The alleged WWIII is an extended hypothetical. It is government’s duty to defend the rights of its citizens. One does not look to the ends, but to the means for ethical justification. Defend your liberty, whatever the result may be — even death. The result of failing to do so is not living, unless you equate human life with that of a bacterium in a dish drain. A man who is not free is alive only in a technical and insignificant sense.
Do you believe that burning a faraway embassy constitutes an actual threat to free speech in Denmark? How so? Are people in Denmark now not free to speak their mind?
If the protests that started in Denmark had turned violent, in the manner of torching a building, do you believe the Danish police should have opened fire on the protesters? If not, what justifies the shooting of Lebanese or Iranians, but not Danes, for similar acts?
No, not at all. I was addressing this part of the post.
“We’re offended by these blasphemous cartoons.”
“Yah, fine. Don’t let them in your country.”
“No, we want you to ban them in your country, and punish those responsible for thinking them up.”
“Not the way it works, Abdul. We get to ban what we feel like, which is precious little, thankfully, and you can live in the 12th century if you like and ban every medium that might offend your sensibilities. It’s your call, not ours.”
“But if you don’t, we will commit acts of war upon you.”
“That’s cool. And we will respond to your acts of war. You’ll be better off learning to live with tolerating free expressions outside of your borders, believe us.”
You can’t live in a totally relavistic sense of morality. For people some things transcend relavism. For some muslims images of Mohammed transcend geography, religion, politics or anything else. For some westerners human rights transcend geography, religion, politics or anything else.
Telling people to ‘keep it in their own borders’ wont work anymore than Saudi Arabia telling americans to not pay attention to their treatment of women or North Korea telling the world to nevermind how it treats its dissidents.
I don’t know about Denmark, but the threats to people who criticize Islam and the beheading of a filmmaker who made a movie about the abuse of muslim women, certainly stopped us from speaking our minds.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,399263,00.html
But then: We’re not as brave as the Danes.
I would totally agree with this response, only without the first-hand credentials of gum. This is a perfect example of a chilling effect on an entire culture, and the precise reason I feel it’s important to insist that dictating morality, as repugnant as that concept is, needs to be limited to the borders of the people doing the dictating. When they seek to export their sense of morality on people who may choose a different set of standards for themselves, by killing random civilians, burning foreign embassies, assassinating political leaders, and so on, they must be told in the most crystal-clear terms that such acts can lead to war.
No sucking up? In the UK our leaders were falling over themselves to express their ‘respect’ for Islam and practically begging the UK press not to publish anything. While a maniacs demonstration that urged beheadings and murder passed by without a single arrest. (compared to the UK ‘terrorists’ reading out the names of the 100 dead UK troops, who soon had their collars felt)
Add to this the endless attempts Blair makes to get his pet ‘Incitement to Racial Hatred’ Bill through, regardless of the impact on free speech. This Bill is widely seen as the ‘Sucking Up to Muslims so they’ll vote Labour Again After that Unfortunate Iraq Fracas’ Act (and i speak as a Labour voter).
Chirac is at it constantly and from threads on this board we can see the US media is trumpeting its restraint under the rubric of ‘respect’ when they flat-out mean ‘we don’t want our Middle East offices burned and our reporters beheaded’.
I don’t buy this as ‘respect’, particularly as none of our media has any problem with knocking other religions (quite rightly). It’s only Islam that we all tiptoe round like a rabid sleeping dog because we know it has a large body of excitable and violent adherents.
And no - I didn’t have any cites prepared. Just the awesome power of google. 
Absolutely. If lines in the sand have to be drawn you draw them at the first opportunity. As the saying goes: ‘If you give and inch they will take a mile.’
Not ‘Absolutely’ to war - but to uncompromisingly refusing to compromise on free speech issues.
However, one must assume that this self-censure or as they call it: “respect” (though I personally find it disrespectful to assume religious people cannot handle satire) shown to Islam, will in the future spread to Christianity as well. You can’t very well say on Monday that you won’t publish a news story out of respect for Islam, and then Tuesday publish some satirical material on Christianity. The double standard and hypocracy would simply be too obvious. So that’s that for Christ in Piss and Maria in Dung, Jesus on a Surfboard and what not. And as much as I dislike such art works, I do think this is a very bad direction. The last thing we need now is to give religion a free pass and hold it above critical investigation.
And now the Swedish secret police have started to close down internet sites that dare to show the cartoons.
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=520257&previousRenderType=6 What contemptible, weak-spined, cowards.
And just to show how far it’s possible to turn your world upside down if you really put your back to it, the Swedish Foreign Minister Leila Freivalds says on the reason she decided to close down the homepages: “it is terrible that a small group of extremists are exposing Swedes to danger [by reprinting the cartoons].” - and by “extremists” she’s not here referring to those who cry death over all Danes and Swedes and such, but to those private Swedish citizens who have the cartoons on their homepages.
So, this naturally leads to three questions:
-
Does the burning of a faraway embassy limit your speech?
-
Has the conviction of Theo van Gogh’s murderer helped you regain your right to speak out?
-
If his conviction has not, how would killing thousands of Muslims in distant countries solve the problem?
And I’m curious about what you have censored yourself from saying, but that’s not really here not there.
I’m a writer, with a pencil-slim publishing record, one of the short stories being a modern satirical Pilgrim’s Progress. I simply would not dare do the same thing concerning Islam in my real name.
Articles V and VI of the North Atlantic Treaty require that NATO respond collectively to an armed attack on a member only where said attack occurs:
.
Wouldn’t cover an armed attack on a Middle Eastern embassy.
Sua
Ok, this is a bit of a hijack for which I apologize.
In order to accomplish this goal the wise Swedish government has decided to start closing down our nuclear plants and at the same time they also refuse to let any more rivers be dammed for hydro power. :rolleyes:
Politicians like to set goals but that does not mean that it is possible to accomplish them.
Thanks for this info. I guess this means that if we had a defense treaty in 1941 that obliged allies to come our defense only when our actual country was attacked, Pearl Harbor wouldn’t have cut it.
" 'fraid not, old beans. Territory, y’know. Terribly sorry and all that."
didn’t the US go to war with Iran? IIRC it was 1979, Iran took over the US embassy and held American’s hostage. I’m pretty sure we in fact did go to war, which is why the current bruhaha about Iran and nukes is confusing.
Embassy’s and consulates are allowed to exist because it’s basically a MAD strategy to violate these. However, there ain’t no such thing as international law per say.
We staged a rescue mission, but it never came anywhere near a declaration of war, as I recall.
Or did something just woosh overhead?