Moorish Spain is *NOT* considered the Golden Age, that was well before.

Muslim conquerors invaded Spain, destroying the indigenous Vandal and Visigothic Tribal nation states, but were repulsed at Tours (current France) in 732. During years of 800-1200 Cordoba WAS one of the greatest cities in the Muslim world. Muslim Spain was pluralistic (with Jews being the key, because they were the great translators of Greek/Latin to Arabic), tolerant and cutting edge on many of the sciences and engineering. It also produced one of the great Medieval philosopher, Averroes (d. 1198). A main work by Averroes, was named Destruction of the Destruction and was a response to a writing of a rigid orthodox Muslim who wanted to do away with all philosophy and independent thought because all necessary truth is contained in the Koran. Unfortunately, for Averroes, his backer, the ruler Yaqub Al-Mansur began to get pressure from the muslim religious orthodox and pulled his support for Averroes publishing an edict which declared that Allah decreed hell-fire for those who believe truth could be discovered by unaided reason (i.e. without the Koran).

It was in the 1200s, when the Berbers, who were newly converted to the *one true faith* and filled with fanaticism and ignorance swept over Spain ending it's Golden Age by destroying many of the tolerant views the Muslim rulers had previously set up.

This prompted a counter-fanaticism with brought about many of the evils by the church, Spanish Inquisition, forced conversations or loss of property and money.

Anyway, my point has been this whole cartoon issue has been manipulated by rulers of Muslim nations to further their agendas.

[Marie26]

66. OK

I'm not arguing with you. If you noticed. I was just wondering why Islam seems to have become less tolerant of different religions over time, while Christian nations seem to have become (in general) more tolerant. Although, you seem to be twisting history a bit by saying that the Catholic Inquisition & purges were merely a "counter-fanaticism" to the Moors (read - the Muslim's fault). The Christian regions of Spain were persecuting Jews & trying to reconquest the land from the Muslims well before any Berber invasion. But whatever; I didn't mean to start a debate about Spanish history. I was just thinking back to Spain during the Golden Age of Muslim rule; when Jews, Christians, Muslims, all managed to live together in relative harmony & prosperity, and wondering why that no longer seems possible.

[genie_weenie]

71. I'm sorry

part of my post got cut! And we are arguing but, in the sense of an exchange of knowledge.

Damn fingers! I've never actually seen them fing, though...

I had another paragraph which focused on El Cid (d. 1099) who fought for both Muslims and Christians in Spain. And that there was much fighting going on in Spain even during the Golden age, over the usual issues: money, power, control of vassals, peasants, wealth, land, some for religious piety.

I just wanted to point out, most peoples don't sit around singing the praises of their rulers, no matter how prosperous or benevolent, (look at DUers discontent at the * run presidency).

I've just been stunned by DUers (not you!) who see fit to not dig deeper into these issues. AS if the cartoons were the cause and not just another dot in a history of violence.

But, you points about where has the harmony gone are spot on and well taken.

[Marie26]

90. It's OK

El Cid was one of my favorite figures from Spanish history; his life was like one of those swash-buckling movies. Anyway, I agree that even most "Golden Ages" have their own problems & complexities. The history of this particular "cartoon controversy" is so complex that not many of us can really understand all the deeper issues - so maybe everyone tries to find a simpler answer. Probably it'd take an Islamic scholar to really understand the historical backdrop to this issue.

[kineneb]

26. But there have been "offensive" cartoons about Jesus

and sure, the fundies have protested, but the rest of us just giggled. Islam seems to fallen into idolatry, which is one of the big things the Koran is against. The prophet Mohammed is just that, a prophet, just like those in the OT. Islamic countries were vibrant and well educated at one time; but they stopped developing emotionally sometime in the Middle Ages (circa 1300, or so).

They seem to be observing the surface of the injunctions without getting the true meaning behind them. Unfortunately, what they need is a "life" and a sense of humor. The reaction continues to be terribly juvenile. This is what is to be expected from a large group of religous followers who do not question what they are told. Envision the reverse if the US were almost completely fundie; with the accompaning ignorance and surface approach to religion.

[Igel]

29. North Africa, the Middle East and

SW Asia, India, Central Asia; SE Europe and SW Europe; Sicily, Malta, and Southern France.

Pogroms in Aleppo and Egypt, among other places. De facto de-judaization of the Arab world. Slave taking sufficient for the name of the dominate ethnicity to become the eponym for the practice. Constant fighting for liberation and domination against the Horde and its offspring. Ethnic cleansing of Armenians and Greeks.

Monopolization of trade, both spice and slave, until the Iberians decided to undertake some very risky ventures as soon as they drove out their "liberators" to lift the monopoly. But of course, even though the reaction was merely to adopt Muslim non-religious practices in the name of their own religion, innovating in very little, it was wrong of them to have adopted them. Because to adopt means to originate, in some people's minds, lest somebody willing to kill you take offense by getting their just credit.

