German Papers Print Mohammed Cartoons
Don’t look now, but backbones seem to be springing up all over Europe:
Germans print Muhammad caricatures.
Two German newspapers on Wednesday reproduced controversial drawings depicting the Prophet Muhammad, with one of them arguing that a “right to blasphemy” was anchored in democratic freedoms.
The drawings were among several published in a Danish paper in September that sparked outrage and boycotts in Islamic countries. The pictures were also shown in a Norwegian magazine last week. ...
But the German Welt daily put one of the drawings showing the prophet’s turban transformed into a bomb on its front page on Wednesday. It said the picture was “harmless” and expressed regret that the Danish Jyllands-Posten daily had apologized for causing offense.
“Democracy is the institutionalized form of freedom of expression,” the paper said in a front-page commentary. “There is no right to protection from satire in the West; there is a right to blasphemy.”
The Berliner Zeitung daily also printed two of the caricatures as part of its coverage of the controversy.
Italy and Spain too:
Newspapers across Europe have reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad to show support for a Danish paper whose cartoons have sparked Muslim outrage.
France Soir, Germany’s Die Welt, La Stampa in Italy and El Periodico in Spain all carried some of the drawings.
18 comments:
Thank god (if there is one!). The "price of freedom" is to refuse to appease tyrants, and to expose yourself to their tyrany. I respect people who believe that the US did not need to invade any nations other Afgahnistan as a response to the 911 attacks. But I cannot respect the view that people in free countries must curb their speach to accomidate those within their borders who demand not to hear, read, or see certain "offensive" articulations. Too bad few people from the left or right qualify as I do as a true advocate of free speach.
Many rightists want to fire or boycott professors or broadcasters for making "offensive" (to them!) comments against the war. Meanwhile, just as deplorably, many leftists want the same punishmet for the same professionals for making "offensive" (to them!) comments regarding race, religion, etc. Sadly, this will result in mostly the rightists opposing the demands for speach strictures regarding islam. But remember, Europe already has shameful "hate speach" laws. So maybe they have set themselves up for this. At least now the leftist journalists seem to be coming to their senses.
One possible positive solution is that people who want to live in backwards nations where other people do not display words or images that "offend" them will stay away from free nations. Another possitive possible development is that free people on the right and left may learn to themselves be more tollerant (and maybe even absolutely tollerant!) of expressions that they find "offensive".
Jesus fucking christ! (And by that, of course I mean Jesus buggering Mohammad!)
"Provoking Muslims"? No. Provoking religious tyrants. They desearve the hell that they are creating for themselves when they witness other people blaspheming their own goof-ball superstition. These people make Pat Robertson look like Thomas Paine.
"It was done not to defend freedom of the press, but to spite the Muslims," Mohammad Aman Hobohm said.
Has Mohammad given this tyrant the power to read people's minds? And, even if the journalists did print these cartoons to "spite Muslims", that would *still* represent a defense of freedom of the press. What an idiot. Does he think that something done to "spite muslims" cannot also be a defense of press freedom?
I predict that under those goofy religious costumes that there's just as much sex scandal as there is under the goofy catholic priest costumes. Correction: I think more, since these nuts are even more fanatical than priests, their sex crimes will probably be even worse and more extensive.
As an expression of solidarity for free speach, every free newspaper, magazine, and news broadcast should blast these "offensive" images accross their front pages and screens. The tryants here can only win if they confront an isolated sole, like that Chinese student in Tianaman square facing down the tank by himself. If we all standup, the tyrants can't kill us all. If every newspaper, magazine, and broadcast blares these images, the small-minded tyrants will shrink like vampires at in sunlight. Shame on any free news media that does not!
"The owner of one of the papers to reprint - France Soir - has now sacked its managing editor over the matter."
Six, were we too early with our praise for the supposedly brave journalists of Europe?
The editor of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper told a Jordanian news agency: "These cartoons were not in violation of Danish law but have irrefutably offended many Muslims, and for that we apologise."
