Title: Freedom of Speech
Cid - February 5, 2006 12:56 AM (GMT)
After the current events I think we should dicuss this topic which actually is an ungoing event in every society and community. Please refrain from turning this discussion into a pissing contest. Make only statements with arguments and let us not get too much carried away by recent developments but discuss this like gentleman. :hathello:
My views:
-Freedom of speech (thus also freedom of press and demonstration) is an essential value for a democratic society. A democratic society cannot exist when people or organisations are hindered to express their views, opinions, perspectives or believes within the society.
However a democratic society must not only enshure for the freedom of speech. it must also protect pluralism, because pluralism enshures that the interests of all the individuals and groups are taken into account during the political process.
Therefor Freedom of Speech can in a way be channeled to enshure it does not damage the pluralistic character of a democratic society, just like the fact that in many democratic socities an act of the Parliament (democratic action) can be channeled or even be overruled (especially among Common Law) by judges because such an act is in breach with the democratic principles.
-Regarding the media, I believe given their enormous reach towards the public, they have a great responsibility in a democratic society to make and publish their articles on ethical and moral basis which is in harmony with a democratic society. With this I mean that the media must enshure that her article does not diminish nor endanger the pluralism of a society or that of the consensus that exists between different groups in a democratic society.
-Regarding humour I believe there is a clear distinction between making jokes about others and making jokes about one self (self irony or self ridicule). The difference is that when you make jokes about yourself, you dont have any limits. You dont need to take into account the feelings of others, since the humour is made on yourself and you can determin your own limits. This is what makes self irony so great because it extends the limits for humour. This is also the reason why so many stand-up comedians will use self irony as their main tool for entertaining their audience.
But we must also not forget that self irony and self ridicule are actually a way to prevend others of having critique on your perspectives or conduct. Therefor the fact that someone has the habit of using self ridicule should never be used as an argument to prove his justness in an argument over another who does not have such habit of self ridicule.
My views:
-Freedom of speech (thus also freedom of press and demonstration) is an essential value for a democratic society. A democratic society cannot exist when people or organisations are hindered to express their views, opinions, perspectives or believes within the society.
However a democratic society must not only enshure for the freedom of speech. it must also protect pluralism, because pluralism enshures that the interests of all the individuals and groups are taken into account during the political process.
Therefor Freedom of Speech can in a way be channeled to enshure it does not damage the pluralistic character of a democratic society, just like the fact that in many democratic socities an act of the Parliament (democratic action) can be channeled or even be overruled (especially among Common Law) by judges because such an act is in breach with the democratic principles.
-Regarding the media, I believe given their enormous reach towards the public, they have a great responsibility in a democratic society to make and publish their articles on ethical and moral basis which is in harmony with a democratic society. With this I mean that the media must enshure that her article does not diminish nor endanger the pluralism of a society or that of the consensus that exists between different groups in a democratic society.
-Regarding humour I believe there is a clear distinction between making jokes about others and making jokes about one self (self irony or self ridicule). The difference is that when you make jokes about yourself, you dont have any limits. You dont need to take into account the feelings of others, since the humour is made on yourself and you can determin your own limits. This is what makes self irony so great because it extends the limits for humour. This is also the reason why so many stand-up comedians will use self irony as their main tool for entertaining their audience.
But we must also not forget that self irony and self ridicule are actually a way to prevend others of having critique on your perspectives or conduct. Therefor the fact that someone has the habit of using self ridicule should never be used as an argument to prove his justness in an argument over another who does not have such habit of self ridicule.
123-t - February 5, 2006 04:15 PM (GMT)
Several questions:
#How is freedom defined ?
#Why should freedom be limited ?
That is to say what is the intention for a limitation ?
Why does somebody limit someone´s freedom ?
Who or what gives someone the freedom to demand restriction ?
Who has the right to demand restriction to limit freedom ?
Is "lacking freedom" for the one freedom for the other ?
Restriction on freedom to prevent "overall freedom" ?
Is freedom not already restricted through "lacking knowledge" ?
#When there is consensus on limitation:
Who should set up the rules for the limitations ?
Or is there a worldwide acceptable consensus on restrictions ?
#How is freedom defined ?
#Why should freedom be limited ?
That is to say what is the intention for a limitation ?
Why does somebody limit someone´s freedom ?
Who or what gives someone the freedom to demand restriction ?
Who has the right to demand restriction to limit freedom ?
Is "lacking freedom" for the one freedom for the other ?
Restriction on freedom to prevent "overall freedom" ?
Is freedom not already restricted through "lacking knowledge" ?
#When there is consensus on limitation:
Who should set up the rules for the limitations ?
Or is there a worldwide acceptable consensus on restrictions ?
modus - February 8, 2006 10:08 AM (GMT)
These cartoons don't defend free speech, they threaten it
SIMON JENKINS
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20...25511_2,00.html
I think, therefore I am, said the philosopher. Fine. But I think, therefore I speak? No way.
Nobody has an absolute right to freedom. Civilisation is the story of humans sacrificing freedom so as to live together in harmony. We do not need Hobbes to tell us that absolute freedom is for newborn savages. All else is compromise.
Should a right-wing Danish newspaper have carried the derisive images of Muhammad? No. Should other newspapers have repeated them and the BBC teasingly “flashed” them to prove its free-speech virility? No. Should governments apologise for them or ban them from repeating the offence? No, but that is not the issue.
A newspaper is not a monastery, its mind blind to the world and deaf to reaction. Every inch of published print reflects the views of its writers and the judgment of its editors. Every day newspapers decide on the balance of boldness, offence, taste, discretion and recklessness. They must decide who is to be allowed a voice and who not. They are curbed by libel laws, common decency and their own sense of what is acceptable to readers. Speech is free only on a mountain top; all else is editing.
Despite Britons’ robust attitude to religion, no newspaper would let a cartoonist depict Jesus Christ dropping cluster bombs, or lampoon the Holocaust. Pictures of bodies are not carried if they are likely to be seen by family members. Privacy and dignity are respected, even if such restraint is usually unknown to readers. Over every page hovers a censor, even if he is graced with the title of editor.
To imply that some great issue of censorship is raised by the Danish cartoons is nonsense. They were offensive and inflammatory. The best policy would have been to apologise and shut up. For Danish journalists to demand “Europe-wide solidarity” in the cause of free speech and to deride those who are offended as “fundamentalists . . . who have a problem with the entire western world” comes close to racial provocation. We do not go about punching people in the face to test their commitment to non-violence. To be a European should not involve initiation by religious insult.
Many people seem surprised that a multicultural crunch should have come over religion rather than race. Most incoming migrants from the Muslim world are in search of work and security. They have accepted racial discrimination and cultural subordination as the price of admission. Most Europeans, however surreptitiously, regard that subordination as reasonable.
What Muslims did not expect was that admission also required them to tolerate the ridicule of their faith and guilt by association with its wildest and most violent followers in the Middle East. Islam is an ancient and dignified religion. Like Christianity its teaching can be variously interpreted and used for bloodthirsty ends, but in itself Islam has purity and simplicity. Part of that purity lies in its abstraction and part of that abstraction is an aversion to icons.
The Danes must have known that a depiction of Allah as human or the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist would outrage Muslims. It is plain dumb to claim such blasphemy as just a joke concordant with the western way of life. Better claim it as intentionally savage, since that was how it was bound to seem. To adapt Shakespeare, what to a Christian “is but a choleric word”, to a Muslim is flat blasphemy.
Of all the casualties of globalism, religious sensibility is the most hurtful. I once noticed in Baghdad airport an otherwise respectable Iraqi woman go completely hysterical when an American guard set his sniffer dog, an “unclean” animal, on her copy of the Koran. The soldier swore at her: “Oh for Christ’s sake, shut up!” She was baffled that he cited Christ in defence of what he had done.
Likewise, to an American or British soldier, forcibly entering the women’s quarters of an Arab house at night is normal peacekeeping. To an Arab it is abhorrent, way beyond any pale. Nor do Muslims understand the West’s excusing such actions, as does Tony Blair, by comparing them favourably with those of Saddam Hussein, as if Saddam were the benchmark of international behaviour.
It is clearly hard for westerners to comprehend the dismay these gestures cause Muslims. The question is not whether Muslims should or should not “grow up” or respect freedom of speech. It is whether we truly want to share a world in peace with those who have values and religious beliefs different from our own. The demand by foreign journalists that British newspapers compound their offence shows that moral arrogance is as alive in the editing rooms of northern Europe as in the streets of Falluja. That causing religious offence should be regarded a sign of western machismo is obscene.