And all in the name of ... Barney? Blue? Kermit?

Yes. It's all the nasty Xians fault. Impeding the oh-so-just drive for dominance and booty, conquest and supremacy. By adopting the intolerant practices that have led to this state, while those promulgating the practices today are given a general indulgence.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Yes, I'd say it's the cartoons and religious fanaticism

because I didn't see demonstrations at, and the burning of, Danish and Norwegian embassies before - even when Iraq was invaded. You say it's Muslim culture - not Arab, Persian or Pakistani culture - that the west won't tolerate. It's the extreme Muslim reaction that is the problem here - those that set fire to buildings, start riots, or threaten bombings. Moderate Muslims aren't a probl;em at all - their reaction has been proportionate.

You're completely wrong that "we are willing to kill any Muslim who refuses to convert to our culture" - the Muslims we have killed have not been those who refuse to change to western culture; they've been innocents caught in the crossfire as we attack those who threaten our power, whatever their culture (Saddam was far more western than the Saudi rulers).

[Marie26]

50. Not the same

Offensive cartoons about Jesus would have nowhere near the reaction. Primarily cause Christians are a majority in the West, & there's less ethnic stereotyping, & pictures of Jesus are not as taboo. It is a culture clash, but it goes both ways. The west is sending the message that Islamic culture won't be tolerated, but Islamic leaders are also sending the message that Western culture won't be tolerated. The two cultures are almost mutually exclusive. We're not going to accept Islamic values on free speech, or submission of women; and they're not going to accept our Western values. So which culture should "assimilate"? We say the Mideast should become more like the West, liberal & democratic, but do they really want to? Is that policy any better than Mideast leaders insisting that Europe should act according to Islamic laws? I feel like each culture is trying to impose its values on the other; and each side is resisting. The rhetoric is racheting up more & more on both sides now. This is becoming a real cultural showdown and I don't see any signs of it stopping.

[ButterflyBlood]

74. Remember Piss Christ?

It was pretty offensive. There was lots of protests. People got upset.

But no riots. No torched buildings. No one died. No, I don't think the reaction to offensive cartoons about Jesus would be the same.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

79. There were protests at movie theaters when

"Last Temptation of Christ" was showing, too.

I agree that the Christian reaction is different to offensive material; but I also think they could become violent in the near future if we don't stop pandering to the xtian fundy set.

The reaction of the fundy muslims would be gentler if they weren't accustomed to having so much influence on their leaders. It illustrates a dire need for us to keep religion out of government here in the US.

[librechik]

35. "A TOON killed my brudda!"

all this hubbub is starting to get to us here in Toonville...bub.

[kskiska]

37. WP: Cartoon Protests Stoke Anti-American Mood

Three Killed Outside U.S. Base in Bagram

KABUL, Afghanistan, Feb. 6 -- Afghan police shot dead three people who stormed the largest U.S. military base in Afghanistan Monday to protest caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, as continuing demonstrations in Muslim countries grew more deadly and in places took on a new anti-American tone.

(snip)

Afghan officials suggested that the violence outside Bagram air base indicated that insurgents were trying to capitalize on religious indignation.

"The protests started out about the cartoons," said Kabir Ahmed, the Bagram police chief. "But there is the possibility that al Qaeda is motivating these people to use violence against the Americans." Afghanistan's population has generally been supportive of the presence of the 19,000 U.S. troops here.

Ahmed said that the protesters outside the base chanted, "Down with U.S. forces! Down with the Afghan government!" and pelted U.S. military vehicles with stones, attacked a guard post manned by Afghan security forces outside the air base and ransacked local shops. "They wanted to enter the base and attack the U.S. forces," Ahmed said.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020600442.html

[ECH1969]

38. Iraqs are up in arms about this as well

far worse then even Abu Ghraib.

[Psephos]

40. Ayatollah al-Sistani is condemning the violence n/t

[IndianaGreen]

41. but he also condemned the cartoons, and he is not alone

Western statements

Western government statements have been remarkably uniform:

Sean McCormack, State Department spokesman in Washington: "Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief. But it is important that we also support the rights of individuals to express their freely held views."

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw: "The right of freedom of speech in all societies and all cultures has to be exercised responsibly and does not extend to an obligation to insult."

The French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy: "Freedom of expression confers rights, it is true - it also imposes the duty of responsibility on those who are speaking out."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4686536.stm

[Psephos]

42. I quite agree - and al-Sistani was forceful in condemning the drawings

On the other hand, speech that is not offensive to someone does not need protection in the first place.

That's the whole idea of free speech, actually - freedom to say what you think, whether or not someone else thinks you should. Generally, it's the viler forms of speech and criticism that require protection. "Vileness," of course, is a matter of opinion.

Peace.

