European Press shows solidarity with threatened Danish cartoonist

Oh, this is deep!!! What's that supposed to mean? Did it looked like kids where those that burned the flags and ravaged the buildings? Or am I expected to believe that those people are behaving like kids, therefore they shouldn't be held responsible for their deeds?

Alot of people supporting the Danish cartoons do not neccesarily support the actual cartoon,but they do not want to give in to the fear that you cannot talk about Islam without bomb threats. We all know in the West if you speak out against anything about Islam you have a chance to be bombed.

The printers accomplished what they wanted to do. They exposed the backwardness of the current islamic world, by bringing out senseless bombings of embassies and killings.

Church bombings and flag burnings of countries such as america who have nothing to do with the cartoons, what sense does this make?

I agree. But you can't judge womens rights by the amount of clothing they wear

How would you like to wear all those clothes in the desert eh?

Originally posted by Maju Maju wrote: Most Muslims in this very forum seem to justify the assasination of Theo van Gogh or the persecution of Salman Rushdie, to mention the best known examples. I dont. They are/weren't people who I like, both were out to find trouble, one found it. If your action is to insult someone, a lot of people might ignore you, one or two wont. If you go looking for trouble, 9 times out of 10, you will find it. It's simple knowledge that everyone knows, in every part of the world, every nation. That's why it is impossible to argue this with a Muslim: you seem to believe that whatever reason you may have (if you do) it allows you to kill the oponent. Obviously that can only bring war.

How many muslims on these pages actually support the killing of those individuals mentioned above? I haven't read all of the posts in this thread but I haven't seen any that promote or even agree with such a stance. Even if I am wrong, this type of thinking is offensive. I find it offensive that some people on this page also think that muslims only want blood retribution at the slightest provocation. Get real. These kind of generalizations show that you are stubborn and that you want to belittle muslims.  

Originally posted by Maju Maju wrote: Most Muslims in this very forum seem to justify the assasination of Theo van Gogh or the persecution of Salman Rushdie, to mention the best known examples. I dont. They are/weren't people who I like, both were out to find trouble, one found it. If your action is to insult someone, a lot of people might ignore you, one or two wont. If you go looking for trouble, 9 times out of 10, you will find it. It's simple knowledge that everyone knows, in every part of the world, every nation. That's why it is impossible to argue this with a Muslim: you seem to believe that whatever reason you may have (if you do) it allows you to kill the oponent. Obviously that can only bring war.

Well, I've already said either shouldnt be murdered in my opinion, but if they go looking for trouble like they have, they'll probably find it - i think I wrote it clear enough before, obviously not. Good luck in your swashbuckling adventures in cyberworld.

No, it clearly states it's a British stamp.

British Hindu community from what it seems - Isnt that a protest?

A stamp isnt a private action. It's available to the public like any newspaper is for public consumption. A Hindu receiving a letter with one of those stamps on it, might be feel offended or insulted once he/she receives the letter.

Ah! A lamp sold in a corner shop in Bilbao, is more public than a national newspaper that sells 150,000 copies each day and is quoted as being Denmark's highest circulation newspaper  

Also there is nothing wrong with showing Shiva dancing from what I know about Hinduism - there is nothing offensive about that - there is about sticking bombs in turbans - it's a stereotype which impinges on other people. If you cannot work out why, then you're not being impartial.

Sorry, but this is a completely clueless statement. I'm not being mean, i'm just stating fact, when a paper is placed on the newspaper stands for all to see and buy, it is for public consumption. 

Example: This is the cover of a book. Nobody has protested to it (or, if they did, nobody cared much about them).

The Televisionary Oracle? What's so bad about that? I dont see a bomb in his head or any evidence even that is meant to be a Hindu God. It could be just a mythical creature. Silly example. Use the example of the stamps, it's much better.

If something is said in public, it's a public matter, not a private one.

There is no copyright - there are about 3,000 pictures of him on the internet already. The Quran has tried to be changed many times. Nothing has happened. However, when you draw offensive pictures suggesting that the leader of a religion is a terrorist and the people following that religion are terrorists, people have a right to feel offended, and indeed insulted.

