Cantr II Discussion Forum

Did THIS make your local news?

One of the Denmarks' newspapers published cartoons on the prophet, Muhammed. They were very disrespectful as they were making fun of the prophet and making fun of the the islamic relegion as a whole, and making fun of God as well.

They pictured him as a terrorist, with a bomb on his hat, with a sword in his hand, and with many offending views.

The middle east is boycotting Denmark for that disrespectful action toward Islam. And Denmark's officials do not want to apologize.

Yes it did! It is big here since I live in Sweden and we are effected too, as the bojcott was made to companies that exists in both Denmark and Sweden. I am also a farmer, and the biggest blow this bojcott made was against milkprodukts.

I don't understand why hit on the state of Denmark and danish and swedish farmers when there is a free newspaper that has done wrong.

And I also don't understand why the offended are so blind towards offending others. Israel, Jews and Christians are made fun of in much worse cartoons and the like very often in media there. See
http://www.radioislam.org/islam/roligt/roligt.htm I dont think this is funny at all and in some cases very offending. And still I use products from muslims like bensin every day.

/SCUBA

It also made the National news here in the UK as well, Dee

Yes I think the cartoons are tasteless, offensive and are the product of intolerance, bigotry and lack of understanding of other cultures.
I also have very low opinions of the various periodicals across in France, Belgium and Ireland who have reprinted the cartoons, not as an attempt to understand the offense, but to compound it.

However, I question why its is also ok to boycott a whole nation and state over the actions of a private newspaper. This also seems to display intolerance

The Danish Prime Minster has expressed distress at the offense cuased by the cartoons but as he correctly points out, he and the Danish state and it's people can't be held responsible for pictures in a free and independent newspaper.

Protests should be directed against the person who has offended Islam, not against whole nations

Nicely put, Chris, I think that sums it up.

The whole thing--both "sides"--is a sad reflection on the current state of the human race.

But no one wanted to apologize, and if we didn't take an action, then the whole thing is going to be repeated again and again!

Definateley the government of Denmark can do something to stop that newspaper, or to punish it or whatever, in that case, maybe we will stop the boycott.

I think Chris kind of nailed it.

From what I've heard of the issue I think it is bad taste and shows arrogance and bigotry...it goes further than that for Muslims and approaches heresy. I haven't seen the cartoons personally as I haven't seen them reprinted here.

But. if some idiot in the US wanted to make a cartoon depicting disgusting and offensive things similar to that cartoon I don't think the government could do anything officially.

It might be possible for our congress to make phone calls to the newspaper or to politically pressure them to retract and apologize, but with freedom of the press people can (and often do) make offensive comments and cartoons.

I think Sociologist was right when saying it depicts the state of the human race today...well maybe always.

Where do you draw the line between freedom of the press and the offense of a group of people? How many people does it have to affect, insult, offend? In what mediums (periodicals, newspapers, words, books, television clips, Artwork depicting the Virgin Mary in manure, Al Jazeera airing Bin Laden's tape for the destruction of America, a small firm in Denmark trying to boost sales through insolence?) can freedom of expression be abused? What should the consequences be? Can there be consequences outside of an Editor's compassion, considering freedom of the press? Who is there to enforce it? Can the leader of Iran call on the destruction of Israel and the Jews and get away with it? Where is the line drawn in the bigger picture?

Of course, the idealistic answer is easiest, but there's something impractical to it. It makes me feel as if CJ's reply was somewhat superficial, the first thought, and then, simply brush the issue aside.

There's something left to be desired.

That was a terrrible thing to do. Blame De-eh-enmark! But reallly, the middle east doesn't get support everytime it blows up a friggin bus. They alienate themselves. If they really wanted to hurt us Trade Embargoes are the way to go. Like Ghandi! Non-violence gets support from the people.

Dee wrote:But no one wanted to apologize, and if we didn't take an action, then the whole thing is going to be repeated again and again!

Definateley the government of Denmark can do something to stop that newspaper, or to punish it or whatever, in that case, maybe we will stop the boycott.

It's called Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Expression, Dee. They can't do anything about it.