[Karmakaze]

55. And yet so few peopel have a problem with..

Holocaust revisionists being thrown in prison. Do they have the right to say that the Holocaust was a lie? It seems not. But that is our culture, so we don't even think about it.

[barb162]

64. Are you talking about the US?

RE: "Holocaust revisionists being thrown in prison"
because I don't know of cases of that in the US.

[daleo]

82. You can be thrown in jail in Canada for this.

It is true of a number of western European countries as well.

You can be arrested for having numbers on your t-shirt in the U.S., though.

[iverglas]

95. I expect this sort of thing from some people

but really, from a Canadian?

"You can be thrown in jail in Canada for this."

Not.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec318.html

Hate Propaganda

Advocating genocide

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of “genocide”

(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Consent

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definition of “identifiable group”

(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec319.html

Hate Propaganda

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

... Consent

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definitions

(7) In this section,

“communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

“identifiable group” has the same meaning as in section 318;

“public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

“statements” includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

Now, what is it that one may be "thrown in jail" for in Canada?

[daleo]

98. I thought there was a law against holocaust denial

That's what I was getting at. It looks like there was such a law, but it has been ruled unconstitutional, according to this wiki article. Is that how matters stand now?

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

"In 1984, James Keegstra, a Canadian high-school teacher was charged with denying the Holocaust and making anti-semitic claims in his classroom as part of the course material. Keegstra and his lawyer, Doug Christie, argued that the section of the Criminal Code (now section319{2}), is an infringement of the Charter of Rights (section 9{b}). The case was appealed to the Supreme court of Canada, where it was decided that the crime for which he was committed was an infringement of his freedom of expression, but it was a justified infringement. Keegstra was convicted, and fired from his job."

"Former Canadian resident Ernst Zündel operated a small-press publishing house called Samisdat Publishing, which published and distributed Holocaust-denial material such as Did Six Million Really Die? by Richard Harwood (a/k/a Richard Verrall - a British neo-Nazi leader). In 1985, he was tried and convicted under a "false news" law and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment by an Ontario court for "disseminating and publishing material denying the Holocaust." Zündel gained considerable notoriety after this conviction, and a number of free-speech activists stepped forward to defend his right to publish his opinion. His conviction was overturned in 1992 when the Supreme Court of Canada declared the "false news" law unconstitutional.

Zündel established his own Web site to publicize his viewpoints. In January 2002, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal delivered a ruling in a complaint involving his website, found contravening the Canadian Human Rights Act. The court ordered Zündel to cease communicating hate messages. In February 2003, the INS arrested him in Tennessee on an immigration violations matter, and few days later, Zündel was sent back to Canada, where he tried to gain refugee status. Zündel remained in prison until March 1, 2005, when he was deported to Germany; under whose laws he could be prosecuted for disseminating hate propaganda."


This article may also be referring to the laws that have since been deemed unconstitutional in Canada. Their wording is vague as to when the prosecutions were, or whether they were overturned.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial.html

"6. Are there laws regulating Holocaust denial?

In Canada and Western Europe, Holocaust deniers have been successfully prosecuted under racial defamation or hate crimes laws. In the United States, however, the First Amendment guarantees the right of free speech, regardless of political content. Nonetheless, though the First Amendment guarantees Holocaust deniers the right to produce and distribute their propaganda, it in no way obligates newspapers or other media outlets to provide them with a forum for their views."

[iverglas]

99. it's not a law against Holocaust denial

Keegstra was prosecuted under subsection (2) of section 319, which was in my post:

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(He was also made into a TV movie set in small-town USA and starring Raquel Welch as the Harper Valleyish mawm who took up the fight against the anti-Semitic schoolteacher ...)

The "false news" law he was prosecuted under earlier was a bit of an archaic remnant of another age; that's the one that was found unconstitutional.

http://canlii.com/ca/cas/scc/1990/1990scc128.html
(excerpts from the headnote of the SCC decision in Keegstra, a 4-3 decision; with my emphasis)

Section 319(2) of the Code constitutes a reasonable limit upon freedom of expression. Parliament's objective of preventing the harm caused by hate propaganda is of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutional freedom. Parliament has recognized the substantial harm that can flow from hate propaganda and, in trying to prevent the pain suffered by target group members and to reduce racial, ethnic and religious tension and perhaps even violence in Canada, has decided to suppress the wilful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups. Parliament's objective is supported not only by the work of numerous study groups, but also by our collective historical knowledge of the potentially catastrophic effects of the promotion of hatred. Additionally, the international commitment to eradicate hate propaganda and Canada's commitment to the values of equality and multiculturalism in ss. 15 and 27 of the Charter strongly buttress the importance of this objective.

