So you wouldn't be in favour of the new blasphemy law that came into force in Ireland on 1 January 2010, Craig.

http://blasphemy.ie/

Neither am I.

I agree the attack on the cartoonist is indefensible, but the defence of the freedom to offend on the grounds on 'freedom of speech' is questinable.

Remember when a few years back the New Statesman carried an antisemitic image on its front cover? There was was no 'freedom of speech' argument then. The New Statesman, rightly, had to apologise. I think followers of Islam are entitled to the same consideration as followers of Judaism.

Far more important than "freedom of religion" is "freedom from religion".

I think freedom of speech needs to be an absolute and that even holocaust deniers need to be able to spout their evil belifs in public. You can not reserve freedom of speech only for good speech because what is considered good is completely subjective.

I have come to the conclusion that most Islamic terror attacks including September 11 are morally defensible as being the only way to punish the crimes committed against Arabs and Muslims by the USA, the UK etc...... However this terrorist attack by a fanatical Muslim bigot against a cartoonist is not justifiable. If the attack had succeeded as did the one on Theo Van Gogh, use of the law would be an inadequate response. Sometimes the same logic that makes most Islamic terrorism morally justifiable works in reverse, the only way the West can deter attacks on cartoonists by Muslim bigots is to consider these to be crimes for which all members of the Muslim community are guilty and set up death squads to whack half a dozen or so.

In fact this attribution of guilt not to an individual who committed a crime but all members of the collectives to which the individual belongs is pretty standard in all justice systems. It is the basis for many of the false convictions that have been overturned by DNA evidence. For example a white woman in one of the Southern states of the US raped by a Negro. The important thing is to convict a Negro, there is no necessity that the Negro convicted be the one that performed the actions of the crime and it is legitimate to fabricate evidence against the chosen scapegoat.

Craig I'm going to have to disagree with you here, and I think you are being very naive. What happened with the cartoons wasn't some sort of free debate by bastions of free expression. It wasn't even close to that. The paper that initiated and propagation it were not known for their free expression, in fact they were well known for their censorship.
It wasn't a case of cartoonists happening to draw a picture of Mohummed pbh. That paper commissioned cartoonists to do so, and then when they didn't get a reaction for the Muslim community, they initiated an international campaign where papers all over the world published them for the sake of publishing them. I do not believe drawing a picture of the Prophet of Islam pbh with a bomb on his head is any kind of debate. The fact that YOUR friends make fun of the Hindu religion says something about your taste in friends and nothing about Muslims being hypocritical. I do debate with my Hindu friends about many things, but there is a clear difference between debate and insults.
I view that international cartoon campaign in the same way I view the what happened in the 30s when European Newspapers did the same thing about Jews. In both cases the newspapers were demonising, not debating. And they do need to do this dehumanisation for their populations to tolerate the massacres committed by their armies. Whether they are committed by concentration camps in the 1940s or carpet bombing of cities in the 2000s.
People keep asking why populations in the white world tolerate the actions of their government against the brown world, those cartoons are part of the answer.
Because message of the cartoons were Muslims want to kill you, so kill them first.

Is it O.K. if I slag off people who don't believe in precognition (accurately foretelling the future) as anti-conspiracy troofer lunes?

I site as evidence an accurately time stamped recording of the BBC News of the events on 9/11.

The BBC reported that the 3rd World Trade Centre Building WTC-7 also known as the Salaman Building had collapsed.

The news report switched to a live feed showing a BBC Reporter with the building clearly seen still standing behind her.

The building actually collapsed 20 minutes later.

Now, how exactly did the BBC do this? At first you may think, that the live broadcast wasn't live - or even if it was - the background behind the reporter was an earlier scene that had been electronically blue-boarded behind her.

But there is a serious problem with this explanation (the building was actually still standing when the report was made)

The BBC, must therefore have the ability to accurately predict the future. Therefore anyone who doesn't believe in precognition must either be an anti-conspiracy troofer lune, or be able to come up with another explanation...

For example - the BBC were fed the news story before the event had happenned and accidentally reported it 20 minutes too early...

This of course produces the next question. How did anyone know that the building was going to collapse - before it did - unless of course they deliberately made the future happen, by planning it in advance?

