Boycotting Denmark

[Junesun]

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.

If I may interrupt your discussion and just put in one thing: the majority of Germans did NOT want to exterminate Jews. Hitler didn't have a majority vote and he didn't even present that idea for voting; the last free vote was mostly about the economy.

His plans were not broadcast. A lot of people said they didn't know about them. Among those who did, not many agreed, though only comparatively few had the courage to risk their own lives by trying to save Jews. Anyways there was criticism enough of even the ideologic theory to have Hitler complain about "everybody assuring me that the Jews they know are good people". Please refrain from saying that the majority of Germans wanted the extermination of Jews. Thanks.

[Stan]

Where do you draw the line between freedom of the press and the offense of a group of people?

Good question...in the US there really isn't a line (besides language and nudity on television across airwaves). I'm not sure that's a good thing, but when I think about it I'm not sure someone creating that line is a good thing either.

Can there be consequences outside of an Editor's compassion, considering freedom of the press? Who is there to enforce it?

I think there are consequences already, even without laws restricting it. The Middle East boycotting Denmark is the appropriate action to take, actually. Without the benefit of a law restricting this speech it is left up to the "free market" to decide whether this type of thing should be tolerated. By boycotting the goods from Denmark the middle East is excersizing the only peaceful and potentially successful option it has, aside from protest, of course.

So, I believe there will be consequences and the "free market" will enforce it.

After reading Nitefyre's response I agree that there was something left to be desired. Originally, I thought there was nothing that could be done about it except to live with it. But, action can and should be taken.

The reason why boycotting the newspaper wouldn't work is because I doubt many sales of these papers are made in the Middle East. So there needs to be a "lever" to get the people of Denmark to boycot the paper. The only way to nudge them in that direction is by forcing it, and the only peaceful way to force it is through boycot.

[Jos Elkink]

I totally disagree with Nitefyre. I have the impression that in recent times, freedom of expression and freedom of press are becoming less and less important, which is terrible. If a newspaper wants to publish those cartoons, it's up to them. If you want to complain, complain to them. Or publish articles why you think people should not publish those things. Make your point, but don't limit someone's free speech, and definitely don't blame a whole country or a government for what a free newspaper publishes.

In the Netherlands two Muslim television satellite channels have been blocked since last week because they were too extremist; the Dutch minister of integration wants to make it some kind of policy that everybody should only speak Dutch in the Netherlands on the streets; in the US the president tries to argue that he doesn't need warrants before he wiretaps people ... Where are we going with this? Are we really going to ignore all rules about freedom and liberalism that have taken so much time and effort to develop??

Sure those cartoons might have been nasty, but just argue against it, don't try to censor people, or blame those that could have censored it ...

[Stan]

I don't know if you were typing when I was typing, but after reading your note I should clarify something.

I'm not talking about censorship. I'm talking about people making buying decisions based on what offended them.

In this particular case the Middle East has no option but to boycot the entire country because boycot of a newspaper will not effect any change.

Free Press....Free Market...

[wulf]

I saw one of the cartoons, depicting Muhammed with a bomb for his hat. I don't know what context it was published in but, taken in isolation, I think it's a potent critique of how the West, at least, views Islam. The extreme reactions are only give justification to that view.

It was only a cartoon - I'm sure there have been plenty of others depicting Muhammed and there have definitely been cartoons and depictions that would be offensive to other groups. As an example, I'm a Christian but I'm not too bothered by the Monty Python film The Life of Brian (eg. the end scene with numerous crucified people whistling "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life") but I know plenty of Christians who were appalled by it and wouldn't watch it.

However, with the fuss that is being made at the moment, the cartoon is going to end up as an iconic image. As I said, I don't know the original context. However, is nobody in the Islamic world getting past feelings of offence and asking how many people view them like that, whether there's a grain of truth in the view and what should be done about it? Can somebody point towards some responsive rather than reactionary Islamic commentary?

Wulf

[Schme]

Junesun, granted, I'm not a German and have never lived in Germany.

I base what I said on what I've been told by people in Canada who spent their youth in Germany (A great number of Germans settled in the region in which I live very soon after Germany shook of Hitler.)

From what the old folk have told me, much of their nation was caught up in ideological fervor. Perhaps they're lying? I don't know. I trust them. Perhaps they're vision of things was skewed somewhat, having been involved in the movement.

Yes, the economy was the big thing to start with. But from what people have told me, Hitler had a rather simple public opnion on why the economy was not doing well, and much of this involved a Jewish conspiracy against the German people.

No, he did not believe in voting, but you can't deny that a great many Germans were, at first, backing him. The victories in Czecholslovakia, Poland and France went over well, at least with people I know.

Again, maybe these folk are lying. I don't think they are, having known them for a great deal, but I don't know. And again, perhaps their view of things was skewed, being enthusiastic members of the Nazi Party when it was first becoming powerful. And of course, you'd know much better than me, being a German, and knowing a great deal more people who where around at the time than myself. But the impression I was given was that the Nazi Party was widely popular for a time.

[Schme]

Can somebody point towards some responsive rather than reactionary Islamic commentary?

Wulf

Yes, but nobody wants to. If you're a newsman, what do you want to cover? The gun totting gangbangers, or some kids in a crime prevention program?

Also, you're now labelling people. You may call some groups and people "reactionaries." Well, guess what? What if these reactionaries are representative of the feelings going on right now? It's just like when people critisieze Public Enemy. "These people are vulgar and disgusting and there's no need for them to say things they're saying." Nobody care's that they're actually pretty moderate, and are only stating truth.