Section 319(2) of the Code is an acceptably proportional response to Parliament's valid objective. There is obviously a rational connection between the criminal prohibition of hate propaganda and the objective of protecting target group members and of fostering harmonious social relations in a community dedicated to equality and multiculturalism. Section 319(2) serves to illustrate to the public the severe reprobation with which society holds messages of hate directed towards racial and religious groups. It makes that kind of expression less attractive and hence decreases acceptance of its content. Section 319(2) is also a means by which the values beneficial to a free and democratic society in particular, the value of equality and the worth and dignity of each human person can be publicized.

Section 319(2) of the Code does not unduly impair freedom of expression. This section does not suffer from overbreadth or vagueness; rather, the terms of the offence indicate that s. 319(2) possesses definitional limits which act as safeguards to ensure that it will capture only expressive activity which is openly hostile to Parliament's objective, and will thus attack only the harm at which the prohibition is targeted. The word "wilfully" imports into the offence a stringent standard of mens rea which significantly restricts the reach of s. 319(2) by necessitating the proof of either an intent to promote hatred or knowledge of the substantial certainty of such a consequence. The word "hatred" further reduces the scope of the prohibition. This word, in the context of s. 319(2), must be construed as encompassing only the most severe and deeply felt form of opprobrium. Further, the exclusion of private communications from the scope of s. 319(2), the need for the promotion of hatred to focus upon an identifiable group and the presence of the s. 319(3) defences, which clarify the scope of s. 319(2), all support the view that the impugned section creates a narrowly confined offence. Section 319(2) is not an excessive impairment of freedom of expression merely because the defence of truth in s. 319(3)(a) does not cover negligent or innocent error as to the truthfulness of a statement. Whether or not a statement is susceptible to classification as true or false, such error should not excuse an accused who has wilfully used a statement in order to promote hatred against an identifiable group. Finally, while other non-criminal modes of combatting hate propaganda exist, it is eminently reasonable to utilize more than one type of legislative tool in working to prevent the spread of racist expression and its resultant harm. To send out a strong message of condemnation, both reinforcing the values underlying s. 319(2) and deterring the few individuals who would harm target group members and the larger community by communicating hate propaganda, will occasionally require use of the criminal law.

The effects of s. 319(2) are not of such a deleterious nature as to outweigh any advantage gleaned from the limitation of s. 2(b). The expressive activity at which s. 319(2) is aimed constitutes a special category, a category only tenuously connected with the values underlying the guarantee of freedom of expression. Hate propaganda contributes little to the aspirations of Canadians or Canada in either the quest for truth, the promotion of individual self-development or the protection and fostering of a vibrant democracy where the participation of all individuals is accepted and encouraged. Moreover, the narrowly drawn terms of s. 319(2) and its defences prevent the prohibition of expression lying outside of this narrow category. Consequently, the suppression of hate propaganda represents an impairment of the individual's freedom of expression which is not of a most serious nature.

...

1. Is s. 281.2(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada ... (now s. 319(2) ...) an infringement of freedom of expression as guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Answer: Yes.

2. If s. 281.2(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada ... (now s. 319(2) ...) is an infringement of s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, can it be upheld under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a reasonable limit prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society?

Answer: Yes.

It's the use of a statement for the wilful promotion of hatred (other than in private conversation), not any specific statement, that is prohibited.

The Supreme Court found the infringement of freedom of speech to be justified under section 1 of the Charter/Constitution:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Laws that infringe freedom of speech like prohibitions on shouting "fire" in crowded theatres would presumably also be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society", as would laws against lying in court, selling state secrets, uttering death threats and advertising snake oil to cure cancer.

Freedom of speech isn't "absolute" in the US any more than it is elsewhere. There are simply differing opinions on what limitations are justified, and why.

[daleo]

100. Thanks for the clarification. n/t

[INDIA]

80. What the hell are you talking about????

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[barb162]

72. I was glad to read that!

[msongs]

39. orchestrated "protests" to promote an agenda, just like the cartoons.

[Erika]

43. You don't mock holy prophets of religions - Understand?

I tried to state this last night and was hit hard by all kinds of philosophical meanderings. You leave religious prophets alone.
People get too emotional and too irrational. Before you try to hit the Muslims, NBC backed down today from running a Will & Grace segment that the American Taliban religious right found offensive because it showed a irreverence to Christ.

[Codeine]

44. Yes I do mock them, constantly. It's my right.

Fuck Muhammed, Jesus, Abraham, Krishna, Buddha, Coyote, and anybody else I'm not supposed to mock. I hold no prophets too high for mockery, no cows to sacred to skewer, no icon too precious to smash. And if somebody doesn't like it, then they can tell me to take a hike or mock me right back. They don't get to burn shit and create massive street violence.

[Joe the Revelator]

47. AMEN CODEINE

:evilgrin:

[Erika]

48. Nor do you have any concern with the ramifications

That's your right. Not one I would choose, however.