The traditional balance between free speech and respect for the feelings of others is evidently becoming harder to sustain. The resulting turbulence can only feed the propaganda of the right to attack or expel immigrants and those of alien culture. And it can only feed the appetite of government to restrain free speech where it really matters, as in criticising itself.
There is little doubt that had the Home Office’s original version of its religious hatred bill been enacted, publishing the cartoons would in Britain have been illegal. There was no need to prove intent to cause religious hatred, only “recklessness”. Even as amended by parliament the bill might allow a prosecution to portray the cartoons as insulting and abusive and to dismiss the allowed defence that the intention was to attack ideas rather than people.
The same zest for broad-sweep censorship was shown in Charles Clarke’s last anti-terrorism bill. Its bid (again curbed by parliament) was to outlaw the “negligent”, even if unintended, glorification of terrorism. It wanted to outlaw those whose utterances might have celebrated or glorified a violent change of government, whether or not they meant to do so. Clarke proposed to list “under order” those historical figures he regarded as terrorists and those he decided were “freedom fighters”. The latter, he intimated, might include Irish ones. This was historical censorship of truly Stalinist ambition. By such men are we now ruled.
That a modern home secretary should seek such powers illustrates the danger to which a collapse of media self-restraint might lead. Last week there were demands from some (not all) Muslim leaders for governments to “apologise” for the cartoons and somehow forbid their dissemination. It was a demand that Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, commendably rejected. It assumed that governments had in some sense allowed the cartoons and were thus in a position to atone for them. Many governments might be happy to fall into this trap and seek to control deeds for which they may have to apologise. The glib assumption of blame where none exists feeds ministerial folie de grandeur, as with Blair’s ludicrous 1997 apology for the Irish potato famine.
In all matters of self-regulation the danger is clear. If important institutions, in this case the press, will not practise self-discipline then governments will practise it for them. Ascribing evil consequences to religious faith is a sure way of causing offence. Banning such offence is an equally sure way for a politician to curry favour with a minority and thus advance the authoritarian tendency. The present Home Office needs no such encouragement.
Offending an opponent has long been a feature of polemics, just as challenging the boundaries of taste has been a feature of art. It is rightly surrounded by legal and ethical palisades. These include the laws of libel and slander and concepts such as fair comment, right of reply and not stirring racial hatred. None of them is absolute. All rely on the exercise of judgment by those in positions of power. All rely on that bulwark of democracy, tolerance of the feelings of others. This was encapsulated by Lord Clark in his defining quality of civilisation: courtesy.
Too many politicians would rather not trust the self-restraint of others and would take the power of restraint onto themselves. Recent British legislation shows that a censor is waiting round every corner. This past week must have sent his hopes soaring because of the idiot antics of a few continental journalists.
The best defence of free speech can only be to curb its excess and respect its courtesy.
SIMON JENKINS
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20...25511_2,00.html
I think, therefore I am, said the philosopher. Fine. But I think, therefore I speak? No way.
Nobody has an absolute right to freedom. Civilisation is the story of humans sacrificing freedom so as to live together in harmony. We do not need Hobbes to tell us that absolute freedom is for newborn savages. All else is compromise.
Should a right-wing Danish newspaper have carried the derisive images of Muhammad? No. Should other newspapers have repeated them and the BBC teasingly “flashed” them to prove its free-speech virility? No. Should governments apologise for them or ban them from repeating the offence? No, but that is not the issue.
A newspaper is not a monastery, its mind blind to the world and deaf to reaction. Every inch of published print reflects the views of its writers and the judgment of its editors. Every day newspapers decide on the balance of boldness, offence, taste, discretion and recklessness. They must decide who is to be allowed a voice and who not. They are curbed by libel laws, common decency and their own sense of what is acceptable to readers. Speech is free only on a mountain top; all else is editing.
Despite Britons’ robust attitude to religion, no newspaper would let a cartoonist depict Jesus Christ dropping cluster bombs, or lampoon the Holocaust. Pictures of bodies are not carried if they are likely to be seen by family members. Privacy and dignity are respected, even if such restraint is usually unknown to readers. Over every page hovers a censor, even if he is graced with the title of editor.
To imply that some great issue of censorship is raised by the Danish cartoons is nonsense. They were offensive and inflammatory. The best policy would have been to apologise and shut up. For Danish journalists to demand “Europe-wide solidarity” in the cause of free speech and to deride those who are offended as “fundamentalists . . . who have a problem with the entire western world” comes close to racial provocation. We do not go about punching people in the face to test their commitment to non-violence. To be a European should not involve initiation by religious insult.
Many people seem surprised that a multicultural crunch should have come over religion rather than race. Most incoming migrants from the Muslim world are in search of work and security. They have accepted racial discrimination and cultural subordination as the price of admission. Most Europeans, however surreptitiously, regard that subordination as reasonable.
What Muslims did not expect was that admission also required them to tolerate the ridicule of their faith and guilt by association with its wildest and most violent followers in the Middle East. Islam is an ancient and dignified religion. Like Christianity its teaching can be variously interpreted and used for bloodthirsty ends, but in itself Islam has purity and simplicity. Part of that purity lies in its abstraction and part of that abstraction is an aversion to icons.
The Danes must have known that a depiction of Allah as human or the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist would outrage Muslims. It is plain dumb to claim such blasphemy as just a joke concordant with the western way of life. Better claim it as intentionally savage, since that was how it was bound to seem. To adapt Shakespeare, what to a Christian “is but a choleric word”, to a Muslim is flat blasphemy.
Of all the casualties of globalism, religious sensibility is the most hurtful. I once noticed in Baghdad airport an otherwise respectable Iraqi woman go completely hysterical when an American guard set his sniffer dog, an “unclean” animal, on her copy of the Koran. The soldier swore at her: “Oh for Christ’s sake, shut up!” She was baffled that he cited Christ in defence of what he had done.
Likewise, to an American or British soldier, forcibly entering the women’s quarters of an Arab house at night is normal peacekeeping. To an Arab it is abhorrent, way beyond any pale. Nor do Muslims understand the West’s excusing such actions, as does Tony Blair, by comparing them favourably with those of Saddam Hussein, as if Saddam were the benchmark of international behaviour.
It is clearly hard for westerners to comprehend the dismay these gestures cause Muslims. The question is not whether Muslims should or should not “grow up” or respect freedom of speech. It is whether we truly want to share a world in peace with those who have values and religious beliefs different from our own. The demand by foreign journalists that British newspapers compound their offence shows that moral arrogance is as alive in the editing rooms of northern Europe as in the streets of Falluja. That causing religious offence should be regarded a sign of western machismo is obscene.
The traditional balance between free speech and respect for the feelings of others is evidently becoming harder to sustain. The resulting turbulence can only feed the propaganda of the right to attack or expel immigrants and those of alien culture. And it can only feed the appetite of government to restrain free speech where it really matters, as in criticising itself.
There is little doubt that had the Home Office’s original version of its religious hatred bill been enacted, publishing the cartoons would in Britain have been illegal. There was no need to prove intent to cause religious hatred, only “recklessness”. Even as amended by parliament the bill might allow a prosecution to portray the cartoons as insulting and abusive and to dismiss the allowed defence that the intention was to attack ideas rather than people.
The same zest for broad-sweep censorship was shown in Charles Clarke’s last anti-terrorism bill. Its bid (again curbed by parliament) was to outlaw the “negligent”, even if unintended, glorification of terrorism. It wanted to outlaw those whose utterances might have celebrated or glorified a violent change of government, whether or not they meant to do so. Clarke proposed to list “under order” those historical figures he regarded as terrorists and those he decided were “freedom fighters”. The latter, he intimated, might include Irish ones. This was historical censorship of truly Stalinist ambition. By such men are we now ruled.
That a modern home secretary should seek such powers illustrates the danger to which a collapse of media self-restraint might lead. Last week there were demands from some (not all) Muslim leaders for governments to “apologise” for the cartoons and somehow forbid their dissemination. It was a demand that Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, commendably rejected. It assumed that governments had in some sense allowed the cartoons and were thus in a position to atone for them. Many governments might be happy to fall into this trap and seek to control deeds for which they may have to apologise. The glib assumption of blame where none exists feeds ministerial folie de grandeur, as with Blair’s ludicrous 1997 apology for the Irish potato famine.
In all matters of self-regulation the danger is clear. If important institutions, in this case the press, will not practise self-discipline then governments will practise it for them. Ascribing evil consequences to religious faith is a sure way of causing offence. Banning such offence is an equally sure way for a politician to curry favour with a minority and thus advance the authoritarian tendency. The present Home Office needs no such encouragement.
