What I find strange is that the original cartoon was published in September and caused no problems until for some reason was reprinted by the media in Europe. Why the Eurpoean media almost five months later decided these cartoons were worth re-printing (I didn't think they were that great) no one seems to have said. Yet it's caused riots/protests even in Iraq:
Hundreds of Iraqis rallied south of Baghdad, some carrying banners urging "honest people all over the world to condemn this act" and demanding an EU apology.
The vatican also released a statement according to yahoo news:
"The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers," the Vatican said in its first statement on the controversy.
According to CNN:
The Vatican also weighed in Saturday, saying freedom "cannot imply the right to offend" religious faiths, but emphasized "violent actions of protest are deplorable."
Fox adds this:
The Vatican deplored the violence but said certain forms of criticism represented an "unacceptable provocation."
In Syria things turned very violent/destructive:
The demonstrations in Damascus began peacefully with protesters gathering outside the building housing the Danish Embassy. But they began throwing stones and eventually broke through police barricades. Some scrambled up concrete barriers protecting the embassy, climbed into the building and set a fire.
"With our blood and souls we defend you, O Prophet of God!" the demonstrators chanted. Some removed the Danish flag and replaced it with a green flag printed with the words: "There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God."
Demonstrators moved onto the Norwegian Embassy about 4 miles away, also setting fire to it before being dispersed by police using tear gas and water cannons. Hundreds of police and troops barricaded the road leading to the French Embassy, but protesters were able to break through briefly before fleeing from the force of water cannons.
The Washington Post reports:
A South African court banned the country's Sunday newspapers from reprinting the cartoons.
Iran's president ordered his commerce minister to study canceling all trade contracts with European countries whose newspapers have published the caricatures, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the caricatures showed the "impudence and rudeness" of Western newspapers against the prophet as well as the "maximum resentment of the Zionists (Jews) ruling these countries against Islam and Muslims."
The leaders of Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan denounced the publication of the caricatures. Pakistan's Foreign Ministry summoned nine envoys to lodge protests against the publication of the "blasphemous" sketches.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Details...
Financial resources & Fun!
Financial Resources:
Corporate Recovery
With a shaky stock market, now's a great time to invest in diamonds.
Fun!
Yard Signs Cheap
Yard Signs Cheap
Corporate Recovery
With a shaky stock market, now's a great time to invest in diamonds.
Fun!
Yard Signs Cheap
Yard Signs Cheap
Regular Reads
History Mike's Musings
Toledo Tales
Hooda Thunkit
Aaron's Blog
Along the Tracks
The Glitch
Roland's Ramblings
Judy's Jewels
I think about by Valbee
Toledo Speaks Out
Maggie Thurber's Thoughts
Color Orange Art
The Yippie Show
Progressive Toledo
Thoughts on TPS
Shanahan Select
Make A Difference
Toledo Perspectives
Toledo Tales
Hooda Thunkit
Aaron's Blog
Along the Tracks
The Glitch
Roland's Ramblings
Judy's Jewels
I think about by Valbee
Toledo Speaks Out
Maggie Thurber's Thoughts
Color Orange Art
The Yippie Show
Progressive Toledo
Thoughts on TPS
Shanahan Select
Make A Difference
Toledo Perspectives
Blog Archive
...
...
Thank you!
Thanks for visiting Liberal Common Sense...
17 comments:
You know, English needs another word for "freedom." In Spanish, there is libertad (freedom) and libertinaje (taking libery in an inappropriate way, the abuse of liberty). These cartoons, I think, represent the latter. They were funny to the Danes, French, and Norgewians because first of all they are very secular countries with little religious fervor, and because it involved another religion (not Catholicism or Christianity). They should've known that printing those images would deeply offend fervent Muslims, any idiot could've seen that. In an era where we need to be making connections with the Muslim world, particularly given the problem with Iran, this does exaclty the opposite.
Actually, catdaddy, the point of publishing the cartoons, according to the Danish paper that commissioned them, was to confront the prohibition of depicting Mohammed visually. I doubt that most people find them funny, in general (except the "ran out of virgins" cartoon, that's pretty funny).
Spanish may have a concept that some free expression is an abuse of liberty, but that is simply censorship by a different name.
I agree, Lisa, that the cartoons aren't that good. Nor are they the first of such caricatures I've seen, so I'm not sure why the fuss is happening now.
However, I must agree with the Vatican. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. Yet, the violence is deplorable and ineffectual.
Alas, this is a sad time for those of us who actually care about religious tolerance.
I think the cartoojns and photos are awesome. This gives the Islamofacist bastards a taste of their own medicine. They don't wanna be seen as extremists, yet they're calling for beheadings. Hypocrites and lunatics is what we're dealing with.
More of these need to be published, world-wide.
republican vet,
Not all Muslims are "Islamofacists," as you call them. That may be an appropriate label for the violent extremists, and probably for some who are protesting; but the cartoon offended MOST Muslims, including those who peacefully reside here in the US. The way to obtain peace between our two peoples is through promoting religious tolerance to both, and this is does the exact opposite.