Here is a short version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUuLaqphFNI

That leads me on to the next point which hopefully brings the subject back on topic. Anyone who actually independently, objectively investigates the events of 9/11 (and there is an enormous amount of material available) is castigated as being a 9/11 Truther as if this is someone with a serious mental illness. Whilst I accept that some people do go mad as a result of their obsession with 9/11, I think that is mainly due to an awareness and realisation of how evil our culture really is, and also the effect of being castigated and ostracised as a lunatic.

Meanwhile most people believe in fairy stories that maintain their sanity within a comfort zone that they can tolerate.

Tony

Totally agree with Carl Moulton's post. This racist idiot deserved whatever came to him after those disgusting cartoons of one of history's most peaceful and greatest human beings. If you shit on the heads of one billion of the world's most oppressed people then you should await a response.

Also I am wondering if the CIA/Mossad have had a hand in this. Cui Bono? I wonder if it is another false flag attack to soften public opinion in order to attack Iran.

Iffreedom to offend is essential to human progress. Then why is racisism illegal in west, why is holocoust denial illegal. This is another westerner who served time in a Muslim country who suddenly thinks he knows whats best for Muslim. He thinks he knows better than God.

"It is not pleasant to be deliberately offensive to anybody's religious views."

I'd like to know how far are we're supposed to take this. Does it include Scientology and followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What about the Jedi? Do we avoid upsetting them too? What about cults that take all their money from young people and pressure them to cut all their ties with their families? What about the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Are we only discussing *certain* religions that have been around a long time? And if so, what gives them the right to expect more respect than any others?

When people decide something should happen there are two phases of it happening.
The first stage is ideological and the second stage is implementation.
Before the war on terror can be initiated, and once initiated for it to continue the ideological phase is needed.

So for people to be boiled alive, for cities to be turned in to rubble, for hundreds of thousands to be locked up without charge, propaganda needs to take place, and this propaganda includes those cartoons.

As I said before, none of this has anything to do with free speech because that paper and the people at the forefront of defending that paper are not known for their free speech what they are known for is their defence of the war on terror.

Is it O.K., if I start off my own religion and form a Charitable trust, such that my followers can send me 10% of their income?

I have had a theory, about life the universe and everything for around the last 40 years, which I actually thought was an original idea at the time, though subsequently found that it was an ancient belief endemic in many early civilisations - but now almost extinct.

I have come across several people, over the years who have been sucked into cults and willingly go door to door preaching, and also donate 10% of their income to the cult.

Some of them have even escaped the cult.

However, despite the fact that I think all religions (except mine of course) are a load of nonsense, the potential for making vast sums of money and becoming powerful and influential is something that I may consider to be attractive.

Presumably my new religion will be protected by the law, such that people cannot call me a wanker and draw offensive pictures of me.

Tony

Dreoilin,

if you believed, for example, in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it would indeed be unpleasant of me deliberately to offend you over your belief. But it doesn't mean that I should be constraoned from doing so.

excuse my ignorance, but please enlighten me and inform me about international campaigns to dehumanise
dreoilin
Jedi and the Flying monster?
To the best of my knowledge people who believe in Jedi are not banned from where their cloaks or carrying their light savers anywhere in the way Muslim girls and women are banned from wearing Hijab all over Europe. If I am wrong please inform me about the oppression faced by Jedi or worshippers of the flying monster?

And yes we are only talking about a certain religion, because this dehumanisation is only focused on a certain religion.
Just as in the 1930s and 40s it was focused on another religion.

Craig...i thought you were a very intelligent gentlemen. You've just gone down in my estimation. You know this has nothing to do with free speech. There is no such thing as free speech.

As regards the slagging off of some of the regular contributors to this blog from such people as "eddie" and "angrysoab", I call for an independent objective analysis of numerous discussions here, compared to standards achieved elsewhere - such as Guido's blog.

Whilst Guido's blog is sometimes highly amusing, the general standard is very much lower than the Beano, and most contributors cannot produce more than about 10 words, amongst which there is an extremely high percentage of words that some may consider to be highly offensive.

Guido has just published a list of the top 100 readership sources who presumably are also the main contributors

1. houses of parliament
2. oxford university
3. university of cambridge
4. british broadcasting corporation
5. conservative central office

This is pretty conclusive proof, that this country is not only totally fucked, but being run by a bunch of cretins. Most have never actually dared show their face outside of their cloistered enclaves and have no idea what the real world is like. They only dare venture out wearing bullet proof vests and supported by a SWAT team and a BBC camera crew.

