We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

The sweet smell of Danish bacon

And so as Palestinian gunmen surround the EU mission in Palestine…

JP_Palestinians_gaza_EU_threat.jpg

Tonight at Samizdata.net HQ, dinner will include…

danish_dinner_350.jpg

A trivial thing for sure but it is the thought that counts. The UK newspapers may be too craven to republish them but we always have the internet… and here are the offending cartoons again.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VK

65 comments to The sweet smell of Danish bacon

  • Don’t forget the Danish Blue Cheese as well. Wish there was some decent Danish beer imported into the UK.

  • HJHJ

    Why a crappy lager brewed in Northampton (or perhaps Leeds)?

  • Because it is a Danish company

  • Ham

    Craven? Maybe they think that offending someone’s religion for the sake of it is a childish way of expressing their right to free speech?

  • i totally agree

    I totally agree with you Ham, but the fact is your name might be offensive to some people far away who don’t know about you yet, so now you must apologise for your existence, or else face the wrath of the followers of a peaceful religion. Will they choose to simply overpower you with their love and affection? Only time will tell.

  • Bombadil

    Craven? Maybe they think that offending someone’s religion for the sake of it is a childish way of expressing their right to free speech?

    Yes, that makes good sense. In fact, I plan on beating my little sister today and then forcing her to wear a hijab (the hussy!) because her uncovered trouncing about offends 1.3 billion Muslims.

    The next time someone tells me that it’s not Islam which is the problem, but only Islamic extremists, I will have only to point out the (nearly universal) Muslim reaction to these cartoons: death to the cartoonists, UN resolution forbidding disrespect to Mohammed (piss be upon him), demands for apologies from the Danish government, etc.

    For some interesting perspective on this, visit the Memri.org site and take a look at some of the things these demanders of respect engage in.

  • Why are these young Palestinian men demonstrating outside the EU offices,were ther Giros late?

  • llamas

    Ham wrote:

    ‘Craven? Maybe they think that offending someone’s religion for the sake of it is a childish way of expressing their right to free speech?’

    Ah, yes, of course, this problem would all go away if we could just limit free speech to that nice, safe, adult form.

    Please tell me where it is written that ‘offending someone’s religion’ is an activity that can only be done for ‘good’ reason? And who gets to decide what is a ‘good’ reason? Since when did someone’s private religious beliefs suddenly acquire superior status in the public marketplace of ideas?

    Free speech is entirely about offending people, for good reasons, for childish reasons or for no reason at all. And you can’t just have a little bit of it, or limit it to the bits you like, or to things that will not offend. If you’re not prepared to accept all speech, no matter how offensive, then no speech is free – all is forbidden, in the sense that things you are allowed to say consist merely of things that the censors have not yet gotten around to preventing you from saying.

    Another one that just doesn’t get it.

    llater,

    llamas

  • Dom

    Why are these young Palestinian men demonstrating outside the EU offices,were their Giros late?

    Now that comment did make me lol!

  • Ham

    Ilamas, I do get it. I am not questioning the right of anyone to offend anyone else. I am sure all those who read this blog would agree that silly cartoons should have full legal right to be published. And I’m sure we can agree that criticism of religion is perfectly sensible.

    I don’t know where you guys think I said that the cartoons/any criticism of religion should be banned. I certainly didn’t say that. I guess you just jump at any faint chance you get to preach to a choir who’ll then not fail to give you a backrub. I suggested that maybe British/American newspapers chose not to publish them not because they were afraid of offending anyone, but because they didn’t want to offend anyone without making any usefully progressive arguments at the same time.

    I’m just talking about personal attitudes to courtesy, not trying to challenge the legally and morally upright Samizdata views on free discussion. Not at all.

  • Thomas Greaves

    Danish bacon? Is that different from regular bacon, or is it just bacon that happens to come from Denmark?

  • I think Ham was jumped on rather too harshly. The fact this whole this is discourteous and rather unpleasant. It is not an agreeable think to outrage the religious sensibilities of million.

    The point Jyllands-Posten made about the primacy of secular rights and freedom of expression was driven home very successfully and I thank them for that unreservedly, but what a pity things had degenerated to the point they needed to do that.

  • Is that different from regular bacon, or is it just bacon that happens to come from Denmark?

    It is just bacon that comes from Denmark. They are HUGE exporters of pork products: the piggy capital of Europe, for sure.

  • Monica

    I suggested that maybe British/American newspapers chose not to publish them not because they were afraid of offending anyone, but because they didn’t want to offend anyone without making any usefully progressive arguments at the same time.