By the same token you have no right to make people feel offended or insulted. To quote from elsewhere, words can incite hatred, inspire violence and create fear. When people use words in this way, it is facile to protest that they are merely expressing opinions. Their words cause real harm as well as offence.

You were originally saying that people have no right to protest and it was your obligation to insult them, but I digress, let's focus on your current position having shifted the goalposts out of the football stadium.

Attacking consulates is of course not right, people denounce, it even religious leaders, violence is what everyone is capable of, you yourself have been quite a cyber warrior of late, so it's clear if you push someone you can induce them to violence. From what I know, noone has attacked the cartoonist.

Mutual deja vu there

I dont. They are/weren't people who I like, both were out to find trouble, one found it. If your action is to insult someone, a lot of people might ignore you, one or two wont. If you go looking for trouble, 9 times out of 10, you will find it. It's simple knowledge that everyone knows, in every part of the world, every nation.

 You can do what you like mate, I dont really give a shyte.

You can speak your mind, freely, say whatever you want, and people can protest and boycott you however they like if they dont like what you say.

Originally posted by Maju So far only BgTurk among the many Muslims in this forum has stepped ahead to defend the right of freedom of speech, while many others have been promoting the agression to Denmark - and that is: Europe and Human Rights via their banners.

BgTurk etc can say what they like, it doesnt make em right, or you right. My own personal view is that everyone has a right to freedom of speech so long as it does no harm to other people. I think these cartoons did stereotype people, they did offend people, so I dont think you can say it was freedom of speech, but freedom to insult. It's a matter of opinion. If you feel this is alright, I respect it, but then you should respect any protest or boycott performed to demonstrate the freedom to express outrage at being offended.

A couple have threatened, I condemn them. The 20-30 deaths that have happened as a result of this have mainly been due to rioting, and confrontations with police, but again a lot of these have been politically motivated.

Nope, they havent gained any legitimacy. Even Jyllands-Posten have apologized for it. I dont like the cartoons, I do like the majority of the peaceful protests (though I think the message is clear now), I dont like the small minority of protests that have had violence. 

Alright, and a liberal would also say that they were free from bigotry, prejudices and what not. As an example, liberals tend to be very politically correct people, they dont want to say words to offend, but regardless of how you want to define it, you fit the first group as I said.

The last paragraph is pretty clear, yes. Here it is for you again.

But why? In his classic defence of liberty, John Stuart Mill distinguished between offence and harm. We cannot stop people doing or saying anything simply because it offends us. Too many people are offended by too many different things. We should only constrain the liberty of others if what they do causes harm.

Interestingly, the article goes onto say

Power of words

Champions of freedom of speech tend to assume too quickly the "sticks and stones" principle: that words can only ever cause offence, never harm, and so freedom of speech is absolute.

Seconds out... another round in the on-going free speech bout. But as another philosopher, JL Austin, pointed out, we do not just communicate thoughts and ideas with words, we can actually do things with them. A priest, for example, can make two people married by saying "I now pronounce you man and wife".

Words can incite hatred, inspire violence and create fear. When people use words in this way, it is facile to protest that they are merely expressing opinions. Their words cause real harm as well as offence.

This is why we rightly limit the freedom of people to utter hate speech. Racist words can make people live in fear. Homophobic rantings can legitimise discrimination. Sexist words can buttress sexist practice. It is not "political correctness" to stop people using words to harm others, it is simply fairness and justice.

There's always riots in Nigeria. I havent read much about these ones I will do though. There were riots over the Miss World competition being held there. All the more reason for not holding it there.

Well his opinion was that Muslims were all terrorists, so perhaps it's karma.

Also, we can't forget that this case isn't but another case of Muslim intimidation of authors. First they attacked Rushdie and killed two of the translators of his Satanic Verses, then they killed van Gogh and attacked Hirsi Ali, and now they dare to attack a whole nation on a stupid caricature. Islamist greed has no bounds and must be bounded.

Yep, you've mentioned Rushie for the third time from 16 years ago. Oh..and there's Van Gogh too, nearly missed that one. Yes, yes, I dont think he should have been murdered, I do think he went looking for trouble and it found him. From what I know, Denmark has not been attacked, some people will boycott their products, some will not, states have not imposed any sanctions on them, it is another form of freedom of expression.