Muhammed Cartoons

[loves_learning]

As much as everyone is up in arms about this subject, I found recently that a lot of information was indeed left out of the accounts we got here in the USA. This is food for thought...I went to a lecture last night at the university regarding some of this stuff, and found a couple of sources on the internet confirming what the speakers were discussing. While I tend to dislike internet sources because I find them unreliable a lot of times, the lecturers quoted the same info directly from the Danish Penal Code.

 

Anyway, long story short, Danish law has limitations on free speech, just like the USA does. But, while they "guarantee" free speech in print, they also have laws prohibiting hate speech, and, get this...BLASPHEMY. So, as far as the lag time between when those cartoons were originally published (September 2005) and when the violent protests started (a few weeks ago) there was a timeline of other avenues pursued by Muslims within the country that were all peaceful. But, there is a very great anti-immigration sentiment that is inflitrating many european countries (A law professor who recently went to Germany found a sign on a door to a bar and grill that said "No Dogs, No Turks."), and it appears that the Danish government refused to listen to and take part in any discussion with the Muslims within their own country in response to the cartoons. The Danes didn't really take anyone seriously until a boycott of all products of one of the biggest companies in the country, Alta. This particular company gets 80% of its revenue from sales in the middle east...and once the boycott was instituted was losing about a million dollars a day. One of the lecturers last night quoted the CEO of the company as saying something to the effect that it had taken 40 years to build their business in the Middle East, and 5 days to bring it all crashing down.

 

Here are a couple of links to the danish laws that I am mentioning and some disscussion:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/02/...nd-muhammad.php

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...8-2-2006_pg7_51

http://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?n...rticle&sid=5862

 

Wikipedia also has some links about the conflict. There are two sections in the penal code of Denmark that have potentially been violated: 140 and 266b. 140 is the section that prohibits blasphemy, but apparently hasn't been used since since 1938 or so. It says: "Those who publicly mock or insult the doctrines or worship of any religious community that is legal in this country, will be punished by a fine or incarceration for up to four months.” However, 266b HAS been in use recently, and basically states:“Any person who publicly or with the intention of dissemination to a wide circle of people makes a statement or imparts other information threatening, insulting or degrading a group of persons on account of their race, color, national or ethnic origin, belief or sexual orientation, shall be liable to a fine, simple detention or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."

 

With the new information, do you think that Muslims were treated unfairly? If a law was indeed broken, why is the government ignoring claims of that? Do you think that if the Muslims were at least acknowledged that some of the problems could have been avoided?

[Vigile]

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. Are you implying that the law equates morality?

[loves_learning]

I'm not asking whether or not the law is moral. What seems to be the point here, and what the Muslims within Denmark were so angry about, is that there are indeed laws on the books that indicate that those cartoons could be illegal. While the blasphemy laws have not been used for convictions in recent history, the hate speech laws have, and have been used to protect some Christians.

 

What I am asking is whether or not the law was applied equally and fairly in this situation. Apparently, Muslims did try to bring suit against the newspaper, but the lawsuit was dismissed the same day it was filed, without any legitimate consideration. Do you think that if the courts would have at least considered the suit, potentially trying the publishers of the paper (even if found innocent) that the same things would have happened? Whether or not people agree with the laws in this case doesn't really matter...the mere fact that the laws exist shows that SOMETHING should have happened...even if it were to abolish those laws in legislature. But, from a legal standpoint, if a law was broken, it was broken.

[pandora]

Thanks for the info, l_l. That indeed sheds new light on the subject. If there are laws against that kind of expression, and Muslims tried to peacefully resolve the situation first, I can say that I can understand where they are coming from a bit more now. Not that I think they still should violently protest in order to get their point across... I still think they should get over it even though I can completely understand why they are offended.

 

No, the law was not applied fairly. Whether or not that law should be in place is a completely different question. But a law is a law and as long as it stands, it should be followed and given due process when broken. Perhaps this whole situation will at least change the laws in Denmark so that the press is given more freedom when it comes to critisizing religious ideals...but that seems unlikely.

[Vigile]

Apparently, Muslims did try to bring suit against the newspaper, but the lawsuit was dismissed the same day it was filed, without any legitimate consideration.

 

There is not enough info here regarding whether or not the suit was dismissed legitimately or not. Perhaps it was dismissed as a spurious claim? Now we are getting into legal specifics in a system that we both have no knowlege of so I really don't know what to do with that. In any case, there seems to me to be a huge disconnect between the offense and the reaction. It is obvious that the reaction across the globe had nothing to do with whether or not Danish law was upheld and had everything to do with Muslims trying to impose their values on the west. Moreover, the flames were fanned not by pointing out legal inconsistancies in Denmark, but by pointing out a supposed offense against Islamic law.

[loves_learning]

I haven't looked enough into the lawsuit itself, but one of the lecturers last night provided that info, and said that it was dismissed without even being looked at. But, I don't know that for sure, that's true. However, when I googled the subject online, most of the papers in Muslim countries WERE pretty focused on the fact that the law was ignored, which was the initial problem.