    I think the reason the British and American newspapers have not published them has little to do with offense and more to do with the fact that they are scared to. If they publish them, there will be death threats or actual deaths and they don’t want to take a chance. Nobody ever considered the offense caused by the Jerry Springer Jesus show or cartoons of Ariel Sharon eating children, so one can only assume that “not to offend” has become the weasel phrase that really means “we don’t want to die a painful death”.

  • Julian Taylor

    The more I see these animals intimidating others the more they just remind me of the infamous Socialist Worker’s Party rent-a-mobs, only with olive skins, cleaner beards (and they do wash daily). There’s something of the same ‘frothing at the lips’ mentality about them that’s rather unsettling.

  • Perry E. Metzger

    Perhaps it is impolite, but I’m no longer interested in being polite about people’s religions. I will angrily defend everyone’s right to believe anything they want, and I will angrily defend everyone’s right to say anything they want, but I will not angrily insist that anyone respect irrational belief systems, regardless of how offended the believers may become.

    The fact is that there is no such thing as blasphemy as there is no supernatural entity to be blasphemous about. The beliefs of Hindus, Jews, Christians, Shintoists, and hundreds of other religious sects, including the Muslims, are ridiculous and unworthy of respect. Tolerance, sure, but respect is unreasonable.

    I want to be clear that I do not want to intentionally make other people feel unhappy. I don’t take joy in that, either. I also do not wish to encourage people to hate each other — I don’t see what that would improve, either.

    However, I’m uninterested in “respecting” irrational beliefs, especially when those irrational beliefs include ideas like that we must respect the “rights” of clumps of cells without differentiated nervous systems, or that we must avoid saying certain “blasphemous” things, or that we must avoid teaching people the truth about the origins of our species, or that we must kill our women if they have sex outside of marriage, etc., etc.

    People can believe whatever idiotic thing they like, but I see no reason I have to “respect” their idiocies.

  • Ham

    I think Ham was jumped on rather too harshly. The fact this whole this is discourteous and rather unpleasant. It is not an agreeable think to outrage the religious sensibilities of million.

    If anyone is brave enough to insult the fanatical sensibilities of those calling for the beheading of cartoonists, then I, and I’m sure everyone here, would stand beside them. But not all Muslims who are offended by the depiction of Mohammed have bloody lust; what good was done by raking their faith through the mud? Some legitimately say that it was a defence of free speech, but will free speech disintegrate the moment we decide to be courteous to other people’s beliefs?

    As I say, if the only people offended by the cartoons were murderous, irrational fanatics then I would want them to be published everywhere, if only to show that we are not going to compromise our liberty in the face of violence. But many more ordinary, peaceful people who happen to be from a different culture are also hurt by this. When someone else’s values are harmless to us and are being held in a non-violent way, we wear our utter arrogance on our sleeves when we say that they mean nothing in the face of our own.

  • Ham

    I want to be clear that I do not want to intentionally make other people feel unhappy. I don’t take joy in that, either. I also do not wish to encourage people to hate each other — I don’t see what that would improve, either.

    I might be wrong, but I think this is what the cartoons were doing. If it was a polemic against the oppression of women in Islam then I don’t think there would be this controversy and I know that I certainly wouldn’t feel uncomfortable about it. But when it’s just a vapid, childish name-calling exercise that proves nothing and progresses us nowhere, who wins? You know who I think wins? Anybody in the Muslim world who is trying to portray the west as Islamphobic. No Muslim is going to look at those drawings and suddenly see the error of their ways; the drawings say nothing, aside from ‘har har, you a terrorist!’, and clearly go against one of Islam’s rules, that being the rule against depicting of the prophet.

  • Bombadil

    Some legitimately say that it was a defence of free speech, but will free speech disintegrate the moment we decide to be courteous to other people’s beliefs?

    Free speech will disintegrate the moment we give in to demands to be courteous to other people’s beliefs.

    Did you find those cartoons offensive? Fair enough … but when practically the entire Islamic world goes up in arms, when people march through cities demanding that those disrespectful of Islam are beheaded, I think it’s rather a waste of time to talk about whether the cartoons were offensive or not.

    If you make a bad joke, and I respond by cutting your head off, no reasonable person is going to make the badness of your joke the central point of the ensuing discussion.

  • Bombadil

    To elaborate a bit on my previous comment:

    if the response of the plethora of Muslim advocacy groups, imams, etc. to the Danish cartoons had been to issue a statement expressing disappointment that the newspaper had chosen to run such provocative images, then I would be fine with engaging in a discussion about whether or not the images were offensive, and about their impact upon relations between Danish muslims and their fellow citizens.