I won't be voting for any of them.

Tony

"If I am wrong please inform me about the oppression faced by Jedi or worshippers of the flying monster?"
--Arsalan Goldberg

I didn't say there was any. [Although many people in the BBC TV studio had a hard time keeping a straight face when a young man identified himself as a Jedi, on a Sunday morning programme.]

I was asking (in relation to Craig's statement) how far one is expected to take this 'pleasantness', and towards how many beliefs, no matter how baseless or silly. I am an atheist, but I don't normally insult the beliefs of others. I'm not by nature a rude or aggressive person. I divested myself of Catholicism over 40 years ago, and have no intention of taking it up again. I reserve the right to smile at certain beliefs which seem ridiculous to me -- but I confine that smiling to the privacy of my own home.

I see no reason to inflame anyone, especially at a time when, as you say, efforts are being made to dehumanise one religion. However, if we move on to blasphemy laws, then I have a problem. I think some Irish bloggers are deliberately posting insulting remarks about various religions, simply to see if anyone is actually taken to court under this new law, which came into force yesterday. So don't be too surprised at what you might read.

"I call for an independent objective analysis of numerous discussions here"

And who do you suggest should do THAT, Tony? :)

The intelligence and passion of some of the posters here is self evident. The level of some of the discussions here is as high as anywhere I have seen on the net. Its not a matter of whether or not you agree with what is posted, its about how opinions are expressed. Some of the things posted here make me cry, a bit like seeing a very good movie, except in many cases the discussions are not fictional but sadly true.

Most websites are 99% trash.

Tony

Those making the threats are not far away from having the support of the UN and national legislation. Two journalists in Azerbaijan ended up in court after writing an article mildly critical of Islam.

"Previously, an Iranian grand ayatollah, Fazel Lankarani, had issued a fatwa calling for the two journalists to be killed. Domestic religious activists responded by starting an intimidation campaign against the journalists. Reportedly, they were allowed to shout death threats in the courtroom. The journalists’ crime was defamation of religion (their own, apparently) and incitement, by the same act, to religious hatred (against themselves, one must conclude). Yet it was the journalists who sat in the dock, not those who menaced them with violence. And, most importantly, the Iranian ayatollah who called for their death was never accused of incitement, neither in Azerbaijan nor in Iran – protected as he was by his status as a defender, rather than a defamer, of the faith."

Entire piece by Miklos Haraszti well worth a read.

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/haraszti-a_for-web1.pdf

When my family heard that the Danish cartoonist had rushed into his specially constructed, protective bolthole, leaving his grandaughter aged five, outside, in the arms of an axe-wielding madman; well, my girls wished he'd been axed.

What kind of a man, saves himself, yet leaves a defenceless child to fend for herself? Doesn't this tell us something about the kind of man Kurt Vestergaard really is? Is someone like this worth saving? I have my doubts.

In Denmark the fascist right regards him as a hero for his courageous stand against the entire Muslim world; yet he's just a cowardly narcissist, and this episode illustrates what motivates him perfectly. It's symbolic of what he, and his vile cartoon, represents.

The cartoons were part of a deliberate provocation, designed to insult Muslims and rub their noses in it, and seen from this perspective they worked marvelously, many Muslims were provoked. One can't see these cartoons in isolation. They are part of cultural war being waged against Muslims, part of larger crusade, which includes, of course, our massive military offensive in Asia and the Middle East.

It's no accident, surely, that Denmark, has one of the most rightwing governments in Europe and the most influential neo-fascist party too. The Danish People's Party, has a programme to the right of the BNP, yet this Danish version of nationalist/fascism, is the crucial, key, party in Denmark. The party with the most influence. The party holding the balance of power. The party all politics revolves around.

The chief ideologues of the party are openly racist and fascistic, and revel in insulting and ridiculing Muslims and Islam at every opportunity. Their fascist ideology, a form of "national soicialism" is like a spreading cancer in Danish and Scandinavian politics, and a dangerous signpost for the future.

Muslims in Denmark have become the new Jews, abused in the same way the Nazis invented the Jewish Question and the Jewish Threat.

