Time for a Tuborg
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the prime minister of Denmark, told the Danish newspaper Politiken that the issue had gone beyond a row between Copenhagen and the Muslim world and now centred on western free speech versus taboos in Islam. He said: “We are talking about an issue with fundamental significance to how democracies work.”And a block of Halvarti and time to play with some Lego. Various whacked out Islamists – not content with trying to ban Piglet – have got their knickers knotted over a bunch of Danish cartoons. Boycotts, a day of anger, “a clash of civilizations”.
telegraph
OK, here’s the deal. In Western, non-medieval, liberal, democratic countries you can publish cartoons which are, frankly, offensive. We are grown ups and we can deal with it. Note to the Islamists – you are not grown ups if you are going to have a tantrum when your sky God or his Prophet take a hit. However, you have a choice: leave.
The rest of the Muslim population are very welcome to stay. But on our terms, not the terms of a misty caliphate or some lunatic in a cave or illiberal Koranic interpreter who believes that the 13th century was as good as it got.
Update: A Muslim who gets it Kamal Nawash Thanks Kathy.
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:17 pm
You are not suggesting people are not allowed to protest things you disagree with, are you? Do you think this reported in the Globe is wrong:
“”We are not terrorists, we are not anarchists, but we are against those people who blaspheme Islam,” one of the Indonesian protesters shouted outside the building, which also houses several other foreign missions. The demonstrators, who wore white Arabic-style robes, pelted the building with eggs before pushing their way past security guards into the building’s plush lobby.”
My God. Egging. Next they’ll be poisoning the water supply.
February 3rd, 2006 at 10:20 pm
I point out that any image of Mohammed – even positive ones – is blasphemous. It’s going to upset all Moslems, even the most moderate ones, not just the religious extremists.
This is like dumping a bible in the toilet or setting it on fire. I think that a lot of Christians would react poorly to that, and not just the fundies either.
I guess if we were American secularists, I could compare this to someone taking a dump on the Constitution. I’m not sure we have a secular Canadian equivalent. (Which is probably just as well.)
[Note that I’m not actually against the publishing of the images – I just think that those who do should recognize the kind of pot that they are stirring – and that they are responsible for their decisions. If you set someone’s pants on fire, they’re going to be a little pissed at you.]
February 3rd, 2006 at 11:41 pm
They aren’t protesting it. They are calling for a ban on it aren’t they? Two different things in my mind.
February 4th, 2006 at 1:56 am
Protest by all means. Be offended. Write a letter to the editor. Start a blog.
But you do not take over the EU offices in Gaza at gunpoint.
Deanna, in Islam it is considered idolatrous to depict any living thing artistically. Great. I have no trouble at all with that. And if the cartoonist was Muslim I am sure he would get a stern talking to – and perhaps a good old fashioned stoning – at his local mosque. However, in a liberal democracy you are not allowed to impose you religious views on people who are not members of your religion. We essentially say that free speech trumps religion.
Personally I would not be particularily offended if the Bible was set on fire or the American Constitution or flag shat upon. People have strong views and, from time to time, they think they must bring these views to the attention of others with what they believe are acts which will outrage. In my view that is their right. Just as it is my right to treat them as the publicity seeking losers they almost always are.
Until the Islamists understand this they are best off in their own, sad, countries trying to figure out how to bring the 13th century to life.
February 4th, 2006 at 2:27 am
Not to glib, but sometimes I wonder if (for Gaza) taking over an office at gunpoint is not unlike a 60s’ university sit-in. Otherwise, I think the protests are fairly market driving. Egging in Indonesia is only terror against chickens and throwing out Danish butter is the equivalent of the boycott of South African wine before the release of Nelson.
But I apologize for the pre-caffienated state of my opening sentence up above. It is too broad in its hyperbole and, so, unfit for civilized blog scholarship.
February 4th, 2006 at 4:24 am
“The Muslims” did NOT try to “ban piglet.” The latter was a case of major over-sensitivity by non-Muslims in England. A bit like refusing airtime to Lennon because some Southern Baptists complained.
Publication of these cartoons was deliberately provocative. Guess what? Some people were provoked. What a surprise.
February 4th, 2006 at 5:58 am
Bah, bunch of bandwagon jumpers. I was posting Mohammed photoshops back when it was uncool (under the Liberal regime) and unsafe to do so.
Poseurs.
Those of us on the vanguard of free speech are entirely unimpressed with the n00bs.
February 4th, 2006 at 6:11 am
“Some people were provoked.”
Yep. And they’re free to be as incoherently angry as they please, so long as they don’t infringe anyone else’s freedoms. And if they choose that latter path, the infringed may do as they please to put a stop to it.
February 4th, 2006 at 6:44 am
LOL IrC. You’ve summed up the essential values of liberal democracy.