    That is not what happened. Instead we get thuggish acting-out all over the world. Thus, to me, the topic is now the Islamic response to satire rather than the quality of the satire itself.

  • Amy

    After seeing these cartoons, it’s clear to me that it’s offensive and I don’t think that any Muslim will see these cartoons and don’t do anything about it. These demonstrations are the simplest thing that they can do. If Muslims draw offensive cartoons about Jesus or Moses, they will be attacked strongly by every one of us. And no one can say that we will not do anything about it, perhaps we might do worse. We should respect everyone’s believes and ethics. This will bring peace. And in Islam it’s forbidden to any Muslim to offend any other religion and if any Muslim do so they did a big sin, also I found out that they believe in Jesus and mosses and other prophets as the prophets of God and they cant kill any innocent person no matter what was his/her religion is. I figured these things out after searching about Islam and I think that may be its due to different cutlers and may be we don’t understand them or don’t know what it means to them?
    These signs are still signs and they need to hear “I’m sorry” from the Danish prime minister and believe me there are other places for free speech and there are other issues that press can practice the free speech without offending others and never wrote about Jews or Christians coz they are chickens.
    I respect every believe and every religion and I don’t think that publishing these cartoons will lead to anything good except to more hate and violence

    Later,

  • Amy

    After seeing these cartoons, it’s clear to me that it’s offensive and I don’t think that any Muslim will see these cartoons and don’t do anything about it. These demonstrations are the simplest thing that they can do. If Muslims draw offensive cartoons about Jesus or Moses, they will be attacked strongly by every one of us. And no one can say that we will not do anything about it, perhaps we might do worse. We should respect everyone’s believes and ethics. This will bring peace. And in Islam it’s forbidden to any Muslim to offend any other religion and if any Muslim do so they did a big sin, also I found out that they believe in Jesus and mosses and other prophets as the prophets of God and they cant kill any innocent person no matter what was his/her religion is. I figured these things out after searching about Islam and I think that may be its due to different cutlers and may be we don’t understand them or don’t know what it means to them?
    These signs are still signs and they need to hear “I’m sorry” from the Danish prime minister and believe me there are other places for free speech and there are other issues that press can practice the free speech without offending others and never wrote about Jews or Christians coz they are chickens.
    I respect every believe and every religion and I don’t think that publishing these cartoons will lead to anything good except to more hate and violence

    Later,

  • Bombadil

    If Muslims draw offensive cartoons about Jesus or Moses, they will be attacked strongly by every one of us.

    Bollocks. Muslims do draw offensive cartoons about Jesus, Moses, Jews in general, etc.

    When was the last time you saw westerners marching through the streets demanding that cartoonists from Al Jazeera be beheaded?

  • Isn’t the whole Bacon thing sort of a double insult to the protesters 1. It’s Danish 2. It’s a dirty animal within the context of Islam?
    Peace,
    Chris

  • evil deedsie

    look sweeties… i live in the middle east…. i know many Muslims and i have to say this… now you can call them terrorists. they won’t care… call them stupid…they also won’t care…abuse their beloved messenger and their book and they will riot…i believe people should have the right to express themselves…but he passed a really huge red blinky line when he did those cartoons…let’s say you’re danish and you love your queen…seeing an arabic cartoon of the queen being screwed by a dog…that’s how muslims felt about the cartoons….

    and by the way…the didn’t ask for the cartoonist’s head…they only asked for an apology

  • Amy

    Bollocks. Muslims do draw offensive cartoons about Jesus, Moses, Jews in general, etc.

    Ok show me where and when and in which newspaper, most of u people dont know about islam ur just replying from the top of ur heads, well i used to do that too but when I knew what islam is talking about, it changed many of my stereotypes.
    I’m not saying that they are angels, but they deserve recpect and stop this hate

  • evil deedsie

    Bollocks. Muslims do draw offensive cartoons about Jesus, Moses, Jews in general, etc.

    no they don’t !? because they also believe in both messengers

  • evil deedsie

    ok….why do i have the feeling you guys are all under 14 :P?

  • Verity

    The ignorance on this thread is terrifying – literally. Very frightening indeed.

    evil deedsie – Have you read one single thing about this issue? There were no cartoons in the Danish paper showing Mohammad being screwed by a dog. Go click on the links and see the very vapid cartoons that were published.

    Here is the big news: The cartoons obviously weren’t shocking enough for the outrage to take off. So the people whinging and cringing around the United Nations searched round the internet and found THREE ADDITIONAL CARTOONS that were absolutely nothing to do with Jyllands-Posten and added them to the portfolio they were complaining about. One of these that they found, for themselves, on the internet was the one of Mohammed being screwed by a dog. I understand the other two were also incendiary.