Offending an opponent has long been a feature of polemics, just as challenging the boundaries of taste has been a feature of art. It is rightly surrounded by legal and ethical palisades. These include the laws of libel and slander and concepts such as fair comment, right of reply and not stirring racial hatred. None of them is absolute. All rely on the exercise of judgment by those in positions of power. All rely on that bulwark of democracy, tolerance of the feelings of others. This was encapsulated by Lord Clark in his defining quality of civilisation: courtesy.
Too many politicians would rather not trust the self-restraint of others and would take the power of restraint onto themselves. Recent British legislation shows that a censor is waiting round every corner. This past week must have sent his hopes soaring because of the idiot antics of a few continental journalists.
The best defence of free speech can only be to curb its excess and respect its courtesy.
Valen_gr - February 8, 2006 12:35 PM (GMT)
Very bad article and very biased.
It approaches an immensely complex problem from a single viewpoint, and only elaborates on that one.
There are many ways one can look at the current problem.
The writer of the article is of the opinion that freedom of speech did not justify this publication, but that the newspaper should have had the decency and forethought to not publish those pictures.
He approaches the subject in a manner of purely what should have happened, what should not have happened. It also states that the problem is not with muslims needing to grow up and accept free speech, but rather with us if we want to share a world with people with a different set of values.
Excuse me, but we are talking about a danish newspaper in denmark, not a global reach media outlet. This has nothing to do with us wanting or not to share the world with muslims or not.
Freedom of speech is precicely for stuff like this. Sure, it was unpopular, inconvinient, uncomforable, but 100% protected by freedom of speech.
The authors view of "The question is not whether Muslims should or should not “grow up” or respect freedom of speech. It is whether we truly want to share a world in peace with those who have values and religious beliefs different from our own" is childish.
Muslims, just like the rest of us SHOULD respect freedom of speech.
It is that same freedom of speech that allows them to publish and do as they like in europe. It is that same freedom of speech and expression that allows them to protest and hold banners saying stuff like "to hell with freedom of speech" or "Europe watch out, your own 9/11 is coming" and so on.
And in the final analysis, this happened in denmark, not saudi arabia.
Whatever muslims were living in denmark, it is up to THEM to adapt to denmark, and not the other way arround.
you dont see western women in riad demanding all saudi women to not wear burkas because they find it highly offensive, do you?
because according to CHRISTIAN values, having a woman subjugated the way they are in saudi IS highly offensive. Yet, somehow, you dont see whatever westerners living in riad kickinig up a fuss about it. They are living in a foreign country and do their best to adapt and conform.
It is not up to saudis to adapt to the wishes or sensibilities of westerners living in saudi, same as it its not up to danes to adapt to muslim wishes or sensibilities .
And just to mention as a closing statement, having women confined to home and wearing burkas is something much more serious and disgracefull that a single newspaper publication, and has much smaller impact on the life of he people involved, no?
It approaches an immensely complex problem from a single viewpoint, and only elaborates on that one.
There are many ways one can look at the current problem.
The writer of the article is of the opinion that freedom of speech did not justify this publication, but that the newspaper should have had the decency and forethought to not publish those pictures.
He approaches the subject in a manner of purely what should have happened, what should not have happened. It also states that the problem is not with muslims needing to grow up and accept free speech, but rather with us if we want to share a world with people with a different set of values.
Excuse me, but we are talking about a danish newspaper in denmark, not a global reach media outlet. This has nothing to do with us wanting or not to share the world with muslims or not.
Freedom of speech is precicely for stuff like this. Sure, it was unpopular, inconvinient, uncomforable, but 100% protected by freedom of speech.
The authors view of "The question is not whether Muslims should or should not “grow up” or respect freedom of speech. It is whether we truly want to share a world in peace with those who have values and religious beliefs different from our own" is childish.
Muslims, just like the rest of us SHOULD respect freedom of speech.
It is that same freedom of speech that allows them to publish and do as they like in europe. It is that same freedom of speech and expression that allows them to protest and hold banners saying stuff like "to hell with freedom of speech" or "Europe watch out, your own 9/11 is coming" and so on.
And in the final analysis, this happened in denmark, not saudi arabia.
Whatever muslims were living in denmark, it is up to THEM to adapt to denmark, and not the other way arround.
you dont see western women in riad demanding all saudi women to not wear burkas because they find it highly offensive, do you?
because according to CHRISTIAN values, having a woman subjugated the way they are in saudi IS highly offensive. Yet, somehow, you dont see whatever westerners living in riad kickinig up a fuss about it. They are living in a foreign country and do their best to adapt and conform.
It is not up to saudis to adapt to the wishes or sensibilities of westerners living in saudi, same as it its not up to danes to adapt to muslim wishes or sensibilities .
And just to mention as a closing statement, having women confined to home and wearing burkas is something much more serious and disgracefull that a single newspaper publication, and has much smaller impact on the life of he people involved, no?
modus - February 8, 2006 01:12 PM (GMT)
No. Since as with Christian religion there numeorus sects and daily practices in the Islam world. The stereotyping Islam, by taking the most reactionary sects as a benchmark for the entire religion, or the fundamentalist terrorists as the true representatives of Islam, is nothing but pure racism and fascism. There are women confined in their houses in Turkey, wearing black dresses, (mostly depicted as cockroaches by atheist, or liberal people in Turkey) but do they represent Turkey? Or the Islam? No. They are marginalized in the society.
Turkish women do wear headscarves, the only difference with Greek mothers, e.g. in the islands, that our mothers prefer colored scarves, than their counterparts in Greee with black.
Stop stereotyping Muslims, and forcing them to react in stereotyped ways. The majority of Muslims are decent, moderate people. Today a report has been revealed that 1/10 of French women are under continuous abuse and harrassment. Use mirrors.
No pasaran.
Turkish women do wear headscarves, the only difference with Greek mothers, e.g. in the islands, that our mothers prefer colored scarves, than their counterparts in Greee with black.
Stop stereotyping Muslims, and forcing them to react in stereotyped ways. The majority of Muslims are decent, moderate people. Today a report has been revealed that 1/10 of French women are under continuous abuse and harrassment. Use mirrors.
No pasaran.
Pytheas - February 8, 2006 01:15 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Valen_gr @ Feb 8 2006, 02:35 PM) |
| Whatever muslims were living in denmark, it is up to THEM to adapt to denmark, and not the other way arround. |
:thumbsup: thanks Valen for speaking up the reality. :)
cameleon1975 - February 8, 2006 01:53 PM (GMT)
Well,its seems that many Muslims love to hate non-muslims.Unfortunately its almost becoming a reason to live in some parts of the world...
delenda_est_carthago - February 8, 2006 02:24 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| because according to CHRISTIAN values, having a woman subjugated the way they are in saudi IS highly offensive. |
Emancipation of women, freedom of speech, democracy, these are christian values?Since when? That is the most ridiculous claim I have heard. All these "western" values, especially the emancipation of women have been won against the will of the church(s) my naive greek friend. Subjugation of women does not have to be as visible from outside as the burkas. Go read up about your religion first. Had the pope his way, even birth control would be banned in majority catholic nations.
It is always easy to generalize. The stereotype muslim woman wears a burka, you think, well I wonder what religion is my mother, my all female relatives, my girlfriend, who, to my delight, usually wears a bikini when we go to vacation at the mediterranian, are. Pah!
Having said all that, there is no doubt that the violent reactions to the caricatures are way out of line. However all the other ones are perfectly legitimate, the boycotts, the protests, all diplomatic reactions are perfectly
OK. I have recently read that an episode of the south park has been put out of circulation in the US because of some south-park style vulgar-funny depictions of virgin mary. That means freedom of expression has its limits even in the west, when it comes to religious beliefs. It has also been revealed that the same danish paper that has published the infamous caricatures has rejected to publish similar jesus caricatures. So this freedom of spech talk reeks of hypocrisy..
Valen_gr - February 8, 2006 03:08 PM (GMT)
Let me rephrase modus. I made a similar post in another forum, and forgot to mention that part of my post.
In my other post, i mentioned turkey as an example to be followed.
I presented the example that a womman in turkey can go to school, get educated, go to university, leave her house by herself, get a job in a company or make a her own living, chose a man of her liking as a husband and lead a sucesfull and productive life. Yes?
Turkish women have this choice and right.
Turkey is secular. It is also a country populated by muslims.
I dont see why religion has to interfere with how a woman can or cant lead her life.