Maybe free speach is dead afterall. What pathetic babies. They are even worse than Americans who demand appologies and firings and boycotts for airing of "offensive" speach. Maybe the worst players in these messes are managers who cave in.
It was absolutely done to spite the Muslims. But that's okay. They have a right to spite Muslims.
And according to Muslim culture, if someone insults a prophet, they can be put to death. Again, that's not right, but that's their culture, and there will be virgins awaiting in paradise for the person who blows up the Danish paper.
And I guess at this point, if one of Alexis's former classmates throws a Molotov cocktail into Paul's pink living room, that wouldn't be a surprise either. He insulted two prophets: Muhammad and Jesus.
Nadir: I'm certain that the papers reprinted the cartoons only to spite the muslims who are tyranical religious bigots. Your perspective confounds me. What exactly are you advocating here? Appeasing violent tyrants?
What about the KKKers who are offended by your comments (to say nothing of mine)? Shall you (and I) cease making comments that "their culture" has banned?
What about the blacks who move into neighborhoods and get vandelized and threatened by racists, whose "culture" mandates it?
As for my insulting Jesus, who on this world today seeks to kill anybody for that? Blaspheming jesus stopped endangering the offender many decades ago. As that Danish chick (the one with the death warrent on her head) said: christianity and judaism have grown up; islam has not yet.
I am very sad that you give any more respect to these muslim tyrants than to any others. Some of them are surely offended by your music, and the cloths that your wife wears. What will you say if some muslims start threating you guys, demanding that you conform to other aspects of "muslim culture"? Graphically dipicting mohammad ain't the only aspect of human life that this culture has ancient mandates for. If you permit them to force you and me to conform to one personal behavior, why not the rest?
I'm not advocating anything in this case. The papers have a right to free speech. They have an obligation to be fair to all citizens, but they don't have to be respectful.
It shows a lack of respect for the Muslim religion to print an image of the prophet (which many Muslims believe is a sin) and to print derogatory images. It would demonstrate a similar lack of respect if they did the same thing to Jesus. (South Park's caricatures of Jesus are quite disrespectful).
But they don't HAVE to respect their Muslim constituents, just like newspapers didn't HAVE to respect blacks in America when they printed racist speech during the 19th and 20th centuries. Free speech is free speech.
If the Muslims are angered, their anger is justified. The cartoons do not demonstrate a dislike for certain factions of Islam, but by insulting the prophet, they offend all Muslims - moderate, liberal and fundamentalist.
If the Muslims react violently to these insults, they will be in the wrong, but they will have been provoked. Additionally, based on the current tensions between pseudo-Christian Europeans and Islam these days, no one should be surprised if violence occurs.
Tragic? Certainly. But if you play with fire and end up getting burned, you should have known better. You have a right to place your hand on a hot stove, though. I'm not going to stop you. It's your hand.
When some European tourist gets drawn into this idiocy, the publishers should understand their role in the events. Inciting more animosity and violence will not improve relations between the West and Islam. It only makes matters worse.
Why the hell would you want to make matters worse? Because you can? Because it's your right? Then don't be surprised when the backlash comes.
If a Muslim expresses dissatisfaction with the way my wife is dressed or with my music, he has a right to his opinion. However, if any man disrespects, threatens or dishonors her in any way, then I will kick his ass.
Will I be placed in jail for assault? Yes. Would I be justified in kicking the dude's ass? The courts may not think so, but any man with a wife will say I was justified. The laws of honor and culture transcend the written law or another man's right to free speech.
Should Christians be angered that Kanye West appears on the cover of Rolling Stone with a crown of thorns? Well, there is no animosity in the picture. If Kanye had a bomb in his hand or was doing something blasphemous, then it would be offensive. Kanye is no more offensive in that photo than Mel Gibson's Jesus was.
The difference between that and the European cartoons is that those cartoons were absolutely printed (and reprinted) with disregard and disdain for Muslims. Their intention was to offend.
They may have "the right" to do it, but there is nothing "right" about it.