[Karmakaze]

54. Yes, yes they do...

It is called human nature. You can order the waves to stay back as much as you want, but the ocean will keep rolling in.

My point is, everyone KNEW what the reaction would be. The artists knew (one cartoon even had a veiled go at the paper involved), the paper knew, and everyone who has reprinted it since knew. So why do it? Well, they did it to provoke this very reaction.

Inciting a riot is just as illegal as being in one.

[Behind the Aegis]

56. No they don't!

You reasoning is faulty, at best. You are doing nothing more than excusing violence based on drawings.

And if you truly believe that "Inciting a riot is just as illegal as being in one" then, would you also excuse Jews burning down embassies of Jordan and Bahrain?

[Karmakaze]

75. Excuse?

I am not excusing what the protestors have done, I am saying I understand it and know that ANYONE from ANY CULTURE could do the same thing given the right motivation - Jews included. The point I am trying to make is that these threads have all been filled with veiled and not so veiled racism.

I have seen everything from "all Muslims are uneducated, ignorant thugs" "to all Muslims are inbred" in threads here on DU, with very litte in the way of voiced opposition. Change Muslim to Jew and tell me if you think those sentiments are racist.

And yes, inciting a riot - for example doing something with the expresss hope that it inflames a group of people is just as illegal as beinjg in the riot, as it should be. Human nature is a known commodity. We as a species are a social animal and have the tendancy to reinforce each others emotions when we are in groups. We KNOW that crowds can easily get violent if given the right motivation - in fact people like Osama Bin Laden and George W Bush COUNT ON IT.

So if Jews were angry about anti-Jewish cartoons and decided to burn down an embassy or two, I would understand the reaction. I also understand Israels preferred acts of bombings and assassinations - even when they get the wrong people. Doesnt mean I agree with it or approve of it - just that I understand it and know that it is human nature, not because all Jews are evil.

[IndianaGreen]

86. And when Iran publishes its Holocaust denying cartoons, I expect you

to applaud their right to publish such crap, as you have defended a rightwing Danish newspaper's publication of the Islamophobic cartoons.

For my part I will condemn both sets of cartoons with equal vigor, and decry the violence that was originally triggered by anti-immigration Danes.

[PsychoDad]

91. I will condemn both sets of cartoons with equal vigor

Amen! As will I.


Peace.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. They didn't know the reaction would be burning buildings and fatal rioting

After all, that didn't happen in September when the cartoons were published. It's taken months for this to suddenly happen. There was a time when it was an argument in Denmark between Muslims saying "you've offended us" and the paper saying "we have a right to offend". But then the protest spread to other countries - because, if the Wikipedia article is to be believed, the Danish Muslims were unhappy that they coulnd't get a prosecution in Denmark.

[Matilda]

58. Good point.

We need to ask who is inciting these people, especially in other
countries. What would the average Muslim in the streets of Lebanon
or Syria or Indonesia know of Danish cartoons, unless their leaders
made a point of telling them? And we might ask why they would do
that? It may have started out as a religious matter, but it may now
be political.

I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press up to a point,
but it should go hand in hand with responsibility. One of the worst
things about this is the damn cartoons weren't even particularly
clever or funny, IMO.

[Mysse1978]

59. a letter from a dane...

(sorry about my english, I´m better in danish ;o) )

http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=437067

and here is the (bad) translation...

A number of muslim organisations never took advantage of all the "complaint"-possibilities, when Jyllands-posten in september last year showed the famous drawings of the prophet Muhammed. The Press-jury (?), who takes care of complaints over the media, never got the case.

"We didn´t know, that this was an option" says Ahmed Akkari, the spokesman from the working-group of muslim unions and "societies of beliefs" in Denmark.

The Press-jurys vice-president also wonders why no one has taken up the case.

"one can only wonder about, why no one has used the free organ (institution) that the Press-jury is" the vice-president (and lawyer) Axel Kirkegaard says.

........

I´m not speaking on behalf of all danes, but this is what I´ve talked to my friends about. So - I think it´s on behalf of at least 25 people...*gosh*..It is also what the news are about, and what the majority of everyone on tv says.

In Denmark we NEVER thought that this would turn out the way it did, because of some silly drawings. We have a tradition, which allows us to speek and think freely, our press is free and it shall continue that way (only Kristeligt dagblad has a "plan" but even this newspaper is open to other religions and their opinions)

We understand why muslims think badly/are offended about this, but that is NOT a matter of the danish government. The free press IS a free press! It can never be told to censor ANYTHING - unless it breaks the law, and the principles of journalism (meaningless accusations/lies or such). And if they do - the way to deal with this - is to prosecute the newspaper, in the supreme court or as mentioned above the "press-jury" (really need a good word for this). - but if they lose, there´s nothing else to do...