    They have been making protests about 15, not 12, cartoons, three of which have absolutely nothing to do with Jyllands-Posten, Denmark, the Danish prime minister, the Danish queen or Arlen foods.

    Get your facts straight.

    Not calling for the cartoonists’ (12 cartoonists) heads. Yet. They didn’t call for Theo van Gogh’s head, either.

    Monica, I agree with you. The British editors are frit – partly of the incendiary nature of Islam, but also of the authoritarian, appeasing prime minister.

    As Bombadil says, there cartoons of Jews as monkeys and pigs and eating children appearing in the pan- Islamic press on a daily basis.

    Amy, you are one very confused individual.

  • Gormie

    they only asked for an apology

    And from whom do they demand an apology? Jyllandsposten? The Danish PM? The entire Danish population?

    Jyllandsposten already sort of issued an apology, the Danish PM had nothing to do with the cartoons in the first place and has no legal right to interfere with the media and frankly, I feel extremely offended by the very notion, that I as a Dane suddenly have become some sort of great evil just because I happen to share citizenship with the cartoonists of Jyllandsposten. Will you please let us run our country the way we feel is best for us? We will be happy to extend you the same courtesy!!

  • Asus Phreak

    and by the way…the didn’t ask for the cartoonist’s head…they only asked for an apology

    Ladies and Gents, we have a winner of the Retard of the Week contest! So in this post (Link)on this very blog, those signs are saying “Just say sorry!” are they?

    Click the image, read the signs for yourself and then take your computer, switch it off and go stand in the corner waering a pointy hat with a big D on it.

  • evil deedsie

    hmm…. I didn’t say Mohammed was screwed by a dog…I said that to them it resembles that example… sonny, I did see the cartoons, the bomb on Mohammed’s head with the Islamic testimony written on it …the full covered women behind him…est… These to them are quite offensive not because of the fact of them being cartoons but the fact that someone actually drew their beloved messenger in such a scornful manner…

    I’d say. you are the confused individual…I know what is happening around me…not all are positive things but when people get possessed by anger they tend to do some callous things…
    I do not think what the posters say are good (the protesters posters)…but I agree on the part of them protesting on something they think is wrong…maybe the action is wrong but the principles behind it are good…
    at first they did nothing but innocent boycotting….but after the world started to post even more cartoons (old and new), started to repost the old Danish ones again and again, the Muslims grew restless and started these protests filled wit hatred….they got pushed too far and that is the result like it or not
    had anyone even considered the thought of asking them the question “why” instead of coming up with answers filled of prejudice and discrimination?

  • maybe the action is wrong but the principles behind it are good…

    How is calling for people’s death due to what they said good even in principle? They are not just protesting, they are threatening to cut the head off people because they ‘disrespect’ their religion. You really need to get a grip and think this through.

    at first they did nothing but innocent boycotting

    Nice bit of airbrushing but get your facts straight: first thing was calls for Jyllands-Posten to be punished by the Danish government

  • Verity

    Perry is right. First off, a requested visit to the Mr Rasmussen to somehow reprimand a member of the free press. That was number one demand. Mr Rasmussen said the free press is nothing to do with me, so there’s no point in a meeting.

    OK, off to Turkey for bigtime planning. Get the UN involved – not hard to do. But somehow … oh, the cartoons were rather Danish and lacked that oomph that gets the really juicy seething going.

    Solution, let’s spice it up a bit. Let’s add these three that we found on the internet and, because there are no portrayals of Mohammed in the ME, no one will ever know! Result: bloodthirsty seething!

    deedsie says: “when people get possessed by anger they tend to do some callous things.”

    I say in response: adults do not get “possessed by anger”.

    They get angry and control it. And I am shocked that beheading kidnappees and videoing the event for later viewing pleasure is dismissed as “possessed by anger” – as though they are not adults in control of their own behaviour. You live in the ME? Don’t you think by giving them a pass you wouldn’t give citizens of an advanced civilisation, you are being rather condescending?

  • Pedant

    Sorry, I’ve been away from things for a while, but I came back when I heard this awful raucous noise. What’s all this about cartoons depicting the Japanese Prime Minister eating pork in the Arabian night, in the middle of a field of dogs having intercourse with Danish queens, whilst the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) stands by watching impassively? And is that a Danish “Queen” or “queen”, BTW? Curious minds need to know.

    Now I know that it’s perhaps a tad pedantic to suggest such a thing, but mightn’t it be a good idea to turn to the Koran (AKA Quoran) to determine what it might tell us about cartoons of the prophet?