The saudi counterpart of the turkish woman does not have the choices a turkish woman has. She may not leave her house unacompanied. She has to wear the burka. As for political life, social and working life, lets not even discuss.
I did not mean to pick on an extremist state and generalise. Please excuse my omission. But saudi arabia is hardly the only muslim state that has similiar if not worse conditions for say women.I also did not even try to say that western societies are without problems of their own. But, and here is the important part, if a woman is raped say in france, she is protected by law and her rapist if caught will get jailed. If a woman in saudi is raped, she will most likely be stoned to death by the religious police, regardelss if it was her fault or not she got raped.
Please do not "hide" behind the fact that indeed, not all muslims are like saudis.
It is not turks rioting in turkey against the cartoonists, is it?
It is radical muslims rioting all over the world, predominantly in traditional muslim strongholds like saudi, afghanistan and pakistan, where people have already been killed over this and mass riots happened.
But, all this is diverting from my main point :
Regardless of anything else, the publication happened in DENMARK, in a DANISH newspaper. Muslims living in denmark just have to deal with danish reality.
Danes dont have to adapt to muslim, hindu , taoist or whatever minority exists within denmark and act accordingly.
And my earlier example still stands. There are many western people living in saudi arabia. Mostly conected with the oil buisiness.
But still, i am sure you will accept that in the minds of those people, seing women treated the way they are in saudi , they think that it is wrong.
But, you dont see them protesting violently about it, do you?
Like i said, they are living in a foreign country, with a different civilisation, customs and traditions, and they do their best to adapt.
Why should not any muslims living in europe do the same?
Would they claim it their right to have european newspapers abide my islamic law (not to depict the prophet) i.e respect their own traditions, but in turn demand that western women in saudi cover their faces?
@Delenda, you make the same mistake as modus, i do not refer to all muslims.
I clearly refered to specific examples. No need to include turkey in this, when my post was clearly not directed @ turks. I know full well how turkish women wear bikinis, thankyou.
And yes delenda, according to christian values a man and a woman are equal under god. A woman need not cover herself to protect herself. So yes delenda, for a christian woman to be confined to home, little more than a slave, and forced to wear a burka almost constantly, is very much indeed in contradiciton with christianity. God does not preach that women should serve in such a way.
And i never said that democracy was a christian value, please re-read what i said.I said christian VALUES.
The crux of it is this : there are hardliner muslims, and moderate, secular you name it. It is a specific kind of muslim that is creating all the fuss right now, and it is that kind of muslim i am refering to. Unfortunatelly, they are very numerous, making a solution hard.
Denmark is NOT a muslim state. If a danish newspaper wants to publish an admitedly bad taste article with cartoons, it is free to do so.
It abides by danish law. Islamic law has no place in Denmark.
I find it incredulous that some fanatic muslims presume to have the right to dictate to european press what they may or may not print, regarding islam.
Imagine if say some radical turkish newspaper printed something eually stupid about christianity, and the leader of JesusLand TM G.W.Bush himself demanded that turkish press shape the f*** up and apologise, while mass anti muslim violent riots were held all over the world, including turkey.
It just dosent make SENSE.
Any muslims living in denmark should know and realise that they are living in denmark, not Iran or whatever. That things are different from home. That YES, there is a chance that you may see something like that in the free press. That yes, there WILL be things happening that you dont like, that dont seem to agree with islam or its traditions. It is to be expected. Same goes for a christian visiting any muslim country. There are BOUND to be things that he dosent like.
How one reacts though, is very important. One should learn to adapt and conform. Nobody is forcing muslims to live in denmark after all.And denmark is not a muslim state. To expect the press to have the sensibilities and sensetivities that the press of a muslim state would have is downright NAIVE.
In my other post, i mentioned turkey as an example to be followed.
I presented the example that a womman in turkey can go to school, get educated, go to university, leave her house by herself, get a job in a company or make a her own living, chose a man of her liking as a husband and lead a sucesfull and productive life. Yes?
Turkish women have this choice and right.
Turkey is secular. It is also a country populated by muslims.
I dont see why religion has to interfere with how a woman can or cant lead her life.
The saudi counterpart of the turkish woman does not have the choices a turkish woman has. She may not leave her house unacompanied. She has to wear the burka. As for political life, social and working life, lets not even discuss.
I did not mean to pick on an extremist state and generalise. Please excuse my omission. But saudi arabia is hardly the only muslim state that has similiar if not worse conditions for say women.I also did not even try to say that western societies are without problems of their own. But, and here is the important part, if a woman is raped say in france, she is protected by law and her rapist if caught will get jailed. If a woman in saudi is raped, she will most likely be stoned to death by the religious police, regardelss if it was her fault or not she got raped.
Please do not "hide" behind the fact that indeed, not all muslims are like saudis.
It is not turks rioting in turkey against the cartoonists, is it?
It is radical muslims rioting all over the world, predominantly in traditional muslim strongholds like saudi, afghanistan and pakistan, where people have already been killed over this and mass riots happened.
But, all this is diverting from my main point :
Regardless of anything else, the publication happened in DENMARK, in a DANISH newspaper. Muslims living in denmark just have to deal with danish reality.
Danes dont have to adapt to muslim, hindu , taoist or whatever minority exists within denmark and act accordingly.
And my earlier example still stands. There are many western people living in saudi arabia. Mostly conected with the oil buisiness.
But still, i am sure you will accept that in the minds of those people, seing women treated the way they are in saudi , they think that it is wrong.
But, you dont see them protesting violently about it, do you?
Like i said, they are living in a foreign country, with a different civilisation, customs and traditions, and they do their best to adapt.
Why should not any muslims living in europe do the same?
Would they claim it their right to have european newspapers abide my islamic law (not to depict the prophet) i.e respect their own traditions, but in turn demand that western women in saudi cover their faces?
@Delenda, you make the same mistake as modus, i do not refer to all muslims.
I clearly refered to specific examples. No need to include turkey in this, when my post was clearly not directed @ turks. I know full well how turkish women wear bikinis, thankyou.
And yes delenda, according to christian values a man and a woman are equal under god. A woman need not cover herself to protect herself. So yes delenda, for a christian woman to be confined to home, little more than a slave, and forced to wear a burka almost constantly, is very much indeed in contradiciton with christianity. God does not preach that women should serve in such a way.
And i never said that democracy was a christian value, please re-read what i said.I said christian VALUES.
The crux of it is this : there are hardliner muslims, and moderate, secular you name it. It is a specific kind of muslim that is creating all the fuss right now, and it is that kind of muslim i am refering to. Unfortunatelly, they are very numerous, making a solution hard.
Denmark is NOT a muslim state. If a danish newspaper wants to publish an admitedly bad taste article with cartoons, it is free to do so.
It abides by danish law. Islamic law has no place in Denmark.
I find it incredulous that some fanatic muslims presume to have the right to dictate to european press what they may or may not print, regarding islam.
Imagine if say some radical turkish newspaper printed something eually stupid about christianity, and the leader of JesusLand TM G.W.Bush himself demanded that turkish press shape the f*** up and apologise, while mass anti muslim violent riots were held all over the world, including turkey.
It just dosent make SENSE.
Any muslims living in denmark should know and realise that they are living in denmark, not Iran or whatever. That things are different from home. That YES, there is a chance that you may see something like that in the free press. That yes, there WILL be things happening that you dont like, that dont seem to agree with islam or its traditions. It is to be expected. Same goes for a christian visiting any muslim country. There are BOUND to be things that he dosent like.
How one reacts though, is very important. One should learn to adapt and conform. Nobody is forcing muslims to live in denmark after all.And denmark is not a muslim state. To expect the press to have the sensibilities and sensetivities that the press of a muslim state would have is downright NAIVE.
Kiziroglu - February 9, 2006 01:30 PM (GMT)
So we did the best we could do by throwing the greeks out of Turkey because there aren't members of the mayority ?
| QUOTE |
| Whatever muslims were living in denmark, it is up to THEM to adapt to denmark, and not the other way arround. |
If the next time the patriarch mucks up we know what to tell him...right ?
Hades - February 9, 2006 01:38 PM (GMT)
This thread is just one step (ok, maybe a few) before being locked, am really waiting for the very next post...
Valen_gr - February 9, 2006 04:07 PM (GMT)
The patriarch is not asking that muslims change, he is not asking that turkey change, he is not asking for turkish press, laws or anything turkish to change.
The protestors in denmark are, they want the newspapers to cater to their whims.
The patriarch is basically a turkish citizen, who wishes to be allowed to follow his faith unmolested. Just like the muslims in denmark are allowed to follow and practice their faith unmolested.