The danish government can NOT say "We´re sorry", as it can never speak on behalf of all danes, and certainly not undermine the freedom of speech. And they certainly can not take actions against anyone because the excersized their right to think and speek...

And it is a lie, that Jesus/God has never been mocked in Denmark. They too have been in cartoons, and not always in a nice way. I still remember a drawing of Jesus looking all hungry/or one might say horny in his face, while saying ; "let the little children come to me" - suggesting that the man might be a paedophile...So...It´s old news. BUT when someone finds that something is "not ok", the way to deal with it is to try to file a case...NOT to crave an apology from our PrimeMinister (who ever that might be at the time).

This would never have been such a violent thing if some of the "holy men" from Denmark had not taken the cartoons to their homeland.

I accept the fact, that the muslims are offended, but to say that all danes are bad, and to burn our flag and embasseys are totally mad. And to think that Jyllandsposten is a newspaper with a "hidden agenda"(jewish) because of the star in their logo is totally crazy! (which actually "back in them old days was a sun rising in the horizon..over a cup of coffee and a piece of bread ...Morgen = Morning... Avis = newspaper... Jylland =part of Denmark ..Posten = post)

To the danes, this is ALL about the freedom of speech - because no one would make a drawing for a fairly innocent book about Muhammed (not the drawings this is all about) because they were affraid of what might happen. Two people were against this form of selv-censor-ship (?) and...well - the rest is old news.

Now - a statement from me and my friends...

As a dane it is really sad to see people burn our flag. It´s a long time since we have experienced this. We are not used to this, and our hearts bleed, especially when people of other countries are hit by this disaster, which should be kept in Denmark and dealed with as such. We are really sad when innocent people gets hurt because of this. We are more than sorry that people had to die from this. And we feel no hate towards those who attacked our embasseys, we just don´t understand it. We want this to end, and to continue our lives here. We are not a country of Anti-muslims...in Denmark religion is also a matter of freedom. As sexuality. Political beliefs...Denmark is created because of these freedoms, wether "you" like the outcome or not. These freedoms also gives the right to try and change the situation...

So NO MATTER what happens to us, we can not go against the freedom of speech and say we´re sorry that one of our news papers did what they did. We might not AGREE with them, but we will defend their right to think and speek...the right to disagree is important...

/Maya

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. I pretty much agree with you

though I would say one thing: burning the Danish flag, while it hurts you, is a similar act to publishing the cartoons - it's symbolic, and both statements are over-generalisations ("Muslims use bombs" versus "Danes insult Muslims"). But, as a protest, it makes more sense than the Danish foods boycott (boycotting the firm that publishes Jyllandsposten would be a reasonable response, but the food companies have nothing to do with the cartoons), and, unlike the attacks on the embassy buildings, it doesn't destroy other people's property, or put lives at risk.

[Mysse1978]

68. Well...

Just because they burn Dannebrog (the flag of Denmark) it does not give me the right to hate them or to boycot or, as it has happened - even sign out death warrants. That is the drifference. As long as the "crimes" are done in their own country, under their rules, there is nothing I can, or want to do, even if my heart bleeds. They have the right to express their feelings about all this, so I accept it - still thinking it´s madness.

This is the way I think, and many others do too...

It´s impossible for me to understand why Muslim/Islamic rules should be rules for any-one else but them selves?!

Mind that it all started with the self-censor-ship, when some artists were affraid to publish,not cartoons, but paintings/drawings of Muhammed in a biography about the prophet. They were threatened, and there fore others took the pen "in the name of freedom" (rather dramatical expression I know!), because it IS a civil right in this country to express them selves in what way they want to.

So far - so good...

And then it goes wild...Imams (?) in DK has said that it is illegal to show muhammeds face...Well - I understand it - IF I/we were muslims, but we aren´t?! I just can´t get it into my head.

So NO - I don´t think it´s right to boycot anyone in this case. I don´t boycot countries/newspapers etc. that I don´t disagree with on a religious or political basis.

That´s just plain silly!

/Maya

[OrwellwasRight]

61. Great post, Maya!

Thank you for the insight. I am 100% behind you and behind freedom of the press. I can't comprehend of a world where innocent people are killed and property is destroyed because another party drew a cartoon that some people didn't like.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Gullvann]

67. Great post (nt)

[iverglas]

96. and now ...

So NO MATTER what happens to us, we can not go against the freedom of speech and say we´re sorry that one of our news papers did what they did.

Really? I'm afraid that I fail to understand how criticizing what someone has said can be called "going against freedom of speech". I really do.

We might not AGREE with them, but we will defend their right to think and speek...the right to disagree is important...

Well, do you or don't you agree with them? You have all that freedom of speech -- might it not be worthwhile to USE it for something other than to just talk about it?

[Karmakaze]

77. Not true

From the wiki article:

"The cartoons were first published in late September 2005; approximately two weeks later, nearly 3,500 people demonstrated peacefully in Copenhagen. In November, several European newspapers re-published the images, triggering more protests."