The Communists in Nicaragua were "reactionaries", the people in Tian-Amen square were "reactionaries".





Also, you have to understand the difference between the Life of Brian and this are very very difference.

It is blasphemy to depict the Prophet in any way. The mere fact that he is in a cartoon at all is no good. Islam and European/American style Christianity are very different in many ways.



As I said before, the publishing of this cartoon in Denmark is the equivalent of mocking African American icons and their principles in north America. It's not something you can do.

[west]

Does boycott = burn the embassy of?

[Schme]

There you are again.

Equating people not buying things with people attacking people.

So if I don't buy from an American store, that's the same thing as going and burning down the American embassy, is it? I'm just as bad as people who are murdering, am I?

Fu.ck that, guy.

[SekoETC]

I wrote a long reply on another computer but then the connection got jammed as it often does so I didn't get to post it. But maybe I can remember a short summary.

- God doesn't need people to defend Him. He is immortal and supreme, thus can't be wounded by the words (or drawings) of mortals.

- All religions and their symbols and people are ridiculed sometimes, why would Muslims have a separate right to start exaggerated operations, like a country-wide boycott, especially as countries? I could understand people as individuals making the moral choice but when a whole government does it...

- If people are forced not to express their opinions with threats of boycott (or even war and terrorist attacks) if there's silence it's not from respect but out of fear and self preservation.

- Western culture is different from Muslim culture. We have freedom of speech and freedom of press. If you don't like it then don't read Danish newspapers etc, stick to your own land and own people and culture. But don't come telling us what to do.

And this just in, I read in a printed magazine that came out on Friday, that the Danish paper has already apologized. So where's the fuss? What do you still want?

http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm - I don't know if someone has posted this link yet since I haven't had time to read the second page of this convo yet. Anyway, it's sure to offend Muslims even more but that comic over there is based on quotations from the Quran. I know it can be compared to "Satan reading the Bible", that many things look weird when taking out of context. But those things really were weird, and I'd like to hear how Muslims take them, like symbolically or what? (Things about drinking camel's urine etc. - Where's the point in that?)

About Muhammed marrying a little girl I already knew about, and it was probably rather average in that time and that area, but today it would be taken as an act of pedophia. Didn't Salman Rushdie get a death threat upon her for saying that among other things?

[Schme]

Seko, you say "If you don't like our culture, stick to your own land." That's the problem. Islam is from no nation. It is a religion that is all about the world, Denmark included. There are muslim danes, there are muslim Swedes, there are muslims all over Europe.

They are not, however, considered Europeans. This is the problem. "You muslims don't like how it goes down here, the go home." They are home. They just aren't equal to non muslim, white Europeans. This is how they must live, knowing they are not considered equal to who they should consider their countrymen.

And no, Europe does not have freedom of press. If it did, then why would militant Islamists be persecuted for giving speeches and having radio shows? If it did, why would people be telling them to shut the fuc.k up and stop complaining? "Stop talking! We've got freedom of speech!"




And the Prophet never married a young girl. His wife was older than he was.

Yes, the Qu'ran does allow for men to marry younger women. But not sexually immature children. It allows for older, well off men to marry orphaned girls so as to take them into their home and take care of them, as there was a great many orphaned girls around at the time who were starving in the streets. It allows for this. However, it also has a long and extremly strict list of rules and specific circumstances regarding this, insuring that the husband cannot steal the girl's inheritance, cannot exploit her, cannot marry girls who are not yet women, must treat the women very very well, and a great huge long list of other things which you'd have to ask a scholar about.

And you say "This would be considered pedophilia." It seems to me you are confused. The Qu'ran allows for older men to marry sexually mature girls. How is this pedophilia? If you want to find examples of culturaly accepted pedophilia, you must look in Europe. European men, all across the continent, traditionally took much younger wives than themselves. In many cases, fully grown men would take child wives.

In the English colonies in North American, the norm was for soldiers in their fourties to marry twelve year old girls.



Also, it was not the Danish newspaper apologies. It is Danish politicians and the owners of the newspapers, not the people who actually run the newspaper. Furthermore, these comics have now been published throughout Europe in near every country. Why? Because nobody has any respect for muslims in west europe, whether they be immigrants or born and raised citizens. This is going to cause problems for everyone, regardless of their stance on the issue.

[Stan]

Does boycott = burn the embassy of?

Nope. That's the point that it goes too far. But, in fairness not every Muslim burned an embassy. I would think that the average Muslim would look at that act as going too far, as well.

[Dee]

What was published in the Danish newspaper isn't called freedom of press, not freedom of speech. It is called disrespect and insulting.

We can't just sit around and do nothing about what has happened, something has to be done. What would you suggest we do? Terrorist attacks? Certainley not. War? Out of the question. Protest? What good will it do for us? Boycott? That's the only reasonable thing we can do.

By the way, we all know that if the middle east boycotts Denmark's products, the latter's economy wouldn't be affected much, if not at all, but it's still something we do to defend our relegion, and our prophet.

Actually, it's totally forbidden to draw the prophet Muhammed, let alone make disrespectful comics about him and about the Islam as a whole.

Yes, they did apologize, but only in Arabic. No Danish people read the apology and thus it does not count.

[Dee]

Does boycott = burn the embassy of?

Nope. That's the point that it goes too far. But, in fairness not every Muslim burned an embassy. I would think that the average Muslim would look at that act as going too far, as well.

Did anyoen burn any embassies? I didn't hear about that..

[Hellzon]

Unfortunately, they did:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm
And now, I will leave this discussion...