European Press shows solidarity with threatened Danish cartoonist

Well what is next? will you attack indians too? why dont you just show respect others, instead of accusing them with this things.

That's natural, brother, from p.r.c. perspective is totally right.

Well, i begin to unerstand why democracy and science were born in west and not in china . . .  the chinese people simply love more the "stability" of opression and lies, than the instability of freedom and truth.

[/QUOTE]

Though it is abit off topic... For Chinese (regardless PRC, ROC, or traditional dynasty) politic "�F�v" means management of everything that concerns about the masses.

The supreme goal of "Politic":

Provide the masses with the nessesities of lives, prevent them from starvation, shield them from natural disaster, give them a good lives and chances to continue the family line. And without against the above principles, protect the nation from the invasion, war and internal conflicts.

The Democracy, freedom of speech or what not:

Are only part of the "methods" to achieve these politcal goals. If the method could not achieve such things, it should be abandoned. If you belive the democracy or the freedom of speech is the supreme measure of everything... then you are treating them as a religion, not a poltical theory.

The top priorities of Chinese from both sides of strait (mind you, I lived in Taipei), are the well-being of our lives, the perservation of our culture, and lastly... the national strength. If both PRC and ROC government could provide us with that... we don't care what kind of political system they use. If they failed to achieve such goal, then the Chinese people will overthrow them, simple as that.

Overthrowing a unfit regime is nothing new in Chinese history. And in the most of time, our government was not run by some Senate which only rich people or big families had the chance to get in, we used examination or other selecting system to ensure our state was run by able literatis.

It is fine to have freedom, but the past and present experiences told us nothing could go well if goes too extreme.

The way I see this case: it is a trade-off between "freedom of press for this cartoon" and "EU-Muslim conflicts & recentments". And I believed the later represented much worse result than a restriction toward this particular cartoon.

When will you people understand that freedom means you take the good with the bad?

Frankly, this was a major test for Muslims in Europe and they've failed horribly. If they cant accept something so basic as freedom of press/speech when will they??

I;d rather the Muslims stay in their own countries if they cant take mere name calling.

To Boz:

It is not the matter who's more advanced or how should we avoid past failure, it is the matter what do you weight between the harm caused by sanctioning this cartoon and the harm for let it go loose.

To Loknar:

As I pointed out in the previous post, if you can't bear Muslim communities' boycotting or flag burning, you can not expect them to bear your name calling and insults.

To Strategos:

By your concept, you can not understand the importance of religion in Muslim culture neither. First, I don't think insults has anything to do with the freedom of press. Second, it is ignorant to assume no one in Muslim world understnad your concept of freedom of speech.

Yes, it is very important how do you weight these possibilities: with what historical background in mind; i've already spoken about the similiarities of muslim demands and early hitler claims. he exactly attacked first the press freedom to the very begining. simptomatically . . .

they fear muslims are going to force them to read the qor'an.

but hey, reading a book won't hurt you, unless you have eye problems.

The immediate result may be less important than the long term result; read a good biography of hitler. But more important, follow the political evolution concerning islam in western europe; country by country; just the press; though i can't say i know english, french or german, i can understand at least all this languages; there is a serious concern, but unfortunately only recently appeared in the conscience of europeans, that all the old small concessions made in order to accomodate islamic population to their host countries was in fact counterproductive and a treason of the values these authorities cherish; as Jack Lang, said about himself, they was stupid naives. Generation III and II of muslims in France and Europe, still have problems accepting tolerance and the communities became more endogam, specially the women. germany and scandinavians asissted to some honour killings, great britan is for long accustomed to forced marriages, and the islamic dogma inspire the youth with a sort of messianic superiority that say the west is roten, the future is islam's. There is, sure, a lot of culpability of europeans too, but the idea is not to search for gulity, but to try to change the trend; and for that, appeasment is of no avail other than fueling the fanaticism or just naivity of this segment of european population. The freedom of the press, is central; is the revealing test. the catholic church (and some protestant theocraties) have supressed long periods of time this freedom and many other personal freedoms. It's a very sensitive subject for europeans; they were like muslims of today, enslaved and uninformed, but the reverse isn't valid.  Actually what is the dispute here? Is about a religious tabu; by definition, religious tabu offer by himself no rational explanation or argument. These people if free and educated in a tolerant environment, and informed about all the void a religion is (and chinese, from my experience here in canada, knows best that), will sure laugh of themselves. How can these dictators of arab league, that presumably know enough history, history of religion, some sociology, psycholgy, anthropology notions, and that act politically for decades as knowing that there is no god, can be so hypocritical to do such a move?