The scary question is this, if Fascism can raise its vild head in rich, successful, and "liberal" country like Denmark, where can't it succeed?

Dreoilin, regarding Ireland's new blasphemy law. Are either or both of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses and the Muhammad cartoons now illegal in Ireland? Who makes the decision? A state censor?

Craig,

Why bring into the discussion the radical Christian right in the U.S.? What do they have to do with this?

Yes, they're ridiculous, and I'd much rather live without them, but what do they have to do with restricting free speech through government action or threatening with violence those who offend them?

When the demonstrated against "The Last Temptation of Christ," they were meeting speech with speech, and therefore acting completely in line with a liberal democracy.

Craig,

Why bring into the discussion the radical Christian right in the U.S.? What do they have to do with this?

Yes, they're ridiculous, and I'd much rather live without them, but what do they have to do with restricting free speech through government action or threatening with violence those who offend them?

When the demonstrated against "The Last Temptation of Christ," they were meeting speech with speech, and therefore acting completely in line with a liberal democracy.

Abe Rene,

Here's an extract that might explain what's going on. The whole thing is quite daft:

"The Constitution says that blasphemy is an offence that shall be punishable by law. That law currently resides in the 1961 Defamation Act. Because he was repealing this Act, Ahern said he had to pass a new blasphemy law to avoid leaving “a void”.

"But this “void” was already there. In 1999, the Supreme Court found that the 1961 law was unenforceable because it did not define blasphemy. In effect, we have never had an enforceable blasphemy law under the 1937 Constitution.

"After several retreats, Ahern claimed both that he had to propose this law in order to respect the Constitution, and also that he was amending it to "make it virtually impossible to get a successful prosecution"."

http://tinyurl.com/kwk6g3

I'd been paying little attention up to now, as I didn't think the law would/will ever be used, but some people are absolutely incensed, and are determined to have the law removed.

You'll find info at

http://blasphemy.ie/

[That blasphemy site was down earlier today. The story has 'gone big' internationally.]

Somebody, at January 2, 2010 1:00 PM, wote: "Iffreedom to offend is essential to human progress. Then why is racisism illegal in west, why is holocoust denial illegal."

To put it simply: the restrictions are about harm, not offence resulting from the speech.

As I understand it (and I might well be wrong here), racism and holocaust denial are not illegal in, for example, Britain; it's speech which is intended to result in actual violence or reasonable fear of actual violence that is illegal, especially that made for racially motivated reasons (amongst other reasons).

Again, AIUI, holocaust denial is illegal in countries such as Germany. This is a specific rule attempting to avoid repetition of certain unpleasantness which took place somewhat over 60 years ago (WWII, etc) - so there's a proven record for its necessity.

The point is that the motivations of these restrictions do not generalise to mean that any speech which might upset somebody should be banned; they are limited to speech for which there is a clearly good reason to think would likely incite actual harm.

The restrictions' existence doesn't justify any violence that might be incited by contravening speech. Similarly, they don't justify any violence provoked by any speech.

Oh, fabulous! Larry's back! Tinfoil hats on, everyone! Get out the popcorn! Shit! Where's angrysoba? You need two tits to make a chest, dontcha?

"When they demonstrated against "The Last Temptation of Christ," they were meeting speech with speech, and therefore acting completely in line with a liberal democracy."

We'll need a source for that, Larry me boy. Come back, supply link, after supplying link, fuck off and find another that I will think of on a purely random basis.

Happy New Year, by the way. I can give you (before you ask) some links that would tend to suggest that there has actually been a change of year, if you want, but it's all lefty stuff and not likely to believed by a thinking young girl like yourself. Best stay put in sixteen hundred and wotsit or wherever you are.

Oh, almost forgot - moron, idiot.

/troll

Vronsky: I was about to find a link showing New Year revelers with a big "Happy 2010 !" in the background, to prove to you that we are in a new year. Found a good one but unfortunately elsewhere on the _same_ site we find some dubious ideology, some of it far-right stuff. So clearly the revelers did not really exist.

Thus any reference to anything on any website, means you automatically buy its entire content. QED. There are no search engines. If I'm looking for a full quote, for instance, I start at the first page of [insert right-wing website here], and keep looking until I find it.

