Newsflash: Europeans Fight Back
Newspapers through out
posted by Jason Pappas at 2:10 PM
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Previous Posts
- Internet Articles On Islam
- Absurdities Du Jour
- Majority Supports Terrorists
- The Simple Truth
- Bloggers: The Pamphleteers of Today
- What's Happened to the Left?
- The Future of Freedom of Speech
- Liberty and Culture
- Islam and our Denial
- Islam In Summary
Articles
- Is Islam Evil?
- The Left's Response to Islam
- The Left's New Lie
- The Right's Response to Islam
- References on Islam
Major Posts
Links
- Liberty and Culture
- Front Page Magazine
- Ayn Rand Intitute
- To The Point
- QandO
- Jihad Watch
- Daniel Pipes
- Arts & Letters Daily
- Capitalist Magazine
- International Free Press
- New English Review
Blogs plus
- Victor Davis Hanson
- Pamela's Atlas Shrugs
- Gates of Vienna
- Counter Terrorism
- Infidel Alliance
- Mark Alexander
- Up Pompeii
- Freie Radikale
- Fawstin
- Sixth Column
- Llano Estacado
- Amber Pawlik
- Thrutch
- Conservative Swede
- Ronbo Soldier
- A Western Heart
- Solomonia
- Jeremayakovka
Feedback
Jason Pappas, proprietor
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Who Links Here Top blogs
31 Comments:
Jason -- thanks for your comment on my blog.
I understand that France Soir also had cartoons "blaspheming" other religions as well, but I have been unable to find them (including on their own site).
If you or your readers have a source I'd appreciate hearing about it.
Europe is recovering from the Chirac/Schroeder debacle.
Galloway must be bent.
Hi Charles, I vaguely heard the French where showing their non-discriminatory policy of insulting everyone’s beliefs. But I haven’t seen it. I’ve also heard that they have a cartoon of Jesus, Buddha, and Moses, on clouds telling Mohammad to get used to it. Cute! But I haven’t seen it either. On a sister website, blogger Fu2rman has got one of Jesus to prove he can shrug it off. He doesn’t mention where it was published.
I have taken the decision today to publish the most controversial of the cartoons: the one with Muhammad wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb about to ignite.
Respectable European newspapers such as Die Welt have made a stand for freedom of expression. France-Soir has too, despite the large Muslim population of that country.
We must all make a stand against this idiocy. Barbarians and savages simply cannot be allowed to dictate to us how we live our lives.
If they cannot accept freedom of expression as a given, then I guess it is time for them to move on. The shifting sands of the desert may well suit them better than the leafy suburbs of urban Europe!
Mark: If they cannot accept freedom of expression as a given, then I guess it is time for them to move on.
That's the point.
Bravo for Europe! I feel so much less disheartened now.
Jason
There are several stories on Free Republic. It is an interesting development along with the bomb threats at the original paper. I guess sending letters to the editor is too subtle.
I do not condone trying to offend anyone, but the freedom of expression must at any and all costs, be protected.
I seem to remember some kind controversial art display at a museum in NYC, where an image of the virgin Mary had dung all over it. (Or something like that.)
Anyway, there was an outcry for a short while. I am sure that many Catholics as well as many non-Catholic Christians were very much offended. They said their piece about what they thought of it, as was their right. But unless I missed something, no one threatened to bomb the art gallery.
That said, I do not think it is wise to imflame these already rabid dogs, especially at this point in time, just for the hell of it. I do not think it is particularly wise to do it just because you can. But make no mistake, the right to freely express oneself is a right that should never be infringed on, in any way.
If Muslims would do in the case of these cartoons, what many Christians did, when that art display came out; if they would simply ignore it, it would go away much faster. No one, I repeat, no one can offend you without your permission.
How did the art display offend the virgin Mary? It didn't. She's dead and even if she were alive, it would not have hurt much of anything , except her maybe her feelings. How did it hurt me? It didn't. It did not shake my faith, one iota. I'll simply let God judge the matter, as He sees fit.
But what did offend me, was the fact that it was displayed in a gallery that receives government funds. I don't think the government should be in the arts business, anyway. Remember, since Bush became President, the homeless suddenly reappeared after eight years of bliss under Clinton. Couldn't that money used to subsidize "shitty" art, be better used to feed the starving masses that Bush has created?
Bottom line here, Muslims should understand that the bigger stink they make about this, the bigger it will become. The more they attempt to censor, the more we that cherish freedom of speech, will dig in and fight.
I also would admonish Muslims, that "if you really want to stop this kind of stuff, you should set an example and not publish the crap you publish about Christians and Jews. Because it is just as offensive to them, as these cartoons are to you. But you do not police yourselves, so how can you expect the same courtesy here?"
LA,
I do not think it is wise to imflame these already rabid dogs, especially at this point in time, just for the hell of it.
Well, it's not just for the hell of it. Besides, everything inflames them anyway.
Your attitude toward the art offensive to Christians says a lot. And so does the Muslim reaction to a bunch of cartoons. Why not a Muslim rebuttal? Because the cartoons contain too much truth?