    The Koran means “The Recital”, because it was told first to the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) whilst he was asleep, by the Angel Gabriel, who told him to “Recite” the words that were now inscribed on his heart. Much later, the Koran was put down in writing by various scribes. No-one knows the extent of the gap between the spoken original and the written word, but, nevertheless Muslims hold that the written Koran is the absolute word of God (Allah). People are credible, let’s face it, and the less educated they are, the more credible they are.

    Now, if you look in the Koran’s 114 verses, you will find nowhere does it talk about cartoons or other depictions of the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). This is because the rule that no depictions of the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) comes after the Koran was put down in writing. It is therefore a man-made rule by the leaders of the Muslim church, and categorically not the word of God. There is probably a very good a reason for this rule though – the mono-theistic Muslim religion was introduced by the Koran at a time when the Arab races were, culturally, in disarray and pagan religions and beliefs were rampant.

    The historical perspective needs to be maintained – “at a time” means around 500 AD (Anno Domini – after the death of Christ). Mohammed was born in about 570 AD, and he died 632 AD, on June 30th. As a child of those times, he would have had the opportunity to study the Old Testament, the Christian faith and the Jewish faith. This is why the Christians are described in the Koran as “The People of the Book”, and the Jews are referred to by name. Both faiths are misguided, according to Muslim belief – which states that Christ was just a prophet, and not a godlike being, because there is only one God (or Allah), and so the Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) is a blasphemy to Muslims.

  • Hah! As I am a far better pedant that you…

    People are credible, let’s face it, and the less educated they are, the more credible they are.

    … I think you mean “credulous”

  • Pedant

    A thousand apologies, but “credible” was indeed the word I meant. “Credulous” would do equally well, I feel sure, but needs to be followed by “of” – the latter is a grammatical nicety that perhaps only students of English grammar could appreciate.

    Refer the Shorter English Dictionary:
    Credible – 2nd meaning: Ready, willing, or inclined to believe. LME–L17.

    Semantics aside, do you have anything to add to the dialogue and/or content of the post? If not, then why not? Stick to the subject, please.

  • evil deedsie

    threatening to cutting off people’s heads is the “action” the principle is defending what they strongly believe in

  • Pedant

    Yes, “threatening to cutting off people’s heads is the ‘action’ the principle is defending what they strongly believe in”.

    This is, of course, an irrational approach to dealing with life, unless it is designed to subjugate people – as per the book “1984”.

    Why is it “irrational”? Because it is compleletly lacking in critical thinking. What is “critical thinking”? Find out. there are even A-level exams in the UK on Critical Thinking now, which I feel would have to be a good thing generally.

  • Amy

    These are signs of anger, if u go to the middle east they wont kill you they are just saying that they are angry but they won’t do a thing, and in every English newspaper that is published in the arab world, I read that they are asking for an apology from Denmark, the thing is that Arabs will stop buying products from Denmark and all Europe, you might think that this is not an issue, but if you think about it well, a lot of companies will lose Millions of Euros. You all are talking about what you think from seeing the news from the European media and they always want to show Islam as a religion that calls for violence, but the truth is they are just saying that they are angry and they will stop buying the products that’s all. A lot of foreigners live in the Middle East they wont get hurt. My cousin lives in Dubai he said that nothing is happening except there aren’t any Danish products and that doesn’t hurt him or Arabs.
    And I want to ask you all a question, what if someone draw offensive cartoons about the Pope or Jews, are you going to watch the drawings and laugh and say its the freedom of speech. No one in Germany can say a word about the Jews or they will get killed, no one can say that there weren’t 5 million Jews in the burring, they cant coz they are chickens, on the other hand they are calling for the freedom of speech. Please!!

    later,

  • Pete_London

    Amy –

    Ignoring the rest of your pathetic, paranoid, delusional, insulting and factually wrong bleating, you ask:

    And I want to ask you all a question, what if someone draw offensive cartoons about the Pope or Jews, are you going to watch the drawings and laugh and say its the freedom of speech.

    Yes. More than that, though I’m born and raised a Catholic and an admirer of the achievements of the Jewish people, I would defend the right of someone to draw and publish offensive cartoons of the Pope or Jews. This is because my culture is very much conditioned by the Enlightenment and is civilised. Your culture is not and is primitive.

  • Verity

    Oh for god’s sake, they’re not going to stop buying products from all of Europe! No more Mercedes Benzes? No more Ferraris? Give me a break! No more visits to the Paris collections for the 5,000 (give or take a dozen either way) Saudi princesses? No more Scotch whisky for the hidden bars that glide open at the touch of a button in Saudi homes? No more wine? No more French cheese? Scottish or Norwegian smoked salmon? No Bang & Olufson? Give me a break!