Therefore, it is not 2010, and I think you are quite mistaken to suggest it is. And I don't have time to check the date, but I'm sure you are wrong.

V.v. silly of you to say the cartoons were 'free speech' Craig. An academic essay or lecture epxressing beliefs of percieved wrong things in religion, inc. Islam yes, that's free speech. There is intellectual milage in it. Gross provocative hate inspired insults and taunts designed to plunge society into chaos No.

However the cartoonist wasn't a Muslim so I don't see how Mulsims esp in a non-Mulsim society could try and (+supposedly+) kill him, arn't all offenders entitled to a trial? and I don't think Islamic law calls for the death of anyone making images of God of the prophet, even though it is clearly wrong. A different punishment against the guy woul be more approporate in my largely ignorant non-Shariah Law pov.

So much for a 'secular state where it protects those who attack religion, I don't buy Danish product anymore. A consumer boycot and lobbying of governments to follow suit is again more appropriate.

"So the cartoons about Mohammed should not be censored;" - Expalin to me then why I should have these images pop up infront of my eyes AS THEY DID. What about my freedom to have my decision respected NOT to see them esp given my strong desire not to see them.

"The values of free speech are crucial." Do you really think there is merit in what this guy did Craig? Arn't you confusing freedom of speech with licence to insult? I think you are.

"Muslim friends of mine who are outraged at the Danish cartoons, do not hesitate to make fun of Hindus and their perceived veneration of cows." There is no valid point there Craig.

And I disagree when you talk about human progress. What progress? That is a non-religious point of view. It's my belief that the purpose of life is to worship God, of which there are many ways to do so, and no other purpose. You can't make 'progrss' There is no such thing. I see you as ultimately You are confusing development (debt encapsulation) for the myth of progress.

But once again, Islam is the real victim as the cloaked haters peek out from beneath their heavy hoods. Iraq war, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan slips from sight.

Someone posed the question online,

"What happens when one religion, by its very principles, blasphemes in the eyes of another?"

I haven't thought of an example yet. Someone better versed in Comparative Religion 101 might have answers.

I'm going off to watch the film "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee" (Channel 4) - the book made a huge impact on me when I first read it. So very sad. Yes, I know it's New Year. I should be watching The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, or some other silly caper. :)

Dreoilin

Thanks for the background. One wonders just whom Ahern was trying to please in his efforts to "respect" the Irish Constitution. Possibly he might be regretting his "respectful" endeavours by now!

"What happens when one religion, by its very principles, blasphemes in the eyes of another?" - errrr the blasphmer gets punished???

I'm not sure about the concept of "free speech" being an absolute. I'm confused by the concept of a "right" to total, absolute, freedom of speech or expression. Obviously this doesn't exist anywhere, not really. All societies have rules for speech and expression, written and unwritten.

Complete freedom of speech doesn't exist in Denmark. There are laws, similar to those in the UK, that prohibit certain types of utterances, whether they are "true" or not.

Personally I think the cartoonist Curt Vestergaard should be able to draw any kind of shit he wants, but one shouldn't be surprised, in the current climate, if many people are appalled and angered beyond reason, in return. I, for example, would not wave a red flag in front of a raging bull, or stick my hand in wasps nest, and expect not to be stung as a result.

In much the same way, why would anyone choose to deliberately provoke Muslims by pissing on their religion, most deeply held beliefs, and culture; isn't it enough that we're invading them? Isn't the over a million dead in Iraq enough? Isn't the destruction of Palestine enough? Isn't the slow strangulation of Gaza enough? Do we really have to piss on them as well?

In Denmark Muslims are thought to represent everything that we are not. They are primative representatives of the past, the middle-ages, anti-modernity; whilst we are the future, we are modern, the pinacle of human progress. This is mixture of collosal ignorance mixed with collosal arrogance, leading, I believe, to our willingness to commit collosal crimes, because we don't respect Muslims as being on a par with us. They are put outside our cultural norms, demonized, and dehumanized.

This process, in a "war" or more correctly a crusade, the crusade of modernity; this process of dehumanization is very, very, dangerous. If we accepted that Muslims were equally human, on our level culturally, could we kill them in such huge numbers with such apparant ease and lack of remorse? I don't believe so.

Cultural wars are often just the first stage in the process that leads to real warfare. And this is the context one should see these cartoons in. They are a form of propaganda designed to cause a reaction, both in the minds of the "enemy" and in our minds too.