Yeah, freedom of Press! Fu.ck Jesus and his teachings!

nitefyre wrote:Where do you draw the line between freedom of the press and the offense of a group of people? How many people does it have to affect, insult, offend? In what mediums (periodicals, newspapers, words, books, television clips, Artwork depicting the Virgin Mary in manure, Al Jazeera airing Bin Laden's tape for the destruction of America, a small firm in Denmark trying to boost sales through insolence?) can freedom of expression be abused? What should the consequences be? Can there be consequences outside of an Editor's compassion, considering freedom of the press? Who is there to enforce it? Can the leader of Iran call on the destruction of Israel and the Jews and get away with it? Where is the line drawn in the bigger picture?

Of course, the idealistic answer is easiest, but there's something impractical to it. It makes me feel as if CJ's reply was somewhat superficial, the first thought, and then, simply brush the issue aside.

There's something left to be desired.

The problem is that Freedom of Expression (that is in the US) does protect all those things you listed above. That is why the KKK and the Neo-Nazis are allowed to hold protests and print books on their beliefs. I'm sure you have beliefs that offend them. I know my existence alone offends them.

Should we really silence one group because we don't believe in what they do and it offends us?

Sometimes I think we are to free. We should be able to shut down racsist things at the least. But the Patriot Act is an infringement on our rights. If you say JIHAD on the phone they tap it! Wtf?

Godamn right we should stop people if we feel.

Some people cannot be trusted to do anything. The good of the majority comes before the "right" to be petty and idiotic.


In the United States of America, for example, (and here to, but you were more prominent, and we were just following suit, really) there used to be legalized racial oppression. The majority of the population, whites, wanted this to continue. However, it caused instability, economic problems, violent racial conflict, and so on. It was bad for the country. The politicians have made such oppression illegal. It still happens, but is less explicitly legal than it was before.

In South Africa, most of the native blacks were gunning for the extermination of the boers. It wasn't allowed to happen, because that would have been bad for the country.


Of course, this requires proper leadership. What is proper leadership> Proper leadership. You either have it or you don't. No getting around it. Whose to judge? Any idiot can judge what proper leadership is if they can get past their biases and maybe venture out of their own little world once in a while.



F.uck Jesus and his teachings.

If you were the editor of a national newspaper, would you allow me to print that?


Let me enlighten you some. Over in Europe and up in Canada, Islam did not all of a sudden gain prevalence because of some crazy Saudi Arabian man with big money. It's been around for a very long time out, and people from all over the world are united by their common faith in these place.

Publishing those cartoons was the equivalent in Denmark of publishing a cartoon of Martin Luther King commiting beastiality in America.

Think about that.


Getting back to the boycott, well, Denmark is a small nation. Yes, it's a private newspaper, but do you think it would be so successful if the people of Denemark were outraged at it's writtings? If the people of Denmark were upset at the paper, they'd do something. If they are, they should.

Denmark is a free nation, they say. Yes, for white danes. Not for non-white immigrants.

If the leadership of the nation really cared about their nation instead of their own popularity and power, they'd kick some as.s.

Same goes for the people. If they do nothing now, it's all going to hell.

(By that, I mean there will be problems, not that all Danes are to be eternally damned.)

The reason why it happened, Schme, is because good people stood up against those bastards not for economic reasons as you suggest. And at the time the majority believed it was good. It was just the few that stood against it and changed the minds of the majority or at least enough to end what would have been the destruction and enslavement of a group of people.

And if the good of majority apply than America would never exist, my Irish ancestors would be dead and or slaves, Jewish people wouldn't exist anymore, and most of the world's population would be slaves to a few because it was good for the majority.

If you don't agree with them then speak out against them by all means but never silence them (no matter how wrong you believe they are) because then you would just be as good as them or those that have committed the atrocities of the past.

You don't get it, guy.

The majority I am talking about in that sense was not whites or blacks or any sort of group. What I was talking about when I meant what was good for the majority was what was good for Americans.

See, by majority I don't mean the largest group in that sense. I mean everybody.

And what is good for people is not always what they want. They could get that on their own.

What's good for people, for the most part, has to be crammed down their throats, at least until they are intellegent and compassionate enough to do it themselves.


For example, you say that Jews in Europe would have been exterminated by the Nazi's as this would have been "Good for the majority."

This is not true. The Germans were going into other nations for themselves, exploiting foreign peoples. This was obviously not good for those foreign people's.

Furthermore, the extermination of Jews was an ideological concept. It was what most of the German people wanted, not what was best for Germany. Their is a difference between what people want and what is best for them.

I'd like to get rid of Howard Stern, but that doesn't mean that's the best thing for me to do or in my best interest.