    They’re cheap little hypocrites. They will threaten, but they will carry on as usual. Yes, Denmark will be hurt, but that will gradually fade away. Meanwhile, as they produce 80% of the world’s insulin, I would love it if Saudi Arabia ran out of insulin, there was none available from other countries and Denmark refused to sell them any. The sad demise of Muslim diabetics. Oh gosh, what a tragedy. Yawn.

  • Verity

    Hey, this would be a good time to buy shares in Arla!!

  • llamas

    Amy wrote:

    ‘If Muslims draw offensive cartoons about Jesus or Moses, they will be attacked strongly by every one of us.’

    Oh, really?

    Take a look at some of these cartoons from the Arab media. Fair warning – some are extremely offensive.

    http://www.radioislam.org/islam/roligt/roligt.htm

    Or these

    http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm

    All packed with the most offensive, insulting caricatures of Jews and Christians. I swear, there must be a special class that Arab media cartoonists take to learn how to draw the hooked nose, the Shylock face, the ringlets, and so forth.

    I’m sure you recall the cartoon that appeared in a major Western media outlet last year which showed Israeli PM Sharon sitting on an infernal pyre laughing and eating an Arab baby. If you do not – here it is:

    http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/000090.html

    Noone’s attacking them. Noone is marching in the streets demanding that these cartoonists be ‘beheaded’ and ‘butchered’ for offending those of a different faith.

    Sure, we will attack people who publish this sort of hate – with words. Islamists go well beyond that. Their placard threats of violence and murder might be seen as hyperbole, were it not for the fact that they have clearly shown that they are ready and willing to butcher and behead anyone who offends them.

    So you’ve read all about Islam, and you piously parrot the mouthings of so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims who say ‘oh, killing people is not of the Q’uran, Muslims should not insult those of other faiths, this is not the ‘real’ Islam’. Now, come out from behind the books and look around the world, and see the ‘real’ Islam.

    You then wrote:

    ‘And I want to ask you all a question, what if someone draw offensive cartoons about the Pope or Jews, are you going to watch the drawings and laugh and say its the freedom of speech. ‘

    Damn right we will. Well, maybe not laugh, because such cartoons would probably be offensive and unpleasant to any civilized person. But they are free speech, and just because they offend is neither a reason to suppress them, nor a justification for real threats of real violence.

    Of Germany, you wrote:

    ‘ . . . no one can say that there weren’t 5 million Jews in the burring, . . .’

    I think you would be rather surprised to learn that virtually everyone here would say that they do NOT agree with German law in this area, and that Holocaust deniers should be free to say what they believe. That’s free speech too.

    You’re getting schooled here. You need it.

    llater,

    llamas

  • George

    Amy said: If Muslims draw offensive cartoons about Jesus or Moses, they will be attacked strongly by every one of us.

    No they won’t. The very church of the Nativity in Bethlehem was occupied and trashed by Hamas gunmen and there was no violence in the west. This is very unidirectional and scary

  • MarkJ

    The polite thing to say is “it’s rude to mock someone else’s religion.” And I was raised to be polite, so over the years while I’ve watched muslims kidnapping, hijacking, beheading, suicide bombing, raping Western girls while calling them sluts, ramming our jets into our skyscrapers, and so on, I have kept my opinions of Islam to myself, as have most Westerners. We want to be polite. We don’t want to unnecessarily cause strife.

    But those times have passed. Can we Westerners be honest and say that in all frankness, Islam is a bad religion and patent nonsense?

    Is it believable that God would speak to someone like this Mohammed character and tell him to do things like tip walls on homosexuals, chop off the heads of unbelievers, etc etc etc ad nauseum? Of course not. The whole basis of Islam – this idea that God would say such things to Mohammed – is nonsense. And judging by the way too many muslims have implemented their beliefs over the centuries, it’s not just nonsense but virulently pernicious, dangerous idiocy.

    I’m sure there are passages in the Koran that say sweet and nice things about love and caring for people, etc. So what. The violent, repugnant parts of it prove that it did not issue from God (if there is a God) and thus the whole thing is fiction and does not deserve serious consideration.

    We have a problem because a bunch of gullible people in the middle east actually believe this nonsense. It’s time we start moving away from talk about “respecting beliefs” and “moderate muslims” and towards honest discussion of the pernicious, hateful beliefs of these people that pose a direct threat to our civilization. We cannot survive as a civilization if we do not openly and honestly say, as our ancestors did, that Islam is a dangerous and noxious false belief that does not only deserves no respect, but must be actively excluded from our Western world in any serious form if we are to keep our liberty.