Re: hades,
Some posts may be a bit heated, but this still is an interesting topic, would be a shame to have it locked.
Maybe if everyone refrained from smart ass comments like the post above me, but rather expressed only fully formed opinions, it would be nicer.
And kizir, where in my posts did i say that the danes should throw out the muslims because they werent the majority?
Turkey threw the greeks out for totally different reasons.
Honestly, i dont understand your comment about greeks and the majority.
Anyway, i still believe that certain muslims arround the world are over-reacting to extreme extents, and are only making matters worse.
Talks about dragging the holocaust into this is just a disaster waiting to happen.
I am not at all happy about this happening now, but it was only a matter of time brefore it happened.
To be honest, i am surprised it didnt happen sooner. I mean after all, we have witnessed a number of cases of fanatical behaviour from certain fringe elements within the muslim world like kindappings and beheadings and whatnot, it was bound to happen that some right wing publication would take a shot at muslims.
It is to be expected in a society where freedom of press is liberally used.
British tabloids for example, print prety much anything short of hardcore porn.
It just goes to show how poorely prepared both europe and the muslim world were for something that was bound to happen.
Also, what strikes me, is the apparent great lack of muslim leaders appealing for cooler heads and a peacefull non violent solution.
Only someone from canada and some other place spoke out against all the rioting and extreme behaviour.
I would have expected a larger percentage of the muslim inteligensia to use the influence of their voices to calm things down, and show them for what they really are, which after all, it started as a newspaper publication, not a europe wide crusade against muslims as it is now perceived.
:damn:
The protestors in denmark are, they want the newspapers to cater to their whims.
The patriarch is basically a turkish citizen, who wishes to be allowed to follow his faith unmolested. Just like the muslims in denmark are allowed to follow and practice their faith unmolested.
Re: hades,
Some posts may be a bit heated, but this still is an interesting topic, would be a shame to have it locked.
Maybe if everyone refrained from smart ass comments like the post above me, but rather expressed only fully formed opinions, it would be nicer.
And kizir, where in my posts did i say that the danes should throw out the muslims because they werent the majority?
Turkey threw the greeks out for totally different reasons.
Honestly, i dont understand your comment about greeks and the majority.
Anyway, i still believe that certain muslims arround the world are over-reacting to extreme extents, and are only making matters worse.
Talks about dragging the holocaust into this is just a disaster waiting to happen.
I am not at all happy about this happening now, but it was only a matter of time brefore it happened.
To be honest, i am surprised it didnt happen sooner. I mean after all, we have witnessed a number of cases of fanatical behaviour from certain fringe elements within the muslim world like kindappings and beheadings and whatnot, it was bound to happen that some right wing publication would take a shot at muslims.
It is to be expected in a society where freedom of press is liberally used.
British tabloids for example, print prety much anything short of hardcore porn.
It just goes to show how poorely prepared both europe and the muslim world were for something that was bound to happen.
Also, what strikes me, is the apparent great lack of muslim leaders appealing for cooler heads and a peacefull non violent solution.
Only someone from canada and some other place spoke out against all the rioting and extreme behaviour.
I would have expected a larger percentage of the muslim inteligensia to use the influence of their voices to calm things down, and show them for what they really are, which after all, it started as a newspaper publication, not a europe wide crusade against muslims as it is now perceived.
:damn:
Valen_gr - February 9, 2006 04:15 PM (GMT)
errrrr, forgot that hades post was between mine and kizir, so, not post above me, rather the one above that, :rolleyes:
Kiziroglu - February 9, 2006 04:52 PM (GMT)
my dear Valen read what Pytheus posted and then think about basic rights that is granted by the constitution of EVERY democratic state...
They don't have to adapt anything because that would be to synchronise everybody and everything...they can life like they want BUT (and this i don't deny!) in the frame of the constitution! If you look carefully you will see the difference.
And to life after the law means also to be protected by the law...l
you can look what your constitution says about it... i posted it in another read...
look for article 14...
I bet in Denmark is something similar that protects groups (religious, political etc.) from harassment and offence. Criticism (as an instrument of the free speech) is of course also allowed and even fundamental in a open society but i don't see constructive criticism by just insulting people! The freedom of art is the same case. You can make what you want till it insults other people!
Now to the article in Denmark...there are some quotes that the danish newspaper rejected caricatures of Jesus (some month before they published the ones with Mohammed) with the reason that their readers won't like it! So is this double standart or not ? When the so open minded christians and democrats (it seems some greek forumers equate this two points...) can't handle it why the muslimes in third world countries with no real education system should do it?
And what makes me most angry is that these guys put oil into the fire ! We are recently in critic times and then such stuff!
They don't have to adapt anything because that would be to synchronise everybody and everything...they can life like they want BUT (and this i don't deny!) in the frame of the constitution! If you look carefully you will see the difference.
And to life after the law means also to be protected by the law...l
you can look what your constitution says about it... i posted it in another read...
look for article 14...
I bet in Denmark is something similar that protects groups (religious, political etc.) from harassment and offence. Criticism (as an instrument of the free speech) is of course also allowed and even fundamental in a open society but i don't see constructive criticism by just insulting people! The freedom of art is the same case. You can make what you want till it insults other people!
Now to the article in Denmark...there are some quotes that the danish newspaper rejected caricatures of Jesus (some month before they published the ones with Mohammed) with the reason that their readers won't like it! So is this double standart or not ? When the so open minded christians and democrats (it seems some greek forumers equate this two points...) can't handle it why the muslimes in third world countries with no real education system should do it?
And what makes me most angry is that these guys put oil into the fire ! We are recently in critic times and then such stuff!
Valen_gr - February 9, 2006 05:25 PM (GMT)
You raise some interesting points.
Where does freedom of speech end and where does protection of minorities begin? (in any article in the danish constitution that may exist, you dont know and neither do i, but lets assume it exists)
That is a whole problem unto itself.
One might say that protecting minorities had other stuff in mind, like equal rights to public life, state benefits, education and other basic stuff.
To claim that such an article shouldl prevent a newspaper publishing something that is offensive to one minority or another is up for debate.
And i still support what pytheus said and what i said.
Yes it is up to whatever muslims living in denmark to adapt to denmark.
~By this i dont mean to conform and turnhimself into a nice obedient danish robot, but rather to continue cherishing his/her unique and distinct cultural aspects WITHOUT coming into conflict with the danish state of affairs.
The danish state does not prohibit many things, like muslims living in denmark, or practicing their faith, or any number of religious things. It also donsent prohibit newspapers from messing arround with ANY religion.
It is up to the muslims living in denmark to understand that in denmark, a newspaper may do this, while in Iran it may not. That he should come to expect some differences between the two countries.
This is what i mean adapt. Accept the differences, and try to do the best.
Same as when a western woman visits saudi arabia, she accepts that things are different, that she will just HAVE to cover her face. She dosent try to change saudi law. Same, muslims should just accept that yes, in europe we have all kinds of press, bad press, trashy press, you name it press.
And they should also accept that they are free to print tons and tons of trash too. They should aslo accept that that is how things are in europe, and that they should not VIOLENTLY demand that EUROPE change.
I hope you see the analogy.
Although rumours are rife, even if what you say about the danish newspaper refusing to publish christian caricatures is true, so what? how does this change anything?
The world isnt a fair place. The owner of the newspaper may be a complete pig for all we know. He made a double standard choice, and decided to bash one religion and not the other. He has every RIGHT to do so.
Same as a muslim in denmark has the right to own a paper and publish cartoons of god. Plenty of other newspapers do that on a daily basis already anyway.
Whether or not the newspaper in question was right, wrong, politically correct or whatever is completely irrelevant. It had the right to do what it did, and that is the end of it.
Sure, it was massively unpopular amongst muslims.
Now, that part aside, it CERTAINLY does not excuse all the deaths and violence and hatred that followed, and by the looks of things will continue for some time still.
On a side note, i seriously doubt that any danish court would convict the newspaper of harrasment. The paper will claim that it does not follow an anti muslim campaign, that it only published ONCE a series of muslim inspired cartoons based on the theme of current world affairs, and that they were humour expressed through art, and that they conveyed certain thoughts and views.Sure, may sound like BS, but harrasment has the trait of something continuous and stressing.
I highly doubt that this newspaper will continue to print this stuff.
Anyway.
I say muslims in europe should be more tolerant of our flagrant european press, accept that we have some excellent press along with a ton of really TRASHY press, and that they all enjoy the same freedom of speech liberties.
They should also refrain from going all apeshit on a global scale every time some half wit says something offensive. It is just SOOOO not worth it.
