Cartoon row...

What does the real cartoons looks like? I've had no luck with Google.

 

i issued a fatwah on the texans for considering anyone other than VY.

serously...in my what would jesus do moment...i'm sad at all this. on one side it's entirely disrespectful to people who regard something as dear...on the other side it's violent and threatening. i'd like to mediate this dispute.

 

you must really suck at google...

its all over google images.

 

The Satanic sketches
Feb 1st 2006
From The Economist Global Agenda

A diplomatic and trade row is raging after two Nordic newspapers published cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that were deemed insulting by many Muslims. This week a French daily reprinted the cartoons. In Britain, meanwhile, parliamentarians have defeated a government proposal to extend laws against incitement to religious hatred. Western democracies are again struggling to reconcile the right to free expression with respect for religious belief

Down with the Danes

IF THE aim was to provoke a reasoned debate about self-censorship, religious intolerance and the freedom of speech, the editors of Jyllands-Posten failed miserably. Last September Denmark’s biggest-selling daily broadsheet noted that a local author could not find artists to illustrate his book about Muhammad. So the paper published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet in various guises, along with an article arguing that “self-censorship…rules large parts of the western world”. Though the editors said they were “quietly” making their opinion known, the response has been tumultuous.

Any visual representations of the prophet are frowned upon by the faithful. And Jyllands-Posten’s cartoons were undeniably strong stuff: one showed Muhammad in bomb-shaped headgear, another depicted him wielding a cutlass and a third had him saying that paradise was running short of virgins for suicide-bombers. The paper insisted that it meant no offence and refused to say sorry. But the pressure on it continued to grow, and on Monday January 30th its editors apologised for any upset they may have caused, while defending their right to publish the cartoons. This did little to calm Muslims in Europe and beyond, who have held protests reminiscent of the frenzied reaction to “The Satanic Verses”, a novel by Salman Rushdie published in 1989. Two of the cartoonists have received death threats.

On Tuesday, thousands of Palestinians gathered for a second day of protests in Gaza, chanting “War on Denmark, death to Denmark” with some burning the Danish flag. Middle Eastern governments and Islamic international organisations, after months of mild grumbling, are now queuing up to berate the Danish government. Both Libya and Saudi Arabia have withdrawn their ambassadors from Copenhagen, Denmark’s capital. The Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, points out he is not responsible for what an independent newspaper publishes, though on Tuesday he expressed his personal “distress” that the drawings have been seen by many Muslims “as a defamation of the Prophet Muhammad and Islam as a religion”.

That limited apology is unlikely to put an end to the controversy. This week an insurgent group in Iraq—where Denmark has 530 troops—said it would target Danes and Norwegians (as a Norwegian newspaper reprinted the cartoons early this year) in retaliation. The al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, the military wing of the Fatah political movement in Gaza and the West Bank, is also threatening to attack Nordic citizens. Nordic aid workers are withdrawing from programmes in Yemen, Gaza and other parts of the Middle East. Denmark has warned its citizens not to travel to Saudi Arabia. On Monday masked gunmen raided the European Union’s office in Gaza, apparently to protest against the Danish cartoons.

Worse, the row threatens to spread. On Wednesday a French newspaper, France Soir, reprinted the Danish cartoons along with drawings of Buddha and Christian and Jewish gods. Its editor declared that “no religious dogma can impose its view on a democratic and secular society…we will never apologise for being free to speak, to think and to believe.” There was no immediate reaction from representatives of France's 5m-strong Muslim community.

Saudi religious leaders have called for boycotts of Danish products. Across the Gulf and in north Africa supermarkets have withdrawn Scandinavian products from their shelves after customers complained. Arla Foods, a Danish-Swedish dairy producer, says a boycott of its goods has begun, despite its placing advertisements in Middle Eastern newspapers distancing itself from the publication of the cartoons. Though classic Danish food exports—beer and bacon—are not much appreciated in the Middle East, Arla’s annual sales in the region are worth $487m. European leaders are lining up to back Denmark. Peter Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, says Saudi Arabia’s government could be hauled before the World Trade Organisation if it is thought to be encouraging the boycott of Danish goods.

The clash may also hurt the foreign-policy efforts of Nordic countries more broadly. For years Norway and Sweden, in particular, have been able to pose as peacebrokers, helping to resolve diverse conflicts in Sri Lanka, parts of Africa and in the Middle East. Most notably, Norway hosted peace talks between Irsaelis and Palestinians in 1993, in Oslo, while recognised as a neutral and disinterested party. Islamic hostility to the Nordic region may make such interventions more difficult in future.

Back to the drawing board

The row also illustrates anew how the right to free expression in liberal democracies frequently clashes with the sensitivities of the religious, particularly Muslims. In August last year a Copenhagen radio station lost its broadcasting licence after a presenter appeared to call for the extermination of Muslim migrants. In Italy an anti-Muslim author, Oriana Fallaci, has launched diatribes against Islam. In November 2004 Theo van Gogh, a Dutch film-maker and outspoken critic of Islam (who once called radical Islamist immigrants “a fifth column of goat****ers”) was murdered by an Islamic extremist.

