Muslims Create Islamophobes, Then Want Islamophobes Punished

From the desk of Paul Belien on Tue, 2006-02-14 23:28

An article by Paul Belien with Filip van Laenen (Oslo)

Last Saturday’s riots in Antwerp, when Moroccan “youths” went on the rampage in Antwerp’s historical center, destroying cars and beating up reporters, has led to frustration among police officers because the authorities prevented them from stopping the violence. Officers complained in today’s papers that they had been given orders to watch passively while young, rowdy Muslims were allowed to take revenge over... drawings published more than four months ago in a Danish newspaper.

“We had to watch how they were ripping off car mirrors. We wanted to stop this vandalism but were ordered to withdraw,” an anonymous policeman says in today’s Flemish daily De Standaard. “An ambulance was told to switch off its siren because that might provoke the Moroccans.” Another anonymous officer told the press: “There you are watching this, while citizens can see that you are powerless.” According to an anonymous police chief the authorities decided, that “it was better to have a few cars vandalized than risk open war in the streets.” On Monday the city council, led by the Socialist mayor Patrick Janssens, decided that the city would compensate the damage to cars and property.

One of the victims of the violence was Fatima Bali, a city councillor of Moroccan origin. She was on a tram last Saturday evening around 6 pm, when the vehicle was attacked. “It was very frightening,” she said. “Stones were thrown at the tram. Passengers tried to hide under the seats. Everyone panicked. Windows were shattered, a stone hit a passenger’s head – a Moroccan by the way. I hope I will never have to go through something like that again.” As a result of their experience the non-Muslims on the tram, as well as the citizens who watched the police stand by while their cars were damaged, have probably all turned “Islamophobe” now. “Islamophobes”, however, soon risk being put in jail.

Today some 200 Islamic religious leaders demonstrated in Brussels’ European district. It was a peaceful demonstration, but the Muslims want Europe to adopt the religious taboos of Islam. They handed a letter to a representative of the European Commission condemning “the blasphemy and humiliation” caused by the Danish cartoons, demanding that the EU introduce legislation against “hatred and islamophobia” and that it ban “blasphemy and the showing of disrespect for all religions and their prophets” because “every excessive form of free speech stigmatizes people.”

After their meeting with the representative of the Commission the Muslim delegation was received by the Danish ambassador, Karsten Petersen. “He thanked us for our moderation that invites dialogue and calm,” said imam Said Dakkar, the chairman of the Union of Brussels Mosques. “We have told him that we disapprove of violent demonstrations,” imam Said Mdaoucki of the Antwerp Mosque Federation added, “but we want to know how far freedom of speech is allowed to go. Can you ridicule someone’s values and beliefs? Is that freedom of speech?”

Yesterday, during a visit to Saudi Arabia, EU Foreign Policy Coordinator Javier Solana promised that the EU will support a clause in an updated human rights charter of the United Nations to “protect the sanctity of religions and the prophets.” Earlier, in a joint statement, Mr Solana of the EU, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary-General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) wrote: “We understand the deep hurt and widespread indignation felt in the Muslim world. The freedom of the press, which entails responsibility and discretion, should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions.”

On Dec. 16, 2005 the UN General Assembly adopted a strong resolution on defamation of religions. “This joint statement and the UN resolution provide the legal ground for condemnation of acts of European newspapers,” the OIC said during its meeting last week. “This is a very important achievement and we must seize the opportunity to preserve the momentum for joint action to prevent a recurrence of this despicable act. To combat Islamophobia in the West we must work toward the adoption of relevant legislations.”

However, the attempt to impose the Muslim taboo on depicting Muhammad and forbid the publishing of mild cartoons such as the twelve Danish ones (see them here, halfway down the page) is encountering resistance.

José Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, says in an interview with Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that first published the cartoons, that freedom of expression is a “fundamental value” in Europe and that it is “better to publish too much than not to have freedom.”