Two weeks to organise a protest of 3500 people seems like a pretty swift reaction to me. Of course the further the west pushed it - ie reprinting the pictures over and over again just to prove they could - only served to inflame already angry people.

You can not tell me no one at any of these papers had never heard of the reaction to Satanic Verses, or had no idea the reaction of Muslims would be this bad. Of course they knew just as any reasonable person would have known simply based on history.

I also note that everyone keeps talking about "fatal protests" and "killings" without mentioning that it is the PROTESTORS who have been killed by government agents - NOT innocents killed by the protestors. Three buildings have been burned, and no one was hurt in any of those occasions.

Also even one of the cartoons recognised what was going on:

"An Arab-looking boy in front of a blackboard, pointing to the Farsi chalkings, which translate into "The editorial team of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs". The boy is labelled "Mohammed, Valby school, 7.A", implying that this is a second-generation immigrant to Denmark rather than the founder of Islam. On his shirt is written "Fremtiden" (the future)."

And finally:

"A number of Muslim organizations submitted complaints to the Danish police claiming that Jyllands-Posten had committed an offence under section 140 and 266b of the Danish Criminal Code. <12>

Section 140 of the Criminal Code prohibits any person from publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing religious community in Denmark. Section 266b criminalises the dissemination of statements or other information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their religion. Danish police began their investigation of these complaints on 27 October 2005. <12>

On 6 January 2006, the Regional Public Prosecutor in Viborg decided to discontinue the investigation as he found no basis for concluding that the cartoons constituted a criminal offence. He stated that, in assessing what constitutes an offence, the right to freedom of speech must be taken into consideration. That while the right to freedom of speech must be exercised with the necessary respect for other human rights, including the right to protection against discrimination, insult and degradation, no apparent violation of the law had occurred."

So under Danish law "ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing religious community" unless it is the Muslims? So only Christians are protected?

[INDIA]

81. You are losing this argument Karmakaze

You are going down in flames!!! (pun intended)

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. The protests in Denmark were peaceful

And while it seemed reasonable to expect that, I am telling you that they didn't think people would set fire to buildings - the Muslims in Denmark haven't done that. The deaths are not all due to government agents - see post #83. The prosecutor decided the cartoons fell within the editorial freedom of newspaper comment:

In his decision the Regional Public Prosecutor also states, that when assessing what
constitutes a offence under section 140 and section 266b the right to freedom of speech
must be taken into consideration and that the right to freedom of speech must be
exercised with the necessary respect for other human rights, including the right to
protection against discrimination, insult and degradation.
Based on an overall assessment of the article in Jyllandsposten, including the twelve
cartoons, the Regional Public Prosecutor does not find that there is a reasonable
suspicion that a criminal offence indictable by the state has been committed. In his
decision the Regional Public Prosecutor states that he attaches importance to the fact
that the article in question concerns a subject of public interest, which means that there
is an extended access to make statements without these statements constituting a
criminal offence. Furthermore, according to the Danish case law f.i. journalists have
extended editorial freedom, when it comes to subjects of public interest. For these
reasons the Regional Public Prosecutor finds no basis for concluding that the content of
the article constitutes an offence under section 140 or section 266b of the Criminal
Code.

http://www.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/00D9E6F7-32DC-4C5A-8E24-F0C96E813C06/0/060123final.pdf

[PsychoDad]

92. PROTESTORS who have been killed by government agents

That little fact doesn't fit in with the desired view of all Muslims being violent threats to so called "western values".

Thank you for your insightful post.

I only wish the ummah (islamic community) would show this sort of passion over each child that has been murdered by the Crusader Coalition and not over a cartoon....

In fact, I think this does go further than the offensive 'toons. I think it's a reaction to everything that has gone on before finding an outlet supplied by a mob mentality

[barb162]

65. So as Iran's biggest newspaper calls for a Holocaust cartoon

contest, do you think the reaction will be to burn Iranian embassies around the world, to threaten Iranians, to send death and kidnapping threats against Iranians, etc.

[Mysse1978]

69. It´s just an excuse!

They don´t hurt the people/country that started this.. ( we - the danes)

The majority of danes are not jewish - but protestants/Christians...so unless we´ve changed religion "overnight", this competition has NOTHING to do with the danish drawings of Muhammed. I think it´s just an excuse, to take the lid of the problems jews an muslims have in that region..

/Maya

[barb162]

73. Yes, I agree

BTW, I am shocked by the whole extreme/zealot reaction to the cartoons and believe your country is correct in not backing down on freedom of the press. It seems your Prime Minister and the newspaper apologized and explained the situation several times. Some zealot types just seem to want to go around destroying embassies and consulates even after the imams have called for calm. Can you imagine if everyone rioted this way every time something was published in a newspaper that they really disliked. This issue is about Freedom of the Press! Protests can be done peaceably.