It's telling that Vestergaard recently spoke at the Fascist, Danish People's Party's congress and thanked them for their support.

I don't support murder as a political weapon.

Craig.

How does your apparent absolute free speech viewpoint work in relation to the official secrets act and also book redactions? Didn't you have to redact parts of MiS? Do you still uphold the OSA on a personal level? Should anyone in the intelligence services have total freedom of speech? If you don’t think so, then aren’t you adopting a hypocritical stance?

It seems freedom of speech is not an absolute, rather a ‘zone’ with a fuzzy demarcation line. As I said before a work along the lines of "I believe Muslims are wrong to believe you will go to heaven and get 70 virgins if you engage in the act of suicide bombing and here is why..." is a work of merit. A cartoon isn't especially when they surely knew the dislike of Muslims in an Islamic context of depictions of the prophet and God.

It isn't a question of having your ability to 'have a laugh' taken away. A debate on the above topic could well use humour in it's delivery.

I don't hold free speech as an absolute. It is however a major good that requires a very strong reason to overrule it. Offending religous belief is not a very good reason.

Early depictions of Mohammad are quite common, especially in Iranian Islamic tradition. These religious hysterics contradict their own religious texts -
"Show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant." Qur'an 7:199.

Of course the attack was indefensible. I admire the cartoonist for his apparently calm reactions and refusal to be intimidated.

"V.v. silly of you to say the cartoons were 'free speech' Craig. An academic essay or lecture epxressing beliefs of percieved wrong things in religion, inc. Islam yes, that's free speech. There is intellectual milage in it. Gross provocative hate inspired insults and taunts designed to plunge society into chaos No."

What do you think about flag burning? That's not "an academic essay or lecture" but is certainly political expression. Come to think of it, what about someone stating "I hate the Pope, who is an asshole"?

Islam is not the only victim in this whole story. Why is death the only chant we hear. For those who belive in God..why dont you have faith that in the end we will all answer to him? Keep your heart pure and follow his laws as you deem right and leave 'him' to do the judging of the so called 'unbelievers'.

Pervez Craig.

You use of the word "Offending" is very revealing. It shows you understand these cartoons exactly for what they are.

The catoons are not what most intelligent people would feel confortable about in terms of free speech, namely, intellectual discourse. You know that and so do most others here.

By supporting the right of people to grossly insult others, you are in fact supporting what could be termed "_absolute_ free speech" as public taunts and insults out of the blue based on hatred designed to rally latent racism amongst the many, is pretty much the last stop or outer limit as far as free speech goes. What criteria would you say this becomes unacceptable?

Isn't the best fuzzy line demarcating the border between FoS to 'danger zones' such as these cartoons, actually determined by 'the public interest' (c.f. freedom of the press). I think it is. If so, we need to ask were these cartoons really in the public interest? Do they benefit society?

Of course not! You know this Craig.

Is it too much to ask for your support the imposition of some form of penalty for these cartoonists (an appropriate label) for their regressive spiteful and, as some commentators have already highlighted well, dangerous prescident?

I suspect you're pushing the boat out here because you think this event might be the start of a slippery slope leading towrds a totalitarinaism attitude of FoS as applied to many more issues not just religion. I believe strongly in FoS and I don't see this particular issue as being any such slippery slope.

Overwhelmingly, one minds ones manners and acts with respect (even just tolerance) when interactiong with people and very often in diplomic circles - as you reveal so well time and time again in your Book 'Catholic Orangemen'. Why did you engage politely with these horrible killers? Because you wanted something better at the end of it all and you thought being polite (not insulting) was the best way to do it. Why then are you supporting the shift backwards by these in a respectful way when meeting and engaging with people, that

To Religionists, there is nothing more imporant! To them life is simply an instrument for worshiping God. Some standards are worth upholding. Preventing insults against God and one of the greatest men ever to live is one such standard.

(sorry about the unusualy pasting of the name "Pervez" there Craig, I'm multitasking right and it came from a posting involving Musharraf)

"why dont you have faith that in the end we will all answer to him?" this is a commonly made question, frankly asked by people who should have thought a bit longer before asking.