Sad news: The editor of France Soir, Jacques Lefranc, has been sacked! Didn't take long to get rid of him, did it? I have an article up on my weblog on the subject. To read it, please click HERE.
I also have more caricatures up there for the world to view. (All forbidden, you understand!)
Duncy
Political cartoons are a difrent matter then state subsidized art created out of bodily fluids. The key word is subsidy like in welfare. Like the subsidy you recieve in the commie half wit house.
LSD case 69.
Of course, Mohammad himself was offensive. He was violent, oppressive, and literally went on the offensive using military means. So, I wouldn’t equate offensive remarks directed against personal religions with offensive remarks directed against political ideology. The first is usual superfluous and often comes from ex-members of the religion who felt they have suffered. The latter, negative remarks against a political ideology (like Islam) are warranted and necessary if we are to deal with a threat to all of us.
Of course, all offensive speech should be legal and we should come to the defense of the rights of those who choose such speech (but not subsidize them nor automatically praise them.) However, if a democracy is to function, protecting the freedom to engage in political speech is the highest priority.
Here I welcome test cases that force the issue into the public's awareness. If it makes Muslims do irrational things, I'd rather we all see this sooner than later.
Great point, Mark. We have to limit our dealings with the Islamic world as much as possible as one would not help one’s enemy when at war.
People don’t understand the threat of the Islamic Revival or realize that it is on the upswing. Our political leaders don’t realize it is growing, not because of what we do (according to our critics) but because of internal cultural dynamics that we can’t control. People just don’t realize the magnitude of the problem. “It’s just a few” now turns out to be Saudi Arabia, Palestinians, the growing movement in Pakistan, Iran, Algeria (which would have voted for an Islamist gov’t if the military didn’t stop the election) and who knows where else. Dictators only mask the problem and democracies expose it. But it is there in either case.
Duncy case number 69
The exhibition in the Brooklyn Museum was sponsored by Tax dollars. Get your facts straight or are you going to rewrite history
again.
Your kind (commies) do that frequently.
Ducky you are dealing in moral equivalence again. Death threats, attempted kidnappings, Mass protests with chants of Death to Denmark, Death to France --- are not morally equivalent to the objection to public funding of "offensive" art.
Serrano was not prevented from showing his art and he never required police protection. What happened was that the controversy over his and Mapplethorpe's art ignited a debate on whether the public should fund "offensive" artwork.
Just ask Salman Rushdie how Islamists deal with censorship. Death and kidnapping are the tools of their trade.
Mr. Ducky,
Make no mistake, I think both of those images are disgusting. I won't defend them ever. But I will defend the right to display them, as long as they do not get displayed using government money or in government galleries. (Technically the rule of separation of church and state should apply, anyway. Right?)
Now the tables are turned, the muslim world is offended and disgusted at the cartoons. But instead of saying their little piece, and ignoring it, they choose to silence free speech. And if that doesn't work, their next threat is to boycott European companies. And if that doesn't work, the fatwas will start rolling out. Remember Salmon Rushdie?
Sometimes jihad doesn't involve bombs or other weapons and sometimes there are no deaths. But there are losses. And if the Europeans back down and bow to the threats, they will lose a little more freedom. That's a loss.
Then, the next time another issue arises that offends the muslim world, they will complain again. Boundaries will be moved in a little further at each step, with each complaint that is adhered to. Until eventually, the freedom gets choked off completely.
I'm offended by state-subsidized art even when the art meets my personal standards of "good."
LASunsett: I understand your point about not further inflaming passions, but I think there is great value for the Muslim world in what is happening. At one time, in the West, challenging the religious doctrines of Catholic Church aroused similar passions -- as those who were burned at the stke could testify, had they not been burned.
The Western world eventually became accustomed to the radical ideas of debating ideas, of tolerating dissenting ideas, and of letting invididuals reach their own decisions. This is a lesson the Muslim world now must learn, and coddling them by avoiding anything that might offend delays the process.
Inflamation is part of the cure.
www.brusselsjournal.com is asking al blogs around the world to publish all 12 cartoons. Not just link to them but actually publish them.
Will you do this?
Duck,
AOW must take stock of how quickly she backtracked when the subject of the Ofili painting came up.
What? I didn't like the "Christ" art, but I never advocated that the right to create it should be infringed.
If I don't like something, I don't look at it.
The cartoons will be published in a major New Zealand newspaper tomorrow (Saturday), another paper is considering it. The head of the Muslim Council of New Zealand said he can't promise there will be no violent Muslim reaction.
Hank, how does one put pictures on one's blog? I've never done it.
It’s important to publish the cartoons in solidarity with those under siege. Even if cartoons were insulting to my beliefs, the threats against publishers (in many cases violent threats) have to be opposed. And I’d support the publishing of the offensive cartoons I found offensive even if it was only in a factual sense of saying “here are the cartoons making news.”
Reporting does mean endorsing. If you look at some websites where they are comparing the Danish cartoons with the anti-Semitic cartoons published in Arab newspapers, you’ll see the Arab cartoons. These venues, such as FPM aren't endorsing the anti-Semitic cartoons but just the opposite. Still, they publish the news and comment appropriately. That's debate in a free society.