  • “at a time” means around 500 AD (Anno Domini – after the death of Christ).

    You don’t say? Who is this “Pedant” character? Is he always such a pontificating twerp? As for the rest of his screed, he contributed one useful point regarding the depiction of Muhummad. Pity he had to waste five paragraphs saying something that could easily be summed up in one – but no, we get five paragraphs of mostly tangential rambling not relevant to the discussion.

    What is it with these windbags who come in here thinking they’re going to set everyone to rights? A most odious breed.

  • Dan Kjerulf

    As a Dane, thank you for all the support. This showdown had to come some day, and we were just the ones on the other end of it, when it happened.

    Verity: Actually, Saudis already die from lack of Danish medtech. Denmark is the sole producer of various life support machines. A friend of mine used to sell them in the ME. But in many parts of that kingdom, they can’t be installed, because foreigners can’t enter those parts. So if people there get those diseases, they die. Saudi response: Kismet.

    Sadly, you can’t buy shares in Arla, as it’s a farmers’ co-operative.

    Amy: You are a very, very confused individual. Get help.

  • Verity

    Dan Kjerulf – You write: “Actually, Saudis already die from lack of Danish medtech. Denmark is the sole producer of various life support machines.”

    I can’t tell you what a warm, Sunday morning glow that gave me. Tea, toast, Marmite and the news that Saudis are dying due to lack of medical equipment.

  • I think that is uncalled for Verity. I assure you the Saudis dying for lack of treatment are not members of the political class who can just jump on a jet to a Swiss clinc whilst leaving common people to pay for their ‘Islamic principles’

  • That’s true, Perry. I don’t like the thought of ordinary people dying unnecessarily, either. But you must admit that the chickens have come home to roost remarkably quickly in Dan Kjerulf’s example. I’m sure there are plenty of common people in Saudi Arabia urging a boycott on Danish goods.

  • Verity

    Well, Perry, it’s your blog and you can twit who you like, but I would answer that these people are dying of intolerance. They’re dying in cities that won’t allow foreigners (meaning non-Islamics) in. Not even to save lives.

    When they had their earthquake, even the Pakistanis were motivated to forget their religious principles, and admit sniffer dogs to trace living people in the rubble, into the country. It’s hard to think of any country on the face of the earth more stuck on stupid than Saudi Arabia.

  • even the Pakistanis were motivated to forget their religious principles

    But who could forget the television footage immediately after the earthquake of Western rescue teams* dragging survivors out of the rubble, to the crowd’s cheers of “Allah u Akbar”?

    The sheer lack of perspective is breathtaking.

    *dispatched instantly to another continent and on the ground within 24 hours thanks to Western technology and organisation.

  • Verity

    The sheer lack of perspective is breathtaking. Yes indeedy.

  • Verity

    Oh, I’ve just noticed that one of these keffiyah-masked little gun-toting nitwits is pointing his barrel at the flag of the EU. LOL! Blast away, sweetheart! The citizens of the EU will salute you!

  • Pedant

    Does anyone here know of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem? I learnt about it when they were teaching us about elementary logic at grammar school.

    According to the New Shorter Oxford Engllish Dictionary, it means: “An argument, usu. vilificatory, appealing to the personal circumstances or character of an opponent rather than to sound reasoning.”

    Happy days.

  • Murray

    “I suggested that maybe British/American newspapers chose not to publish them not because they were afraid of offending anyone, but because they didn’t want to offend anyone without making any usefully progressive arguments at the same time.”

    Maybe newspapers should print the caricatures because they are news. The fact they do not highlights the poisonous effects on freedom of speech already.

  • Murray

    “I suggested that maybe British/American newspapers chose not to publish them not because they were afraid of offending anyone, but because they didn’t want to offend anyone without making any usefully progressive arguments at the same time.”

    Maybe newspapers should print the caricatures because they are news. The fact they do not highlights the poisonous effects on freedom of speech already.

  • Pedant

    When does freedom of speech become inciting of racial hatred? Should the Danish cartoonists have their heads chopped off for what they did? Seems reasonable enough to me.

    Reported at:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4687976.stm

    The muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri has been jailed for seven years after being found guilty of inciting murder and race hate.

    Mr Justice Hughes said the cleric had used his authority “to legitimise anger” and make killing seem “a moral and religious duty in pursuit of perceived justice”.

