I don’t know that I want to hijack this thread in that direction, so I’ll just say your point is well taken, though I feel that the scale and degree are on two completely different levels. But, I just wish we could all just get along.
At the very least, it proves the Iranian government is no better than the Danes they are angry with.
The whole debacle is steeped with mind-boggling hypocrisy, so why not this too?
Y’know, I hate to say it, but the Iranian government has got a point. Cartoons denying the Holocaust would be illegal in Europe, right? The European government’s defense that they don’t prevent the presses from publishing odious crap doesn’t really hold true.
A brave European paper would reprint the odious Holocaust-denying cartoons and make it into a court case.
Daniel
Wrong - it’s only illegal in certain European countries.
Yes, it does, because as far as I can tell, the restriction is not one imposed by central European government.
I agree with you. However, several newspapers which reprinted the original cartoons did so stating that they were doing so to reaffirm their right to print offensive material. Iran is simply taking them at their word and saying, OK, if you reprinted it just out of the principle and not out of any sort of malice towards Islam here are a bunch of cartoons patently offensive to Jews - reprint these, too. It’s a very good way to make their point - doubly so in light of the fact that the same newspaper refrained from printing cartoons that might have been offensive to Christians.
I see no problem with them doing this if they want to prove a point, but I could also understand it if they don’t feel like jumping to comply with these demands; they have a right, but no obligation.
Until we see the cartoons we can’t know, but remember that supporting the Holocaust is offensive to Jews (and ought to be to everyone), while denying the Holocaust is just plain lying. If the papers refuse to publish cartoons that deny the Holocaust (and this is all a bunch of what-ifs at this point), then it will say nothing about the papers’ editorial stance and everything about their factual standards.
That’s fine. I agree they have no obligation. I’m just saying that the whole “we’re only printing offensive cartoons to show we can and not out of some insensitivity to Muslims” will look somewhat suspect if they don’t.
Hard to believe this thread has gotten as far as it has with no one pointing out that Iran has already demeaned Holocaust suffering by having its leader announce that the Holocaust was a myth, and announce plans to convene a “Holocaust conference” in his country so that various historical loons can display their bigotry.
Who really gives a rat’s ass about a few cartoons at this point? Western papers should reprint them, if only to provide further evidence about the sick state of mind in Iran. No one’s going to stage riots, storm embassies or kill people in response.
I agree; my only concern is that over giving in to bullies; (I despise slippery-slope arguments, but…) after they cave and print the anti-Jewish cartoons, a queue of busybodies will form; right-wing Christian groups who want their anti-wiccan cartoons given ‘equal time’ and so on. Better, I think, to say “Thanks very much for your contribution, but screw you; ‘we can’ implies 'we don’t have to if we don’t want to.”
No fair! There’s no Iranian embassy in Israel for the Jews to burn down.
I think there’s actually an interesting giveaway in this cartoon contest. The original 12 cartoons are said to be highly offensive. So the Iranian government proposes lcartoons of something that it expects European papers to find offensive: Holocaust Denial.
But why does the Iranian government think Europeans would find HD cartoons offensive? After all, if Iran thinks it’s perfectly true that there was no holocaust, then there’s no reason for it to pick that subject over other myths such as Christ’s resurrection or various 9/11 conspiracies. I think this indicates something important:
That Iran, and even Amadinajad, don’t even believe that there wasn’t a Holocaust. They just wish to offend, truth be damned.
Mmm…I’m not sure I agree. For one, several European countries have laws on the books regarding Holocaust denial, but none have anything regarding denying 9/11 or denying Christ’s resurrection. So, you’ve already got a situation where many Europeans have singled out a single, controversial topic as taboo (just as images of Mohammed are taboo). Plus, given the non-religiosity of western Europeans there’s doubts that they would find a denial of Christ’s resurrection offensive and wacky 9/11 conspiracy books have been bestsellers in Europe, so again, doubtful offense there. I think Holocaust denial is the obvious choice if you want to pick a topic guaranteed to offend and the whole point of the contest is to find something guaranteed to offend in order to prove a point regarding which groups the newspapers are willing to offend.
From my understanding it is not offending Jews that is the main reason for the illegality of HD(it’s not illegal in Ireland BTW). The main reason is that it is used by neo-fascists to help them recruit etc. It is the neo-fascists the countries don’t want not anti-Semitism. I could be wrong but that’s always the impression I got.
The reason why they are picking on the holocaust is obvious. They want these things banned in some countries so they can point and scream hypocrisy. Nearly all interviews with Muslims over the last few days I’ve heard even with moderates have included comparisons with the anti-HD laws in some Euro countries.
They always fail to mention that there is no law against offending Jews with images of their God or important figures like Moses.
Yes, but I’m saying it’s a strange choice for “something offensive” on their part if they actually believe the truth of Holocaust Denial. If they think the Holocaust really is just lies on the part of Western governments, then one would think they’d categorise HD cartoons rather like our cartoons lampooning, say, the Iranian government’s lies about its nuclear programme, and seek to return like with like by lampooning Abraham himself instead. I think it speaks volumes that they understand the offensiveness of HD. Like I say, it implies that they don’t really believe its truth themselves.
As I said on another board, I would love to see Israel make some form of official statement that these images no matter how vile should be shown with prominence all over the world to show the lunacy of the Iranian state and the maturity of Israel in dealing with offensive imagery.
Well - only 9/11 and the Holocaust are undeniable, verifiable historical events. The existence of Jesus, particularly as advertised and the Koran being anything more than the rantings of a murdering psychopath - anything but. Deny those two away as far as I’m concerned.
In either case special laws are not needed in the UK. The facts speak for themselves, and if Holocaust Denial is used as speech aimed at inciting people to violent acts, in court if necessary.
I can see where Holocaust Denial laws have a point - in the countries where the evil first took root and where the seeds may still lie dormant. But even that, after all this time, is debatable.
Well, first off, Abraham is pretty revered in Islam as a major prophet. I believe he’s their number 2 prophet, behind only Mohammed and is believed to have built the Kaaba in Mecca and set down important rituals like the Hajj.
Second, your assumptions are erroneous. They may or may not believe the truth of the Holocaust denial (I don’t actually think they do, but just use it for inflammatory rhetoric) but that doesn’t follow from the fact that they can see that HD is offensive. I can understand how a Christian would find someone shitting on a crucifix offensive, but that doesn’t mean I myself believe in God or the divinity of Jesus. Not only that, but it has been made abundantly clear over the decades by a variety of peoples and organizations that HD is offensive to most westerners. You don’t have to believe the Holocaust occurred in order to know that printing cartoons sympathetic to HD would cause a firestorm of controversy in Europe.
And?