It actually damages the image muslims have, since half the world now is actually trying to actually believe that all this is actually happening over some newspaper cartoons in some obscure newspaper in denmark........
Where does freedom of speech end and where does protection of minorities begin? (in any article in the danish constitution that may exist, you dont know and neither do i, but lets assume it exists)
That is a whole problem unto itself.
One might say that protecting minorities had other stuff in mind, like equal rights to public life, state benefits, education and other basic stuff.
To claim that such an article shouldl prevent a newspaper publishing something that is offensive to one minority or another is up for debate.
And i still support what pytheus said and what i said.
Yes it is up to whatever muslims living in denmark to adapt to denmark.
~By this i dont mean to conform and turnhimself into a nice obedient danish robot, but rather to continue cherishing his/her unique and distinct cultural aspects WITHOUT coming into conflict with the danish state of affairs.
The danish state does not prohibit many things, like muslims living in denmark, or practicing their faith, or any number of religious things. It also donsent prohibit newspapers from messing arround with ANY religion.
It is up to the muslims living in denmark to understand that in denmark, a newspaper may do this, while in Iran it may not. That he should come to expect some differences between the two countries.
This is what i mean adapt. Accept the differences, and try to do the best.
Same as when a western woman visits saudi arabia, she accepts that things are different, that she will just HAVE to cover her face. She dosent try to change saudi law. Same, muslims should just accept that yes, in europe we have all kinds of press, bad press, trashy press, you name it press.
And they should also accept that they are free to print tons and tons of trash too. They should aslo accept that that is how things are in europe, and that they should not VIOLENTLY demand that EUROPE change.
I hope you see the analogy.
Although rumours are rife, even if what you say about the danish newspaper refusing to publish christian caricatures is true, so what? how does this change anything?
The world isnt a fair place. The owner of the newspaper may be a complete pig for all we know. He made a double standard choice, and decided to bash one religion and not the other. He has every RIGHT to do so.
Same as a muslim in denmark has the right to own a paper and publish cartoons of god. Plenty of other newspapers do that on a daily basis already anyway.
Whether or not the newspaper in question was right, wrong, politically correct or whatever is completely irrelevant. It had the right to do what it did, and that is the end of it.
Sure, it was massively unpopular amongst muslims.
Now, that part aside, it CERTAINLY does not excuse all the deaths and violence and hatred that followed, and by the looks of things will continue for some time still.
On a side note, i seriously doubt that any danish court would convict the newspaper of harrasment. The paper will claim that it does not follow an anti muslim campaign, that it only published ONCE a series of muslim inspired cartoons based on the theme of current world affairs, and that they were humour expressed through art, and that they conveyed certain thoughts and views.Sure, may sound like BS, but harrasment has the trait of something continuous and stressing.
I highly doubt that this newspaper will continue to print this stuff.
Anyway.
I say muslims in europe should be more tolerant of our flagrant european press, accept that we have some excellent press along with a ton of really TRASHY press, and that they all enjoy the same freedom of speech liberties.
They should also refrain from going all apeshit on a global scale every time some half wit says something offensive. It is just SOOOO not worth it.
It actually damages the image muslims have, since half the world now is actually trying to actually believe that all this is actually happening over some newspaper cartoons in some obscure newspaper in denmark........
cameleon1975 - February 9, 2006 05:29 PM (GMT)
What double standarts?Where is the proof that caricatures of Christ aren't published?If you make a reseach on the net you will fnd tons of them!
In these last days i have spoken with moderate Muslims (mostly Libanese guys).There were not happy about those caricatures but its not a big deal for them.
They told me that it is very common in Arabic states that the religious leaders,in order to get rid of someone who stands in their way to get more power,accuse him falsely to have insulted the prophet or the q'ran,etc....the rest is made by the fanatical crowd.
So I guess,the danish case is something similar,just on larger scale....
In these last days i have spoken with moderate Muslims (mostly Libanese guys).There were not happy about those caricatures but its not a big deal for them.
They told me that it is very common in Arabic states that the religious leaders,in order to get rid of someone who stands in their way to get more power,accuse him falsely to have insulted the prophet or the q'ran,etc....the rest is made by the fanatical crowd.
So I guess,the danish case is something similar,just on larger scale....
delenda_est_carthago - February 9, 2006 06:04 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (cameleon1975 @ Feb 9 2006, 07:29 PM) |
| What double standarts?Where is the proof that caricatures of Christ aren't published?If you make a reseach on the net you will fnd tons of them! |
Yes there is proof. It was even on spiegel online, which is as serious as it gets. This particular danish paper refused to publish the christ caricatures in order not to offend its readers. It is double standards from this particular danish paper, there is no doubt of that.
Kiziroglu - February 9, 2006 06:11 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| What double standarts?Where is the proof that caricatures of Christ aren't published?If you make a reseach on the net you will fnd tons of them! |
Read what i wrote! In this particular paper called Jyllands-Posten! The one that printed the ones of Mohammed!
| QUOTE |
| I say muslims in europe should be more tolerant of our flagrant european press |
Valen do you know whats the main problem not only with the caricatures but with the total immigration debate? It is the first time that these modern constitution are postulated in their very form! Immigrantion and people from different countries, culture areas, religions etc. are taking their rights that are granted by these constitutions...thats the greatest challenge ever happened!
Its one thing if you grant a female black, disabled, homosexual, muslime & finally communist her rights on a paper and something different to allow her to appreciatethem in pratice...
And like we saw in the last decades there are differences between reallity can claims.
But again to the caricatures...whats the message ? Whats the deeper expression of these caricatures ? What they archieve ? Nothing but insulting other people.
People that aren't guilty.
Look if they would make a caricature of some islam terrorist well thats ok because there is a message and a contructive ciriticism in it.
The freedom of art also includes shocking i.e. once an "artist" took a bunch of **** on table in a museum (or so...i didn't remember) and well it shocked the public but... hey! it was art ! and no one was insulted (maybe the cows on the fields but animals rights aren't here the issue)! Its not about Insulting innocent people!
| QUOTE |
| It also donsent prohibit newspapers from messing arround with ANY religion. |
Even if they lie ? If they instigate the people ? Make propaganda etc. ?
They are also bound on the laws. No census doesn't mean that they are free to print what they want!
But i'm tired and well maybe tomorrow the rest....
Ps you can read and write in english ? You can use a PC and knew how to start IE ? Well then just type www.google.com and then there "danish consitution"... easy as it seams ;) .... the danish have the "common" article...
modus - February 10, 2006 10:16 AM (GMT)
The basic thing friends, IMHO, is to keep inter-community communication and exchange open at all times. This crisis can mostly be attributed to the stubborn denial of Danish government to receive NGOs, community-leaders, diplomatic missions for 3 months after publication of cartoons. Where the communication and thus mutual understanding and compromise cease to exist, extremists in both sides will find better means and liberty to maneouver.
The questions as to integration vs. assimilation etc can only be discussed and tacit results could be obtained therefrom if we have a communication medium which provides equal involvement of parties.
The questions as to integration vs. assimilation etc can only be discussed and tacit results could be obtained therefrom if we have a communication medium which provides equal involvement of parties.
cameleon1975 - February 10, 2006 11:41 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Kiziroglu @ Feb 9 2006, 08:11 PM) | ||
Read what i wrote! In this particular paper called Jyllands-Posten! The one that printed the ones of Mohammed! |
So that makes ALL of Europe anti-Islamists?Because ONE newspaper has double standarts?
I don't even care for that particular newspaper.They can apologise if they feel so.And its their right not to do so.
Kiziroglu - February 10, 2006 11:59 AM (GMT)
Nope but all the ones who defend them because they did know or didn't know what this paper did with the Jesus cartoons !
cameleon1975 - February 10, 2006 12:26 PM (GMT)
Defending the newspaper is one thing(and isn't that important).
Defending their right to publish whatever they want(and this is what matters!)
Defending their right to publish whatever they want(and this is what matters!)
delenda_est_carthago - February 10, 2006 01:07 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (cameleon1975 @ Feb 10 2006, 02:26 PM) |
| Defending the newspaper is one thing(and isn't that important). Defending their right to publish whatever they want(and this is what matters!) |
Nope. The rejection of jesus-caricatures clearly indicates that the purpose of publishing the Mohammed-caricatures was to deliberately provoke the muslims and insult and the muslim belief system. That is what you and the papers that have shown solidarity with the danish paper are defending. Not the freedom of expression, but the freedom to insult belief systems and to provoke religious hatred.
cameleon1975 - February 10, 2006 02:35 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (delenda_est_carthago @ Feb 10 2006, 03:07 PM) | ||
Nope. The rejection of jesus-caricatures clearly indicates that the purpose of publishing the Mohammed-caricatures was to deliberately provoke the muslims and insult and the muslim belief system. That is what you and the papers that have shown solidarity with the danish paper are defending. Not the freedom of expression, but the freedom to insult belief systems and to provoke religious hatred. |
Sorry,but thats exactly the propaganda the Imams are using : The Christians and the West in general hates us(as much we hate them).So keep hating them (and ignore your real problems).