    “Behaviour like Abu Hamza’s is not a legitimate exercise in free speech – in fact it deliberately threatens openness and diversity.” Behaviour like Abu Hamza’s is not a legitimate exercise in free speech – in fact it deliberately threatens openness and diversity” – Ken Macdonald QC Director of Public Prosecutions.
    ______________________________________

    Part of the trouble would seem to be that the Islamic societies are stuck in barbarism – a sort of intellectual 600 year old time warp. They are not “civilized” in terms of human rights, freedoms and emancipation, and especially regarding the division between church and state – which is something Europe achieved centuries ago and which freed people from the tyranny that the church would have imposed. The priests of the Spanish Inquisition were seriously evil – every bit as bad and probably worse – than the fundamentalist clerics (e.g., Abu Hamza al-Masri) of the Islamic church can be.

    It seems there is a straightforward choice: that Islamic society must change, or there will be racial/religious wars until all societies toe the Islamic line and civilized society becomes less civilized (more barbaric) than they are today.

    Interesting point at:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4687976.stm

    “The more resolutely the West stands firm, the less likely it is that Islamic societies will be modernized. And the more it gives in, the more Arab nationalists and Islamic fundamentalists will be encouraged to step up the pressure.” – Die Presse
    ____________________________

  • Tabasco

    It is working!

    A huge thank you from Denmark to all of you who are supporting the buy danish campaign.

    Today danish newspapers can report that we just might have a larger turnover from the world supporting us, than we are loosing on the ones boycotting danish products.

    This sincerely proves that together we can make a difference!

  • peggy

    Re: Tabasco’s news

    Ok the following sentiment may be a little out of place on this board but since I’m a Christian living in a free speech society I can only say

    Thanks Be to God.

    While I am no fan of islam, I have felt from the start that muslims had as much a right to protest the cartoons as the paper had a right to publish them. To say that no one has the right to the kind of violent protests that we have seen recently is a given. But I would go further and say that even the more moderate protest of the boycott trying to ruin the economy of a country full of people who had nothing to do with the cartoons was just as wrong as any violent protest. I think that while only a percentage participated in violent acts. I think most muslims have joined the boycott and the boycott is wrong and unfair.

    Keep on buying Danish. The boycott is wrong. What better news can there be to here that it just might be failing in its aim!

  • peggy

    Anyone here from Dallas? Where can I get good Danish beer?? I cant stand that Carlsberg crud but my local store has a very limited selection of imports.

    To all, what are the names of some other Danish beer brands to look for?

  • peggy

    Re: the Ham issue.

    Some here have taken up for him. Others have slammed him. What I havent seen, maybe I missed it, is anyone correcting him about this statement

    “Maybe they think that offending someone’s religion for the sake of it is a childish way of expressing their right to free speech?” (Italics mine)

    The original reason for publishing the cartoons was as an experiment, as a challenge for cartoonists to see who would reject self-censorship which is becoming quite a problem whereever there are muslim minorities these days. It is a common myth-conception, that the cartoons were published with the blatant intention to piss off muslims without the slightest sensitivity to their beliefs.

    Although it would still be legal to deliberately provoke just for the hell of it, it wouldnt be right to do so. I think that most civilized people can agree on that even if we happen to also believe in the right to offend is part and parcel of free speech. Most people dont go around trying to offend other people even if they would defend to the death someone else’s right to do so, myself included.

    What some people are trying, I think somewhat successfully, is to cast this as a wrong being met with a greater wrong. Some people want cast the paper as having done something wrong ie publishing the cartoons just to cause offense. In fact the paper did nothing wrong since that was not the spirit of the exercise at all.

    Those of us who know better have to counter-act this recasting of the facts every chance we get. The paper did nothing wrong. We shouldnt concede to the radical muslims that paper was at all wrong in publishing the cartoons in the first place. We cant allow them to recast the debate or to spread blame in order to take some heat off of muslims for what they subsequently did.

    The cartoons were published for a legitimate and quite thoughtful reason and I think all at the paper are heroes of journalism and free speech for not flinching from such a daunting challenge and getting this vital discussion going among the greater public at last.

  • Pedant

    I agree with “peggy” even though she may be intellecutually challenged, and certainly has a poor command of the Queeen’s English.She says it a lot better that wot I can

    “Good on yer,Peggy!”

  • Donna

    As a Yorkshire Welsh Jew living in Saudi Arabia, I can only repeat the old Arab saying:
    “Four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity.”
    – Omar Idn Al-Halif mo. (I don’t know who Omar was – not a Taliban, I think, anyway.)

    Thus, whatever drivel peggy speaks does not matter.