 

It is obvious that the reaction across the globe had nothing to do with whether or not Danish law was upheld and had everything to do with Muslims trying to impose their values on the west.

 

I'm not sure if this is true...I mean, isn't that a bit of a value judgement? Maybe the most recent reactions could be characterized that way, but until the mass violence happened, I am not convinced that it is the case.

 

the flames were fanned not by pointing out legal inconsistancies in Denmark, but by pointing out a supposed offense against Islamic law.

 

This is something that I can agree with. I don't know what the first violent reaction was, but it sure spread fast, and I do think that the flames were encouraged.

 

I don't have time at the moment, but if you do a google search and read some Pakistani papers, one from Malta, and some other countries with a majority of Muslims, the law in Denmark is the first thing that is talked about. Something that was pointed out by the panelists last night, which I was not aware of, is that anti-immigration sentiment in Europe is getting pretty pointed and mean...and directed at Muslims and North Africans (many of whom were formally colonized by Europe). It was pointed out by several panelists that the types of literature being published throughout Europe is nearly identical to the anti-Jewish literature being published there in the 1930's...before the Holocaust. It is also very similar to what was published in the USA about black people before the civil rights movement.

 

(The panelists, just in case you are curious, were the dean of the Journalism school, a former dean and current professor of our Law school, the chair of the Religious Studies department, the editor in chief of the local newspaper, and the president of the local Islamic center. Out of 5 panelists, only 1 supported the cartoons being published. Who do you think it was?)

[pitchu]

Governments get into troublesome territory when they attempt to guarantee both free speech and the rights of segments of the population not to be blasphemed, offended or singled out derogatorally by free speech. These are mutually exclusive concepts. This whole miserable affair is an example of how unclear thinking and legislating can provoke bad "unforeseen consequences".

[♦ nivek ♦]

Duff the brain-deds on both sides..

 

One for the Danes cowardly lackof response to a visable threat within their own borders from a culture bent on overthowing the exisitng and replacing with a moozie majority.

 

Screw the moozies for being pissant herd animals with zero sense of humor and a total lack of tolerance for anything else but the mooze religio-goverment.

 

If the folks who want muhammed not on cans of pork products, mocked, lampooned, et al, let them return to the countries that spawned them. Go back to the unemployment, lack of opportunity, NO DOLE, NO WELFARE, NO FREEBIES, just sand and all the fucking moozilisms they can stomach.

 

Had enough of the mooze and their "religion of peices". Piss them off, instead of arbitrating and trying to do things *prior* to torching, they get OK from their bearded and robed shamans to burn anything western..

 

"For islam" of course..

 

Folks, y'all oughta have yur personal protective devices handy. If in a place/country that disallows AND has the mooze, consider immigrating to uS. (We are a buncha fuckups, despite the current goobers in goobermint, still a great place to live..)

Make a plan to get the fuck outa jihadville when they come marhing to burn your asses out..

 

That or prepare Ballistics Parties in their honor..

 

Futtabunchawukkups..

 

kL

[Vigile]

Something that was pointed out by the panelists last night, which I was not aware of, is that anti-immigration sentiment in Europe is getting pretty pointed and mean...and directed at Muslims and North Africans (many of whom were formally colonized by Europe). It was pointed out by several panelists that the types of literature being published throughout Europe is nearly identical to the anti-Jewish literature being published there in the 1930's...before the Holocaust. It is also very similar to what was published in the USA about black people before the civil rights movement.

 

This I have no doubt is absolutely true. I lived in Torino Italy in 1998 and 1999. This situation is very sticky over there. I understand that NAs were colonialized and got the short end of the stick. I also understand, the European perspective on this issue. It's an dirty, ugly, and just not a black and white issue. Since I know the Italian situation the best, I'll focus on them and not on France, where the situation is much more complex due to past colonialization and citizenship issues.

 

Consider that Italy is very different from the US in that it has a fairly homogeneous society (ignoring for now the subtle regional differences and the larger differences between the north and the south). Suddenly Italians are faced with what Americans were faced with as waves of new groups of immigrants came, including Italians, Irish, et al. The new immigrants are for the most part living there illegally, crime is increasing and Italians are afraid to go out at night in many neighborhoods that used to be safe. The vast majority of drug trafficking is performed by the North Africans, prostitution rings are run by the Albanians, and the Italians are actually now faced with forced slavery crimes (prostitutes and child street peddlers) perpetrated by Albanians and North Africans.

 

Now, I understand that not all NAs or Muslim Albanians living in Italy are criminals; In fact I would argue that most are not. Italians are for the first time in their history though dealing with a large group of immigrants that are challenging the homogeneity of their ancient culture. They are for the first time struggling with assimilation issues that the US has grown used to. We know how the US responded to the groups of immigrants before they had time to assimilate. What we are seeing in Europe is much of the same.

 

I'm not saying that I would support it, but I would not be surprised at all to see Italians get fed up and deport every NA and Albanian. I doubt they are very far from such a measure. As I said, it's a very sticky, very ugly, very murky situation.