Prejudice and hate protects noone.
Somehow I don't think creating a larger impression that some of the basic tenents of a religion is not respected is a positive move.
Most of those who support this seem to be coming from republican vet's view of retribution or revenge rather than a free speech view point.
While I understand the free speech side of the argument, this cartoon discussion skirts very closely to the line of what goes beyond free speech and into the "yelling fire in a crowded room" scenario. If it's known that something like this will cause riots (given the past furor over similar incidents means it was done full well knowing that the larger the coverage the better the chance of an over-reaction) then it is not reporting news it's trying to create news.
Even if the original intent was not to insult anyone, it's obvious that once the European Press started to focus on this, it was felt as offensive. Is rioting the solution? No, but it does create another situation that those who are extreme will use to demonstrate how the "infidels" care so little about their culture.
Great comments.
I, too, fall on the side of "enough, already." The cartoonists and editors have proven their point about free speech. Move on to another topic.
I am not condoning those who reacted in violent fashion, including the burning of the Danish embassy today in Beirut.
Republican vet said:
"They don't wanna be seen as extremists, yet they're calling for beheadings. Hypocrites and lunatics is what we're dealing with."
Vet, you know darned good and well that most Muslims deplore this sort of violence. It's disingenuous to associate all Muslims with the thuggery of a few extremists; that would be like blaming all Christians for the bombing of abortion clinics.
And there is no "lunacy" in standing up for one's faith. The only lunacy is when people believe that they should commit crimes to show their support for their religion.
I just read the Jordon Times, the King has ordered the arrest of an editor who published the cartoons
Here
AMMAN — His Majesty King Abdullah said on Friday that insulting the Prophet Mohammad was “a crime that cannot be justified under the pretext of freedom of expression.”
In remarks published by the Jordan News Agency, Petra, the King said he would not “be lenient or accept any insult to Islam or other religions.”
“We will never allow anyone to abuse Jordan's freedom of expression in order to insult Prophet Mohammad or other prophets and religions,” the Monarch added.
Amman Prosecutor General Sabri Rawashdeh on Saturday ordered the arrest of Shihan's former chief editor Jihad Momani pending further investigation, Government Spokesperson Nasser Judeh told The Jordan Times.
Eric and Republican vet,
Just because the butt of the cartoon were Muslims does not make it OK. Also, Eric, even though there are depictions on Mohammad in the Middle East, most come from Shiite's and Sufis and actually is quite a source of conflict between them and Suni's, who don't allow for such since it promotes, in their view, idolitry. The pictures you have from Turkey don't actually depict his face, which may ammeliorate things. At any rate, one thing is depicting him preaching or ascending to heaven, and another one to put him in a cartoon the way it was done.
We can free speech, they're hypocrits, they deserve it all we want. Change the focus a bit, and it may be more understadable (or sympathetic): Should we have cartoons about MLK where we make fun of him, or of Rosa Parks. How about Holocaust survivors, or Katrina victims... Would we tell people to suck it up when they react strongly to such cartoons? Hey, it's free speech, right?
I'd love for all of us to move on... The problem is that this is not an isolated thing, and in the context of the middle east, it can lead to more and more problems: It's beginning to smell like another stupid crusade to me...
Lisa, if I don't express my beliefs because you have responded to them with violence in the past, then you have accomplished censorship and removed freedom of speech. In my opinion, you are perfectly free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, as long as you accept the responsibility for your actions (that is, if someone dies, you are responsible for their death and could be charged with manslaughter, let's say). I think that the Supreme Court ruling that the First Amendment didn't protect such speech was a major blow to liberty in this country.
Catdaddy: "We can free speech, they're hypocrits, they deserve it all we want. Change the focus a bit, and it may be more understadable (or sympathetic): Should we have cartoons about MLK where we make fun of him, or of Rosa Parks. How about Holocaust survivors, or Katrina victims... Would we tell people to suck it up when they react strongly to such cartoons? Hey, it's free speech, right?"
The answer to your questions is an unqualified yes. I may not like it, I may not find it appropriate, I may find it reprehensible, but I will defend your right, or anyone else's to free speech. Regardless of who it is directed against.
Oh, by the way, I'm not religious, so it doesn't make much difference to me which religion you offend.
On a side note, don't lump Republican Vet and I together. If you can't see the difference between my position and his caricature of a neo-con, then you need to go back and look again. My position has NOTHING to do with "revenge". I can point out the reality of this culture without it meaning I want revenge.
I really don't want us to move on. This is a crucial issue for both cultures to deal with. Moving on means sweeping it under the carpet. Dealing with it means discovering whether a secular, liberal culture can co-exist with a medieval, repressive culture.
Eric, when I wrote:
Most of those who support this seem to be coming from republican vet's view of retribution or revenge rather than a free speech view point, I thought it was clear I separated your free speech argument from Republican Vets. If that wasn't clear that's what I was doing? Hopefully now it is.