Religionists do believe we will be answerable to God, God is the Ultimate and FlawlessJudge. We live on this earth, we have 'society'. A good society is where one can exercise ones free will to worship (or not worship) God. On this earth, crimes happen which destablise society: rape, murder, usury etc... hence there are punishments to deter people from impacting negatively on society.

As for the political act of flagbuning, I don't think people burn flags without a reason. Why not addrsss that reason?

I don't think people draw cartoons of religious leaders without a reason. Why not address that reason?

lwtc247,

To nationalists, nothing is more important to them than the flag.

What is the proper criminal penalty for burning the flag of a country within that country?

Isn't Denmark named after the Dan tribe-one of the lost tribes of Israel?

Didn't the Danish king and his ministers don the yellow star when the Nazis tried to round up the Jews during WW2 making the intended Nazi slaughter impossible?

Well that's the official history anyway.

Now it doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that Danish intelligence was penetrated long ago by Mossad and operates now pretty much as an intelligence proxy for them.

Craig and all those who've been getting themselves in a lather since the cartoon story broke have been taken for a ride.The consequences have been far more serious in muslim countries where several have died expressing their outrage in demonstrations.

Does the Mossad care about the effect the scam has had on Danish society or the fatal results in places like Pakistan?

I think not.They are engaged in fomenting a great civilisational war and the cartoon scam is part of this ongoing operation.

Who are the main players in the scam?

The key player is the man who commissioned the cartoons in the first place.The suspiciously named,"Flemming Rose" gave an eloquent defence of his motives in the Washington Post in February 2006.

He wanted to integrate Danish muslims into the country's tradition of satire was the more tongue-in-cheek of the claims he made about his motives to the Post!He saw himself engaged on a mission to pit the values of free expression essential to secular democracy against submission to Islamic taboos.

But exactly who is "Flemming Rose"?

He's a Ukrainian journalist who took sanctuary in Florida not long after the storm broke.Mostaque Ali has a good idea who the guy really is here:

http://mostaqueali.blogspot.com/2009/08/mossad-mohammed-cartoon-saga-and.html

The other leading player is Jakob Scharf the current Head of Danish intelligence who's now taking all the praise for saving the cartoonist,Kurt Westergaard,from the assassin's axe.

He has represented the Denmark legation at the EU and enjoyed a meteoric rise to high office.

Strangely this is the same Jakob Scharf who as Home Minister refused to extradite Chechen warlord,Akmed Zakayef back to Russia.Two years later,in 2004 Zzakayez was granted asylum in Britain.

Just who is Jakob Scharf?

Well he's certainly on board with the double standards of the Western democracies and Israel towards Islamic terrorism.

When those Islamic warlords are involved in organized crime on a massive scale and helping to break up Yugoslavia and Russia in accordance with Anglo-US-Israeli geopolitical priorities-they're our friends regardless of any crimes they may commit against any number of civilians.

So who was the guy with the axe who managed to get into the Westergaard security compound?

Probably another friend of Jakob Scharf!

So who are Rose and Scharf?

Come to that who the hell is Kurt Westergaard?

"Isn't Denmark named after the Dan tribe-one of the lost tribes of Israel?"

Steelback, I encourage you to come to America to have cultural learnings to make benefit of your country.

People do not have a universal right to label anything they don't happen to like as "offensive" just because they have chosen to take offence. The violent reaction to Mr Westergaard's cartoon simply proves the point it illustrates. Religions are make-believe for "adults" who prefer lies to truth, which is why such people shouldn't have the right to decide what society allows or censors. I happen to find religion offensive to reason and humanity as a whole, but not being a religious bigot/zealot I don't threaten those who cling to such beliefs with violence.

There is always a judgement call between competing 'rights' and interests: free speech, editorial judgement, etc. There is also incitement to attack, warmongering, calls to revolution, etc. - cartoons have been used for all these purposes, from C18th onwards. Almost by definition, cartoons are propagandistic and this can communicate a very forceful and immediate power to the viewer.

But all media - whether we are talking novels, cartoons, films, music or hwatever - will reflect the balances of power. China won't worry too much now about silly pictures of guys with big teeth, etc., because nowadays China laughs and the world turns.

On balance, therefore, I think it is better to 'let publish and be damned' and to accept that there will be material published, somewhere in the world, sometime or other, that will 'offend thine eye' and for those who feel incensed or aggrieved or feel oppressed or victimised to forge their own, intelligent, argumentations which focus on their own perfectablity.