123-t - February 10, 2006 02:55 PM (GMT)
1.We have the situation of a globalized community.
2.The need to communicate between different cultural groups arises.
3.Information transferred through the written way often doesnt attain the appropriate resonance in the public. The way over photographic communication enables more societal groups the participation in the process of communication. And it often stimulates more vibrant discussions.
4. Was therefore the caricature more an attempt to communicate with the immigrant population, was the target audience more the muslim than the "indigenous" population ?
So was the conflict only a conflict that can be produced in a globalized world, in a world where different cultures live in a nationalistic structure, to some extent, a former guarantor of unity ?
5. was it a desperate actions against globalization, a fear of diversity ?
2.The need to communicate between different cultural groups arises.
3.Information transferred through the written way often doesnt attain the appropriate resonance in the public. The way over photographic communication enables more societal groups the participation in the process of communication. And it often stimulates more vibrant discussions.
4. Was therefore the caricature more an attempt to communicate with the immigrant population, was the target audience more the muslim than the "indigenous" population ?
So was the conflict only a conflict that can be produced in a globalized world, in a world where different cultures live in a nationalistic structure, to some extent, a former guarantor of unity ?
5. was it a desperate actions against globalization, a fear of diversity ?
123-t - February 12, 2006 10:16 AM (GMT)
Freedom of Speech and Mentality
That various European newspapers published the cartoons, after the Danish daily, puts the difference between the West and the Islamic world in the freedom of speech perspective clearly.
It is beneficial to underscore that these two parties, naturally, do not have homogeneous structures. While many European newspapers with various political tendencies chose not to publish the cartoons, an argument in a Jordanian publication that tolerance for the cartoons should be preferred over a global conflict was striking. To treat it as a political analysis, we have to say that the intellectual and spiritual atmosphere in the West carries the risk of paving the way for imprudence. The Western world, unable to encompass without assimilating the ”others,” now is trying to ”expel” the same ”others” because of their spiritual identity.
On the other hand, to what extent do Muslims have the right to react violently due to their perception of the cartoons as an attack on their religious values? The essence of the matter is much more than the reactions involving violence… Because the political trends in the Islamic world present and legitimize themselves by means of religious expressions. Surprisingly, a Westerner expresses this politics through religious symbols and refers metaphors identifying this politics with the religion itself. We should not forget that the Western press has not turned such an attitude into a habit…Despite the existence of Muslims, who, for a very long period of time, have not assimilated into the European society, such an event did not take place in Europe. But if you advocate violence as a part of the politics and if the use of violence in this politics continues in the name of faith, it is absurd to await respect for your sacred values from the opposite side.
The further we go to the heart of the matter, the more we face this fundamental issue: The concept of freedom and of the “freedom of expression” that is central to this issue would make sense within a certain frame of mind. In other words, if there is a divergence of mindset between two cultures, their conceptions of freedom -- how and according to what those cultures tend to limit freedom -- will also differ from each other. What is critical is that both cultures would be “right” from their own angles in the event of a discord or tension… The Muslim world is “right” when the cartoons are looked at from the perspective of Muslims, since the patriarchal mindset that also covers religiosity allows reality to be conceived of as a web of spiritual values that is beyond human cognizance. In this way, the “essence” of reality gains a quality that man will never be enough to decode; and this essence becomes holy when such attitude is put into effect in a religious context. It is of course this sanctity that will specify the limits to the freedom of expression, because what is there beyond those limits will be illegal in terms of human nature.
For the “enlightened” Western world that is looking at the world through the lens of a relativist mindset, reality in fact is both material and accessible. In this respect, no instances of reality are venerable, and it is only man himself that can really set the limits of the freedom of expression. Meanwhile, human beings cannot be compared with each other, and an essential link based on supremacy cannot exist among them. That is why one of the most genuine freedoms one is granted is using any part of the all-embracing reality as the basis in forming a set of opinions.
The conundrums caused by the circumstances set for cohabitation are impossible to resolve as long as mentality differences keep growing, and disparities between different parties continue to exist. That is why there is a real need for a democratic perspective: Being a democratic person requires taking the other’s sentiments and perception as a value; it also requires defining as well as constructing freedom from within unity… Regrettably, both sides in the ongoing quarrel are far from this particular level of appreciation.
January 10, 2005
11.02.2006
ETYEN MAHCUPYAN
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=columnists&alt=&hn=29638
That various European newspapers published the cartoons, after the Danish daily, puts the difference between the West and the Islamic world in the freedom of speech perspective clearly.
It is beneficial to underscore that these two parties, naturally, do not have homogeneous structures. While many European newspapers with various political tendencies chose not to publish the cartoons, an argument in a Jordanian publication that tolerance for the cartoons should be preferred over a global conflict was striking. To treat it as a political analysis, we have to say that the intellectual and spiritual atmosphere in the West carries the risk of paving the way for imprudence. The Western world, unable to encompass without assimilating the ”others,” now is trying to ”expel” the same ”others” because of their spiritual identity.
On the other hand, to what extent do Muslims have the right to react violently due to their perception of the cartoons as an attack on their religious values? The essence of the matter is much more than the reactions involving violence… Because the political trends in the Islamic world present and legitimize themselves by means of religious expressions. Surprisingly, a Westerner expresses this politics through religious symbols and refers metaphors identifying this politics with the religion itself. We should not forget that the Western press has not turned such an attitude into a habit…Despite the existence of Muslims, who, for a very long period of time, have not assimilated into the European society, such an event did not take place in Europe. But if you advocate violence as a part of the politics and if the use of violence in this politics continues in the name of faith, it is absurd to await respect for your sacred values from the opposite side.
The further we go to the heart of the matter, the more we face this fundamental issue: The concept of freedom and of the “freedom of expression” that is central to this issue would make sense within a certain frame of mind. In other words, if there is a divergence of mindset between two cultures, their conceptions of freedom -- how and according to what those cultures tend to limit freedom -- will also differ from each other. What is critical is that both cultures would be “right” from their own angles in the event of a discord or tension… The Muslim world is “right” when the cartoons are looked at from the perspective of Muslims, since the patriarchal mindset that also covers religiosity allows reality to be conceived of as a web of spiritual values that is beyond human cognizance. In this way, the “essence” of reality gains a quality that man will never be enough to decode; and this essence becomes holy when such attitude is put into effect in a religious context. It is of course this sanctity that will specify the limits to the freedom of expression, because what is there beyond those limits will be illegal in terms of human nature.
For the “enlightened” Western world that is looking at the world through the lens of a relativist mindset, reality in fact is both material and accessible. In this respect, no instances of reality are venerable, and it is only man himself that can really set the limits of the freedom of expression. Meanwhile, human beings cannot be compared with each other, and an essential link based on supremacy cannot exist among them. That is why one of the most genuine freedoms one is granted is using any part of the all-embracing reality as the basis in forming a set of opinions.
The conundrums caused by the circumstances set for cohabitation are impossible to resolve as long as mentality differences keep growing, and disparities between different parties continue to exist. That is why there is a real need for a democratic perspective: Being a democratic person requires taking the other’s sentiments and perception as a value; it also requires defining as well as constructing freedom from within unity… Regrettably, both sides in the ongoing quarrel are far from this particular level of appreciation.
January 10, 2005
11.02.2006
ETYEN MAHCUPYAN
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=columnists&alt=&hn=29638
Mystik - February 12, 2006 10:42 AM (GMT)
:thumbsup: 123-t
Spartan - February 16, 2006 07:31 AM (GMT)
Free speech seems to be drowning under the VICTIM CULTURE that is gripping our world. ANY and EVERY group on the planet that does not like what others say about it potrays itself as "sufferers". Those groups proclaim that ANY negative or unflatering opinion is demeaning their "Holocaust of suffering" or their holy and devine beliefs. This is nothing more then an attempt to stifle others opinions, or worse yet, to censor others.
Having said all that...........
Tolerance does not mean disrespect and respect does not mean censorship. It is this very narrow line where CIVILIZED and INTELLEGENT discussion must walk.