Free speech does have limits, that has been established that there are certain lines that cannot be crossed. Whether these cartoons cross this depends on the location and the laws and how each determines what "free speech" is. Now if you are stating you believe there are no limits in this situation? I'm not sure I can agree because these are not individuals speaking, they are media sources run for profit. If an individual wanted to draw cartoons to his content then that to me would be a different scenario than a news source profiting from a situation where they know it will be offensive.
Incase you are wondering what I'm basing this on? I think it's said very well here since this is more of an international issue:
The right to freedom of expression is not considered unlimited; governments may still prohibit certain damaging types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law; pursue an aim recognized as legitimate; and they must be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim. Amongst the aims considered legitimate are protection of the rights and reputations of others (prevention of defamation), and the protection of national security and public order, health and morals.
Wiki
I think there could be a valid claim of defamation especially with the Eurpoean media since they had a different intent than the original Danish piece. While not being a lawyer, it does appear the original intent was not to defame, yet some of what has happened since could cross that line.
Paul, I think most everyone agrees the violence is stupid and is not going to do anything to solve this situation.
Nor is it going to win fans as far as those who are already pretty biased against muslims, extremist or otherwise. If anything this adds to the anti-islam feeling. Once again those who are not supporters of the extreme islamic point of view are not doing enough to try to end this. Is it because they can't or because they themselves fear the very backlash directed at Europe or a combination of that? I can only guess.
I guess my original point was one of responsibility as a part of free speech. If you know something is going to create a firestorm and given past reactions it was pretty much a given (though I don't think anyone expected this huge of a reaction) should you publish it? What is then the purpose? If it knowingly creates a riot especially since the European Papers did not have the same intent as the Danish article did is that okay?
Here in the states it's easy to look at it differently because we do have different standards of what is constitutionally accepted as free speech, but this was not done in the US nor is the reaction coming from the US. In this globabl news media world which standard should apply? Each individual country their own or an international standard. In Jordan arrests have been made, is that a fair standard to apply? Or is that up to each country.
I question the reasoning for the European press to have covered something that originally caused very little attention. I think the responsibility factor coming from the media should be a part of this discussion. Free speech should be protected, especially as far as individuals, yet these are not invididuals and given they have a larger accessibility being the media I think they should be held to a higher standard than if one of us plastered our home with anti-muslim cartoons.
We have enough hatred and division in the world, we don't need any help from the media or the extremists. Yet can we control the extremists? Which then raises the next question, how to not cater to them. Because caterting to them is not the solution either.
I'd also add that France Soir, who was I believe the first Europoean paper to publish these months old cartoons has been having major financial problems and I think that was their motivation. Trying to create controversy, which they did. More than I think they bargained for since the Egyptian owner fired the managing editor.
We usually aren't that far apart on most issues Paul (cept for Hackett maybe - lol)
I'm not sure though if we will ever be able to change their culture or if we should. They should be able to live their own lives no matter how we may feel about their cultural or religious practices. That's part of the problem in the first place is their fear that we are going to try to destroy their culture.
Should tolerance and mutual peaceful co-existance be the goal? That I would agree with. I realize historically that's not the way it happens, that cultures are assimilated whether they want to be or not, but even though I don't support the violence if I were told I had to become muslim because a larger power wanted my culture to change? I wouldn't be very willing. We may see it as a change for the better for them, but it's pretty obvious not all of them want what we have.
What's saddest of all is if they could find a way to protest this without violence they would actually get alot more support, and probably alot more understanding of their concerns.
Eric,
Sorry to lump you with republican vet. No, It didn't think your positions were the same. Answering to each of you what I thought would've taken too much space. My bad.
My point, I guess, is that in order for both of these cultures to coexist, there needs to be dialogue and understanding. At this point, there's way too much shoveling down their (and our) throats. This is not going to work. To me this is similar to dealing with a gang problem. Many in the Middle East feel ostracized, disrespected, used, powerless, etc... Many by their own governments, which we support (such as Saudi Arabia, for example). These governments at the same time pin their people against the West as a good distraction, otherwise, they'd see what their government is really doing. It's the same with gangs, which come from poor places where people feel ostracized and marginalized. Governments let gangs kill each other and pin one against another in order to keep both suppressed. Example, Ex-governor Wilson of California pinning African-Americans against Mexicans (look at the jail riots this weekend)... Hey, as long as both groups are busy with one another...
Back to the cartoons, I'm not religious either. But we can't yell out f.u. to somebody's face and then complain about their reaction. And to them cartooning Mohammed in that manner is a big f.u.
Looking for information and found it at this great site... roundabout seat cover Nacked babes Lloydstsb mastercard Snowboarding pants E commerce merchant heavy equipment leadership training Dodge neon and seat cover Premier walkin bathtubs http://www.blowjob-mom.info/brandon_merrill_model.html Miniatures aston martin Verizon wireless north america plans to canada Asc pontiac grand prix production Boating accident attorneys ft lauderdale Best cheap phendimetrazine information
Post a Comment