Obviously, Muslims aren’t going to agree with the cartoons. However, we have to send a firm message that free speech and free press aren’t going to be suspended for Islam or any other belief system.
The cartoons are symbolic of a general ban on criticism of Islam in the mainstream press. In France, Italy, and Australia, there are laws against "vilification of a religion." This means one can't criticize any religion. I've talked about this last June. The cartoons are just the tip of the iceberg. But they are bringing the issue to the publics' eye. In the process, hopefully many will question the ban (or taboo) against criticism of Islam. No other religion demands such a ban today. They've gotten used to opposition.
Jason
Can somebody put together a list of Danish products? I went to the supermarket and only found fontina cheese .
One of my posts is the lead op Ed on David Yeagley's electronic blog.
I have one of the cartoons on my blog, a support Denmark logo, and some artwork by muslims promising to commit murder.
FYI, I managed to find the France Soir cartoon that includes other religions and have posted it on my blog.
Like the Danish cartoons, it is really pretty mild, but poor "I don't get no respect" Mohammed is still the butt of the joke.
Mr. Ducky,
I have only seen the "shitty" piece of art in pics and I really do not care to see it. Even if it wasn't a depiction of the Virgin Mary, I still would not want to see it.
Art to me, is something beautiful and aesthetic, something that pleases the senses. Waste material is just that, waste. And I do not believe that waste material of this nature can please my senses.
Nevertheless, if you want to go see it, or other such garbage, I will defend your right to see it. If that's your idea of art, I can produce some real works of art courtesy of my Springer Spaniel and have it shipped to you directly.
Quote of the year goes to Ducky. His daring description of the merits of using dung to represent a woman's breast;
"It's a minor painting but a pleasant depiction of an African "earth mother. The dung material was used to construct part of a breast since elephant dung signifies regeneration in that particular culture."
Finally, a positive viewpoint on the usage of dung as a pleasant metaphor!
Majority Supports Terrorists -- Should we be shocked?
As usual, I concurred with and appreciated Jason’s views. It may be said that the Arab-Muslims are the first terrorist people. As he points out, their culture would take generations to reverse their commitments.
Yet what I find most significant is that the problem is not with
them, but with us, for we have enabled and rewarded their depravity. To repeat “The administration should not only change course but it should
repudiate past actions and past administrations.The policy should be clear: no to appeasement! We were wrong in the past, let’s admit it.”
Before commenting on this conclusion, allow me to digress to the comment by zama202 concerning ‘war’. I used to think that war was a matter of military attacks, but a teacher of military theory explained to me that war is a matter of the commitment to harm others. Thus, a state of war has existed with the Arab-Muslim bloc for decades, by their commitment to destroy Western civilization. Similarly, Germany was in a state of war with us by 1934. Had we recognized it then, we could have quickly stopped them, and as Churchill noted, avoided that
unnecessary world war. Thus our first challenge is not whether to go to war, but to recognize that we are at war.
Our problem has not been that of homicide, but of suicide. We
subsidize, enable, and excuse our enemies. Here, we cannot afford to
face reality for to do so would mean that we have contributed to great misfortune. Moreover, to consider the harsh alternative would mean to go against our cherished beliefs that: virtue lies in giving benefits to those who have not earned them; all peoples and cultures are morally
equivalent; and all differences can be resolved through negotiations.
What then will Americans and Israelis do? They shall find
rationalizations to excuse the behavior of our enemies, as the West did with Germany and Italy. In the 1930’s the West said that the Germans and Italians were responding to economic chaos. They had to build up, even militarily, so they would not feel humiliated. Then the West accepted cosmetic statements as true intentions. When action was called for they said, let the League of Nations handle it.
The bottom line is that we shall not be able to face reality, before some great disasters occur.
Allen Weingarten
Jason,
In the create post window, click the pic icon next to spell check.
From there you can browse for pics in your computer or pick a URL.
Y'all have to understand that Ducky is a leftist. The same intellectual deficiency that causes leftism also finds shit and piss aesthetically pleasing.
They smear shit on themselves and call it art for crying out loud!
The U.S. Dept. of State has weighed in on the cartoon issue with a mealy-mouthed statement about how the U.S. supports freedom of the press but thinks it must be balanced with "responsibility," or some such cowardly nonsense.
I suggest checking out the Dept. State statement and then emailing them with a protest. I have already done this.
Free speech without compromise!
european are not recovering from the chirac/schroeder debacle. Do you think
we should do the irak war with more than 10% muslims in some countries of europe ? The debacle is the politic of george bush with the war in irak. This war exported terrorism in europe and unger between western world and middle-east. The cartoons of the newspapers blasphem very often jesus-christ or the pope ( making sex), and the newspapers just thought they could do it with muslims. I'm for the freedom of media, but what freedom allow to us sometimes or conscience forbid it. I am christian and my religion is a religion of love, and we have to show it to the muslims people and not by making war I think or we will
have so much trouble.
<< Home