Having said all that...........
Tolerance does not mean disrespect and respect does not mean censorship. It is this very narrow line where CIVILIZED and INTELLEGENT discussion must walk.
Lord - February 16, 2006 08:20 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| It is this very narrow line where CIVILIZED and INTELLEGENT discussion must walk. |
@Spartan what do you think about the situation in here ? should we discuss this issue further ?
I mean we stoped some member of exaggerations...not out of desrespect to there opinions...but out of getting to much...of the same BS...
Maybe it wasnt the most Democratic decision...But shurely it was the most secure...
Whats your opinion?
digenis - February 16, 2006 03:57 PM (GMT)
Theo,
You didn't ask my opinion, but I'll jump in. ;)
This forum should respect every democratic principle (including freedom of speech), while at the same time not losing focus of its objective. I am under the impression that the aim of the forum is to share accurate information regarding military and political matters affecting Hellas and Turkey. Perhaps the objective should be clearly defined and posted on the main screen/home page.
If the forum has a clearly defined objective, then it should place limitations on activity that distracts from that objective. This includes off-topic discussions, insulting language, "flame-baiting", etc.
With regard to the specific matter of the cartoons, I found them somewhat off-topic as it had very limited political implications on either nation. The resulting demonstrations and violence in Turkey were however relevant (as they contained extensive anti-Hellenic and anti-Christian acts).
You didn't ask my opinion, but I'll jump in. ;)
This forum should respect every democratic principle (including freedom of speech), while at the same time not losing focus of its objective. I am under the impression that the aim of the forum is to share accurate information regarding military and political matters affecting Hellas and Turkey. Perhaps the objective should be clearly defined and posted on the main screen/home page.
If the forum has a clearly defined objective, then it should place limitations on activity that distracts from that objective. This includes off-topic discussions, insulting language, "flame-baiting", etc.
With regard to the specific matter of the cartoons, I found them somewhat off-topic as it had very limited political implications on either nation. The resulting demonstrations and violence in Turkey were however relevant (as they contained extensive anti-Hellenic and anti-Christian acts).
Lord - February 17, 2006 08:58 AM (GMT)
Ok Dion...I understood your point.
Regards :thumbsup:
Regards :thumbsup:
Thermopyles - February 17, 2006 04:20 PM (GMT)
I agree with Spartan on this one. I will also add a couple of comments, sisnce I don't see a more important issue than freedom of expression here, or anywhere. For the cartoon topic, or any topic.
When I say I support free speach I don't mean one can come in and literaly say every stupid thing on his mind, but rather say any point, veiw or aspect he sees. So for me, the freedom is not necessarily the right to say what you want, but the right to express any beliefe or view in an intelligent, respectful and/or reasonable/supported manner. Its not what is said that matters, it is the manner in which its said.
And I will also quote a true great American on this, as this seems very fitting to our times regardless of which country we live in:
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither"
-Benjamin Franklin
When I say I support free speach I don't mean one can come in and literaly say every stupid thing on his mind, but rather say any point, veiw or aspect he sees. So for me, the freedom is not necessarily the right to say what you want, but the right to express any beliefe or view in an intelligent, respectful and/or reasonable/supported manner. Its not what is said that matters, it is the manner in which its said.
And I will also quote a true great American on this, as this seems very fitting to our times regardless of which country we live in:
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither"
-Benjamin Franklin
Spartan - February 17, 2006 11:41 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Lord @ Feb 16 2006, 04:20 AM) | ||
@Spartan what do you think about the situation in here ? should we discuss this issue further ? I mean we stoped some member of exaggerations...not out of desrespect to there opinions...but out of getting to much...of the same BS... Maybe it wasnt the most Democratic decision...But shurely it was the most secure... Whats your opinion? |
Dear Theo,
You have a very capable administration team and I am sure that you have arrived at a democratic decision that will be for the best interest of all forumers.
Just remember one thing, democracy can also be a tyranny of the majority over the individual. Democratic rule must give great weight to principals for the individual. On the other hand, the individual can not hide behind principals in order cause harm to another individual or the many.
Spartan - February 17, 2006 11:57 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Thermopyles @ Feb 17 2006, 12:20 PM) |
| I agree with Spartan on this one. I will also add a couple of comments, sisnce I don't see a more important issue than freedom of expression here, or anywhere. For the cartoon topic, or any topic. When I say I support free speach I don't mean one can come in and literaly say every stupid thing on his mind, but rather say any point, veiw or aspect he sees. So for me, the freedom is not necessarily the right to say what you want, but the right to express any beliefe or view in an intelligent, respectful and/or reasonable/supported manner. Its not what is said that matters, it is the manner in which its said. And I will also quote a true great American on this, as this seems very fitting to our times regardless of which country we live in: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither" -Benjamin Franklin |
Exactly Thermo.
ANYTHING can be discussed by reasonable man. Everything MUST be discussed by reasonable man. After all, discussions brings forth understanding and understanding is what makes man reasonable and tolerant.
Lord - February 20, 2006 05:37 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| Just remember one thing, democracy can also be a tyranny of the majority over the individual. Democratic rule must give great weight to principals for the individual. On the other hand, the individual can not hide behind principals in order cause harm to another individual or the many |
+1 Spartan...
That said..we as a team considered,regarding the threats of Pytheas about the Cartoons...Giving the whole Turkish members a 2 week holiday from the forum...rather to ban Pytheas for bringing this issue inside the forum... :lol:
But it worked quite the opposite way...except a very few...the most members in here haid the same opinion...about the issue...conclusion..there must be more respect in sensitev issues and themes...from the media...and it has nothing to do with freedom of speach...But mostly with respect to the others view/life/believes..especially in matters of religion...
Regards
Spartan - February 22, 2006 05:29 AM (GMT)
If the moderating team had banned a member for bringing up a sensitive issue, then they would be censors. A dirty word in my mind.
If the moderating team banned a member for crossing over the line to harassment and baiting, then they did their job. A proper action in my mind.
Then again, by all accounts, I lost my mind a long time ago....... :hammer:
If the moderating team banned a member for crossing over the line to harassment and baiting, then they did their job. A proper action in my mind.
Then again, by all accounts, I lost my mind a long time ago....... :hammer:
Nikephoros - February 16, 2007 04:51 PM (GMT)
The Pact to Be Accorded to Non-Muslim Subjects(Eighth to Ninth Centuries)
... "If any one of you speaks improperly of Muhammad, may God bless and save him, the Book of God, or of His religion, he forfeits the protection [dhimma] of God, of the Commander of the Faithful, and of all the Muslims; he has contravened the conditions upon which he was given his safe-conduct; his property and his life are at the disposal of the Commander of the Faithful, like the property and lives of the people of the house of war [dar al-harb]."
Lewis, Bernard(editor and translator). Islam: from the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople: Volume II Religion and Society. Harper& Row, New York; 1974, 220.
from Al-Shafi i, Kitab al-Umm p. 118-119
There is also alot of verses in the Koran of a similar vein which is why in the first place muslim jurists like Al-Shafi i have even taken up the issue above and codified in law such things and applied them as terms for conquered people of the Book to be allowed to exist.
I hope alot of business and political leaders across Europe are happy that for whatever short term gains they think they would receive, they have allowed communities with views unchanged from the middle ages to proliferate.
... "If any one of you speaks improperly of Muhammad, may God bless and save him, the Book of God, or of His religion, he forfeits the protection [dhimma] of God, of the Commander of the Faithful, and of all the Muslims; he has contravened the conditions upon which he was given his safe-conduct; his property and his life are at the disposal of the Commander of the Faithful, like the property and lives of the people of the house of war [dar al-harb]."
Lewis, Bernard(editor and translator). Islam: from the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople: Volume II Religion and Society. Harper& Row, New York; 1974, 220.
from Al-Shafi i, Kitab al-Umm p. 118-119
There is also alot of verses in the Koran of a similar vein which is why in the first place muslim jurists like Al-Shafi i have even taken up the issue above and codified in law such things and applied them as terms for conquered people of the Book to be allowed to exist.
I hope alot of business and political leaders across Europe are happy that for whatever short term gains they think they would receive, they have allowed communities with views unchanged from the middle ages to proliferate.
Thermopyles - February 17, 2007 03:33 AM (GMT)
Nikifore, I really cannot disagree much with you, but I don't see any different, methodical and practical way to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Yes we Europeans are peace-loving people, and don't want to fight. We leaned our lesson well. BUT this should not make people think that if we are pushed in the wrong way we will not react with full force. The world knows what we can do, and they would be smart not to push us too far...