Nadir: Your thoughts on this matter are conflicting and bizarre. I don't even know where to start. You now are advocating and justifying violent retailiation for insults to your wife. Where does your line of reasoning end? The muslim who gets offended that your wife shows her ankle is no less insulted then you are by the man who calls your wife a floozey. By your reasoning, a talib is as justified in beating your wife with a stick as you are in beating a construction worker for cat-calling your wife.
How about you calling my actions "justified" for beating muslims who call for the beatings of people who make mohammad cartoons?
And what of the KKKers "insulted" and "offended" by you living in Westland? You have never addressed this.
And why do you call christians "psuedo-christians" -- and without even finding examples of christians responding with violence to the cartoons of jesus -- but you cannot bring yourself to make any negative comments about the muslims who want to violently impose their speach codes?
You're some courageous and consistent advocate of free speach.
====Nadir
any man with a wife will say I was justified.
====
Not the ones who believe in free speach, democracy, and the rule of law.
====Nadir
Should Christians be angered that Kanye West appears on the cover of Rolling Stone with a crown of thorns?
======
Only stupid, backwards ones. If they demand boycotts of Rolling Stone, then they are opponents of free speach. If they advocate fire-bombings or executions, they are even worse.
====Nadir
The difference between that and the European cartoons is that those cartoons were absolutely printed (and reprinted) with disregard and disdain for Muslims.
=====
And I say that the only disregard and disdain was for the subset of Muslims who are violent opponents of free speach.
====Nadir
If a Muslim expresses dissatisfaction with the way my wife is dressed or with my music, he has a right to his opinion.
=======
Yet the "right to opinion" is not up for debate here. The right to express an opinion is up for debate. Your wife has an opinion about fashion. She expresses that opinion by wearing cloths that sometimes show her ankle or cleavage, in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY that the cartoonists have expressed their opinion of people targetting civilians for exectution in the name of islam. Once you advocate, as you are, understanding and appeasement for those who violently oppose those cartoonists expressing themselves, you are making exactly the same stand for those who would violently impose their mideavel superstions on dress wear upon your wife.
====Nadir
Why the hell would you want to make matters worse? Because you can? Because it's your right? Then don't be surprised when the backlash comes.
=======
Nadir: You think that there are plenty of crackers in Westland who don't want you to live there. Why in the hell would you make matters worse (by moving and living there)? Because you can? Because you're right? Then don't be surprised when the backlash comes.
Nadir: I am an advocate of free speach, just as much as I am an advocate of racial equality. In the 1950s and 60s, do you think that people should have "made matters worse" by "offending" the advocates of Jim Crow?
Last night I watched documentary about slaves resisting slavery in the 1800s. This guy in Boston in the 1820s, an escaped slave, wrote a document called, "Walker's Appeal", which urged slaves to escape and kill their masters. It got widely distributed amoungst slaves, and helped inspire Nat Turner. Some anti-speach cracker (probably a slave catcher fromt he south; abolition in Boston at the time was so popular that slave catchers had to fight crackers) killed Walker on the porch of his home.
I suppose that he should have "not made matters worse", which he certainly did! Slave owners cracked down much harder in response to his publication. And I suppose that he should have "not been surprised". Afterall, (quoting you, again): "if you play with fire and end up getting burned, you should have known better. You have a right to place your hand on a hot stove, though. [And Walker did have the right in Boston to publish his pamphlet, which was very popular there with crackers!] I'm not going to stop you. It's your hand."
Applying more of your words here: "When some European tourist [I mean slaves!] gets drawn into this idiocy, the publishers should understand their role in the events. Inciting more animosity and violence will not improve relations between the West and Islam [I mean, confederates and abolishionists, northerners and southern whites, blacks and whites]. It only makes matters worse." It certainly did make matters worse! Southern crackers proposed -- and passed -- harsher slave laws, both in state legislatures, and in the US congress.
Nadir, your view would have been a big help during slavery days!
Post a Comment