I think too that whether we are Jewish, Muslim or whatever, we all need to become a little less ready to take offence at the drop of a hat. It is a symptom of weakness of the part of Muslims and deep insecurity on the part of some Jews. Both of these emotions are understandable in the context of history but must be resisted in the context of the future.

We see 'Bar Buddha' and 'Avatar' all over the place, and no-one gets too fussed. Let us grown up (again). We have regressed to infancy, I'm afraid. If faith is strong - genuinely internally strong, not superficially and insufferably pious, intellectually timid and reflexively censorious as is the case with too many Muslims in the UK and elsewhere today - nothing will weaken it.

This assumes that religion has a place in public discourse, which is another matter again. Personally, I think that we have allowed overtly religious viewpoints to gain far too prominent a role in contemporary public discourse. This is divisive and essentalising and allows those with the biggest bucks - in the case of Muslims, that is the Saudi-financed Salafists and their offspring - to shout the loudest and at every available opportunity in a perverse celebration of the culture of offence. This is as much an attempt to corral the Muslim communities of the world into compliance as it is to critique whatever is the current scapegoat. When such people are criticised, they resort to the scoundrel's refuge of,'this is the word of God' (when it is simply their own words!). I include the Daily Mail et al's selective reportage of examples of 'political correctness' on local authorities, local democracy being a frequent target of the Far Right, as being simply a part of this same hysteria.

This, together with the culture of risk aversion, seems to have restricted the range of possible - or expressible - thought in this country and turne boors, bigots and other tubular types into martyrs and heroes. Really, what we should be organising around is war and the extremist economics of the UK and the world, not engaging in diversionary sloganeering activity as a substitute for thought.

Steelback

What you said is completely irrelevant.
It doesn’t matter what Danes were thousands of years ago, what matters is what they are now. And what they are now is a bunch of racist hypocrites who use the slogan of free speech to justify racism and incitement to genocide. What the king of Denmark did by wearing a Yellow Star to show his solidarity with his Jewish subjects during Nazi occupation is commendable. What the Danish Government are doing now in their refusal to show their solidarity with their Muslim Subjects during this period but instead showing their solidarity with the perpetrators of Genocide against Muslims but taking an active part in the genocide by sending troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq is contemptible.
What people were is different to what they are. I know many Muslims who were Jews, but they are now Muslims.

What I noticed about what happened was that many left his grand daughter with an axe wielding killer while he locked himself in the toilet. What type of man does that? This proves that those cartoonists were nothing but selfish cowards. The axe man as expected left the young girl unharmed, but instead took on a group of armed police, this proves he wasn’t a coward and he was merciful to that girl, more merciful than her own cowardly grandfather who left her to be killed.

I read only yesterday that he brought the little girl into his "panic room" with him. There are various sources, here's just one:

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/-/1056/835654/-/voqp85/-/

I'm wondering what the source is for the statement that he left her outside.

I'm wondering about the the sources that say he took her inside.

With respect, Arsalan (at 1037am on 5/1/10), when you talk about "the Danes", are you referring to all people with Danish citizenship, those who define themselves as indigenous Danes, the Danish government, the mainstream media in Denmark, the particular publication, the specific cartoonist? You see, when people talk about "the Muslims this" and "the Muslims that", "the Jews this" and "the Jews that", etc., we rightly tend to criticise those people for essentialising and reducing us.

I despise what NATO et al are doing in the Middle East/ Afghanistan. I also think the cartoons and other such nonsense are idiotic and deliberate provocations based on a persisting historical tribalism which ought to have been made defunct years ago but which serves the war machine - and those on all 'sides' who benefit from it - well. But the people who decide to disseminate such rubbish know that they will get a response. Now 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre-meets-OBL' is the new show in town. And it's an effective diversion from Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. I think that in the numinous matters of the world of information, we - I include myself - need to box more cleverly.

Hi. Good, fuck this webmaster, kiss my ass. Help me! It has to find sites on the: Mephisto battler. I found only this - mens mephisto sandals on sale. Mephisto, making a literary article asport is together like starting a fit. He greatly has the summer of expression, mephisto. Thank :o Ahava from Central.