Former American president Bill Clinton worries that anti-Islamic prejudice is becoming prevalent in western countries. He has also condemned “those totally outrageous cartoons against Islam”. But it is unclear how democracies can discourage conflict without clamping down on free expression of opinion. This week Britain’s Parliament returned to a debate on extending laws that forbid incitement to religious hatred. Current British law provides limited protection against those who speak out against Jews and Sikhs, but not against those who lambast Christians, Muslims or other believers. The government wants to change this. It also wants to curb extremist preachers who urge their followers to commit violence in the name of religion.

Yet civil liberties campaigners say anything that limits freedom of expression is undemocratic and that existing laws (in Britain, at least) are sufficient for outlawing incitement to violence. The House of Lords, Parliament’s upper chamber, amended the law now under debate to ensure firmer defence of freedom of speech. In the Commons, the lower house, the government tried to toughen the bill again to ensure that followers of all faiths are protected against threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour. But the government was defeated in the Commons on Tuesday evening—only the second time it has lost a vote in the lower house since Tony Blair became prime minister in 1997. The Lords' version of the bill, offering greater protection for free expression, triumphed.

Is there at least the possibility of sober debate? The publishing experiment by the editors of Jyllands-Posten, whether well-meant or not, shows that calm, rational discussion of the issue is difficult to achieve. And just as it took many years for the controversy over Mr Rushdie’s novel to fade away, this row will long splutter on too.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5464456&fsrc=nwl

 

Here are the cartoons that the Islamo-Fascist are getting mad about.

 

im talking about the olsen twins lookalike and thier hatred spewing songs... why do such songs piss people off? I think its somewhat the same reason why many muslims get upset at these cartoons.

I agree that punishing denmark for the stupidity of some newspaper, is pretty undeserved. But just let me tell you, if for example some newspaper printed cartoons of jesus (pbuh) supporting actions of child molestation, people would go further than just boycotting products.

The newspaper was just the spark in these fireworks, and honestly, had the fire been put out earlier, by lets say the dutch gov. we wouldnt have this mess on our hands.

I dont see why a government cant stop the publications of something that it feels may lead to riots, and fights. Its the same as when you dont shout fire in a theatre full of people.

 

Hayes, no one here is arguing that free speech and free press arent important, but at the sake of insulting someone and their religion, I dont think there is any question that its not worth it.

Its not just blasphemous to portray the prophet (pbuh), its the context in which he was portrayed, as a guy with a bomb in his turban, etc etc.

Yes, a bomb threat is ridiculous, and so is issuing death threats. But refusing to deal with people who support the desecration of your beliefs is totallly acceptable by me.

 

The funny thing is that there doesn't seem to be much of a struggle when it involves mocking Christianity. That merits hardly a yawn from Europeans, it only becomes an issue when it involves Muslims. That doesn't mean I support the often juvenile minds of those ultra-secularists who think they are being so bold by mocking traditional religious beliefs. At least when it comes to Christianity, that is so passe.

 

what about when its against jews interms of the holocaust. isn't there a lot of struggle?

the article interestingly points out that in britain there are laws against some speech against the jews or sikhs. but not anyone else. that certainly seems unfair.

not to belittle protection of hate speech against jews. i completely understand where europe would want to refrain from that and punish strongly those who engage in that. but i think muslims can certainly make a reasonable argument why they should also now be in that protected category.

 

Religion is the reason for all the problems of society.

- DaDakota.

 

You didn't, that's why I was asking.

 

That's the inflamatory cartoons? I thought the "no more virgins" was funny. I didn't get the rest. Is Mahammed the guy with the beard or the other guy with the beard?

The outrage seems a bit overblown. I'd like to see these protestors get fired up over something more solid than cartoons from a Danish rag.

 

The Danish and French papers should be free to print whatever images they want.

Muslims should be free to boycott those papers.

The govts. of France and Denmark should only be boycotted if the attempted to censor the cartoons from being printed in the first place.

Allowing those cartoons to be printed should not warrant any censorship.

Resorting to violence over this is flat out wrong as well.

 

That would be the sane, educated way to react.

Unfortunately, that is not the reaction it is getting.

 

i have no idea what you're talking about? the olsen twins make me want to spew, but i'm unaware (blissfully?) of any look-alikes spewing hatred filled songs. should i call my boy dubya and ask him to issue a fatwa?

 

I remember a big deal was made a few years ago about a painting of the Virgin Mary that was covered with Elephant dung that was funded with tax payers money. Many people were outraged etc. What they failed to see is that dung is a good thing. Yea it smells bad etc, but if we (or elephants) couldn't crap we would die. Crap is also used to create beautiful flowers, gardens and food. Sometimes it's our own perceptions that is the problem.

 

Hehe, so this is why Saudi Arabia has a boycott of Danish goods. I was wondering why.