[IndianaGreen]

87. The West's reaction is usually to bomb countries they don't like

Has anyone taken notice that the Israeli press has been quite restrained about this, refusing to republish the cartoons, and that despite the many provocations by Arab publications in printing highly offensive anti-Semitic cartoons?

[rd_kent]

63. This is why there is NO HOPE for peace in the Middle East

When the radical minority goes on a rampage over a cartoon, attacking and killing people who had NOTHING to do with it while the so-called non-radical, peace loving majority stands idily by time and time again, is why there will never be peace in the middle east. EVER!!!

[Army]

70. So-called Peace Loving Majority

Is right. Violence is a way of life in the middle east. No one is going to change that. Democracy and the respecting of other people you disagree with is a bizarre concept here.

Democracy will never work.

[IndianaGreen]

88. There were riots in Indonesia and Afghanistan and neither of them...

are in the Middle East.

As to your very valid criticism of the failure of the religious moderates to temper passions, the same criticism can be leveled to Christian moderates in America and their failure to present a united front against the Christian radicals.

[rd_kent]

93. you are correct!

But my opinion as to why there will never be peace in the middle east is because most of those folks are Muslim. Maybe I should restate by saying there will never be peace in Muslim countries? Doesnt sound right to me.

[iverglas]

97. can you elaborate?

But my opinion as to why there will never be peace in the middle east is because most of those folks are Muslim.

What might that mean, exactly?

Maybe I should restate by saying there will never be peace in Muslim countries? Doesnt sound right to me.

Nor to me. At least, not in the sense of "right" that you presumably intended.

[rd_kent]

101. Read the thread

I was replyinh to someone else. Read the whole thread.

[iverglas]

102. oh, I've read the thread, and the other threads

And I really wasn't having any difficulty understanding what you said. I just thought you'd been a little unclear, and might want to clarify for anyone else who might not have quite got it. I guess not. I wonder why.

[rd_kent]

103. I wonder why you feel the need to inflame?

Did you understand my point?
"And I really wasn't having any difficulty understanding what you said"
Apparently so.
So why do I need to clarify myself?
"might want to clarify for anyone else who might not have quite got it"
For the good of people who did not get it? Well thank you very much for assuming EVERYBODY else is dumber than you. If we could only aspire to be as smart!
"I guess not. I wonder why"
The whole point of your post was to try and get me to make some extreme statement that you could then pounce on with whatever info your holding back in order to try and make me look idiotic. And, because I dint have time to get into a pissing contest with you. I'm done with you. I say good day to you, sir!!

[daleo]

78. Bear in mind, the police did the killing

There is nothing new about police shooting protesters.

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. Not just the police

THE Danish embassy was set ablaze in Beirut yesterday after it was stormed by thousands of angry Muslims.

One protester, encircled by flames, died after jumping from the third floor. About 30 others were hurt, including firefighters.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16672003&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=protester-dies-after-embassy-is-torched--name_page.html

Elsewhere, the Turkish network, NTV television, reported that a 16-year-old student arrested in connection with the murder of an Italian priest on Sunday had told interrogators he killed the Rev Andrea Santoro to avenge the publication of the cartoons.

Mr Santoro, 60, was shot while praying in his church along the Black Sea coast. Witnesses said the killer screamed "Allahu Akbar", Arabic for "God is great," before firing. Thousands have protested in Turkey against the publication of the cartoons.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,1704174,00.html

[daleo]

85. Well, the first case could be deemed an "accident"

Albeit one which was a direct result of the protests. And the latter could be deemed a murder by a lone gunman (it doesn't seem to have happened at a large scale "protest").

I am not condoning the violence or vandalism at at these protests, or the other negative spin-off consequences of the protests. I believe in free speech and a free press as much as the next westerner.

This has all gotten thoroughly crazy, though. I think it is clear there have been provocateurs at work on both sides. I doubt this would be happening without the context of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the looming invasion of Iran, particularly the latter. There seems to be a general state of fear and loathing slowly engulfing reason on all sides. The world may be heading for something very ugly indeed.

[Matilda]

89. It has become political I think.

Riots in Pakistan yesterday were lead by members of the Government, so this was no ordinary street
riot.

How much has the invasion of Iran got to do with this? Plenty, I suspect, and really at this time
the Danes should have been more aware of what could happen, even though I would still uphold their
right to free speech and opinions. But registering a protest is one thing, burning buildings and
causing death is quite another. I think in western countries, it's time that authorities looked
more closely at the activities of some of the imams, and prison or deportation should be considered
if they're found guilty of inciting people to riot.

[twaddler01]

104. WWIII is coming to a theater near you.....

[genieroze]

94. Praise Allah, kill the infidel cartoonists.

:sarcasm: