(I do not wish to be combative, but I was being pedantic about people telling me what I could not say on the SDMB.)
In any case, there is no real solution about this. The locals are quite upset and so they will boycott no matter what ‘you, me, us or them’ say. That being the case, it is a ‘problem’ that has no real solution.
We might as well embrace it and claim it as a victory for nonviolence.
While I agree with you that it’s wrong and repressive to try to frighten people into censoring religious-themed satire with threats of boycotts (or even worse, threats of violence), I don’t think that Christian societies are always as tolerant towards anti-Christian satire as this implies.
For example, look how the BBC withdrew its planned cartoon series Popetown due to protests from Catholics.
I think we need to decide where we draw the line, in a democratic society, between acceptable protest and repressive attempts at censorship, and apply that same standard fairly to all religions.
Agreed, as the anti-abortionist bombers showed. But there’s a world of difference in scale.
The BBC were spineless there. Which is one of the reasons I hate the current legislation - enshrining the right of religions to take offence is just going to lead to more and more of that shit.
I listened to a discussion on the radio and the Christian panel member was totally clear that as far as she was concerned the legislation would be used to stop anyone making jokes about religion.
Thin end of an evil wedge.
Oh come on, Kimstu.
I’ve let you rant on about your precious Islam, but if you’re honest, you can’t compare the protests by Christians [which I think are ridiculous too - but that’s because I’m a non-believer] and the bomb scares, death threats and even murder by Islamists, when their religion is ‘attacked’.
I really thought you weren’t disingenuous.
Paul in Saudi What on earth do you mean by: “We might as well embrace it and claim it as a victory for nonviolence”?
You think bomb scares and death threads are non-violent?
The good news:
“Newspapers across Europe have reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad to show support for a Danish paper whose cartoons have sparked Muslim outrage.
Seven publications in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain all carried some of the drawings”.
Also, Channel Four in England ran shows such as Father Ted and Ballykissangel that were either irreverent or out and out attacks on the Catholic Church.
The Last Temptation of Christ led to protests but last time I checked nobody was killed over it and Italy didn’t boycott US goods.
Let’s not try and lessen what is going on by saying “Christians do it as well”.
From the BBC
It seems like a bizarro world where 21st century countries find themselves having to deal with countries still living in the Middle ages.
Second bomb scare in two days
No, but didn’t you wince when our illustrious congressvermin were pouring French wine down the sewer for the press and changing French toash and French fries to ‘Freedom Fries’ and ‘Freedom Toast’? I know I did.
BUT… both of those programs were offered to the Irish state broadcaster RTE, who refused to produce them for fear of the church’s reaction.
Thus they were produced using Irish talent but with British money (and RTE, instead of profiting from Father Ted, had to buy it in when it discovered it was immensely popular).
To the two above posters:
Bomb scares and death threads …?
Sure, and that’s akin to killing artists and placing death sentences on authors?
RTE’s fear and stupidity is one thing but religious facism is another.
I never claimed otherwise. See my posts earlier in this thread.
Quite, but as well as bomb threats, gum is also talking about the Three Little Pigs, which involves Dudley Council’s fear and stupidity - yet for some reason you do not remonstrate with her.
By the way, there are death threats against authors in our “secular” society here, too.
I actually incidentally heard the author discuss just this section on the radio. It is 3 pages out of 200, and - according to an Islam expert - a portrail of the events that are less bloody in the children’s book than in the islamic texts themselves. (In the Danish version Muhammed merely watch while the slaughter takes place, while in the texts he participate actively). Of course he could have skipped the part entirely. But according to the author he didn’t want to do that, as he wanted to create a fair, but truthful, Muhammed bibliography.
I haven’t followed it all so closely. But I think the book was targeted towards danish (non-muslim) children, for whom the icon-rule supposedly doesn’t apply. To teach Danes about Islam. There are likewise picture books about Jesus which are very popular in Denmark. The images in the books aren’t satirical or denigrating or anything like that. And in any case I don’t see how anyone could have foreseen such a massive response when Muhammed has been depicted thousand of times before, in the west and by the Muslims themselves. See e.g. Depictions of Mohammed Throughout History and Wikipedia, and images of Muhammed is sold on the street in Theran. Actually Iran has been remarkable quite in all this. There was one Danish muslim who I heard say that the rules against depicting Muhammed didn’t apply within the Shia denomination? I still have no idea why this case blew up so massively, when all the others are OK.
Suddenly for a short while I feel a bit like how it must be to be little Israel amongst this massive wall of hate from the Arab world. I don’t know if the people in Saudi Arabia and Egypt know how much they harm the reputation of Islam in Denmark, and even Danish Muslims? Everyday newspapers and tv/radio have interviews with people in the Middle East that threaten with killing all Danes, bombing, fatwas, people demanding the whole of Denmark apologise, the Danish PM apologise (can not do following the Danish constitution), the queen apologise (can even less do) the king apologise (can even even less do, as we haven’t had a king for some 30 years) and just about everybody apologise, demand the state shut down the newspaper, demand Denmark change its laws. etc. All this only helps to leave a very bad impression of the middle east and Islam of those watching. And the Danish Muslims are caught in between. There have been going a SMS round, that urge a boycott of the shops of Danish muslims. A thing I find highly disgusting as they have nothing to do with it. In fact I make special care to shop more in Muslim shops these days to show my displeasure (with the SMS). Another SMS rumor has it that Danes have planned a big burn-the-koran bonfire demonstration on the central sq. of Copenhagen this Saturday. oh my! To be living in interesting times.
[QUOTE=RuneEveryday newspapers and tv/radio have interviews with people in the Middle East that threaten with killing all Danes, bombing, fatwas, people demanding the whole of Denmark apologise, the Danish PM apologise (can not do following the Danish constitution), the queen apologise (can even less do) the king apologise (can even even less do, as we haven’t had a king for some 30 years) and just about everybody apologise, demand the state shut down the newspaper, demand Denmark change its laws. etc.
[/QUOTE]
I’m curious - why can’t the PM apologize (not that he should)?
Isn’t it amazing how totalitarian countries of all stripes can’t get it through their heads that the government is not responsible for the actions of a free press? I vaguely remember the Chinese being mad about something similar, probably having to do with Taiwan.
He can’t apologise because 1) It would be dishonest to apologise for something you had nothing to do with - don’t know why they would even want him to. 2) A Danish PM is not supposed to interfere with the independent press. He went as far as he probably could within the law, when he said that he personally would not have published them and he personally though them ill advised. Apparently that’s not enough for the Arab street, so there’s no helping it. They’re just going to have to seeth till they get something else to be cross at. I’m hoping Israel starts construction of a new settlement in Nablus - that’ll get them on other thoughts.
Palestenian groups have threatned all Danes in the Palestinian terrortories to leave before 48 hours. Unfortunately the only Danes there are aid workers. So far Red Cross, has close shop and left. That’ll teach them, or something. Meanwhile Hamas urges further actions towards Denmark and economic boycott - while at the same time demanding Denmark continue its US$ 15 million / year aid. ye gods. Apparently the new insult-de-jour in the Arab media is that Danes are “jew-lovers” because Danes helped save the jews during WWII. I think we’ll just have to conclude that you can’t win them all, and let it be at that.
Oh no. The Saudi offense level has just been raised to “Orange” - High
http://muttawa.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_muttawa_archive.html#113856815059967166
Would the PM groveling help? Since the answer is ‘obviously no,’ he ought not to both himself. The newspaper apologized and that is enough.
(Did the newspaper apologize and then let others papers print the cartoons? That would complicate things.)
All I can say is, just wait until my Islamic lesbian erotica is published. (Seriously.)
I promise to still post to the Dope from the underground, in between playing cards with Taslima Nasreen and Salman Rushdie…
’
since you’ve brought up Rushdie, might we hope that this time around the cleric(s) who issue death fatwas will be extradited and prosecuted for solicitation of murder. (Instead of Rushdie going into hiding, how come Khomeini didn’t have to take it on the lam…?)
dislaimer:I know of no such fatwas, but I’m willing to play the percentages…
Nope, I think boycotts are. (Sorry for my delay in replying, Thursday mornings are a hectic time here.)
Only in the sense that ‘spare change?’ from a guy with a knife behind his back or a bunch of known, convicted thugs punching their hands in their fists pointedly is non-violent. Technically it is so but context is everything.
It’s the pretty clear ‘Or else’ that I’m seeing. But you are right - the boycott in itself is non-violent.