In Paris, France’s leading left-wing paper Le Monde criticised the EU’s failure to act in response to the series of attacks on European embassies in the Middle East. In today’s leading editorial it writes that Europe (the paper mentions Mr Solana) is not adequately defending freedom of speech. Europe “seems crippled, intimidated” by the reaction to the cartoons in the Middle East and the paper argues that this “can only encourage regimes like Syria and Iran to continue to manipulate this affair for political ends.” Le Monde also criticizes French President Jacques Chirac who condemned the “offensive character” of the cartoons but not the attack on the French embassy in Teheran.

In another article Le Monde draws attention to the fact that only Denmark and Norway have protested against the attacks of their embassies, though these attacks constitute a violation of international law. The other European countries are keeping a low profile “out of fear of seeing the violence spread to other embassies or other countries.”

In Norway, meanwhile, Kåre Valebrokk, the president of the Norwegian private television channel TV2, deplores last week’s apology by Vebjørn Selbekk, the editor of Magazinet, for republishing the Danish cartoons. According to Mr Valebrokk the editor was coerced into apologizing by the Islamic Council of Norway and the Norwegian government. Mr Selbekk apologized during a press conference in the Norwegian ministry of Social Inclusion on Friday morning, immediately before the beginning of the Muslim’s Friday prayers.

Kåre Valebrokk, a former editor of the business paper Dagens Næringsliv, said that Mr Selbekk’s apologies affect the freedom of the Norwegian press: “ From now on journalists no longer decide independently about what the networks and the papers report. The Islamic Council decides as well. If Muslims object to what we show or write it suffices that they burn down a few embassies to have us give in. For a large part we have now renounced our editorial freedom to fundamentalists. I do not like this new role. It is now that freedom of speech needs all its friends.”

In Denmark today, Ahmad Akkari, the spokesman of the cheating radical Danish imams, who incited hatred by distributing false cartoons throughout the Muslim world, said that his group is prepared to accept “a third of the blame” for the escalated conflict on condition that Jyllands-Posten and the Danish Government accepts that the rest of the responsibility is theirs. Mr Akkari explained that this is an offer to resume dialogue. Is he perhaps following patterns of haggling used in primitive tribal societies?

Yesterday Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with a newly established group of moderate Muslims, while his government announced that it would not continue dialogue and cooperation with the lying imams, who until now had been recognized by the authorities as the official representatives of the Muslim community in Denmark.

Search for Answers

Submitted by Junius Redivivus on Mon, 2006-02-20 15:09.

Several Muslim spokesmen, in Europe and America at any rate, have implied or overtly stated that they do not deny freedom of speech in general, but only in specific instances of “excess”. To try to deduce what an “excess of free speech” might be, I turn to the statement of the Belgian imams: “All excess of free speech denigrates peoples.” Is it at all possible for someone to help clarify this idea for me in concrete terms? My search for elucidation is not tongue-in-cheek or ironic. It is quite sincere.

The Danish language, despite its undoubtedly rich historical character and doubtlessly impressive literature, is not a world tongue. It is quite possible to make one’s way in the world, even the world of erudition, without being able read or speak Danish. I can do neither. I hope it is not a shameful confession of my parochialism to say that until very recently I had not so much as heard of the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. I have still never seen an actual print copy of the paper. Under ordinary circumstances neither I nor about ninety-nine percent of the rest of the earth’s population would have been aware of so much as the existence of the twelve controverted cartoons. Now, for reasons I hardly need to rehearse, they must surely be the most famous newspaper cartoons ever penned.

So here are these cartoons. As I write, about fifty people have been killed in violent demonstrations protesting them. Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands have marched in the streets of several continents. Embassies have been burnt, private property destroyed. Editors have been fired or have resigned. The ragged fabric of international relations has been further rent. In their public statements politicians of many lands have explored new horizons of fatuity. The Internet is practically ablaze. But to observe a conflagration is not the same thing as to understand the chemical elements of combustion.

My trouble begins with the fact that I do not understand the cartoons. Most people who try to read newspapers in languages of which they are not native speakers have perhaps shared my own experience. Just about the last part of a foreign newspaper one can understand are the cartoons. No French grammar book will teach you what Chirac or Sarkozy look like, particularly in caricature form. You need a special kind of visual literacy, unconsciously acquired through a fairly deep cultural immersion, to “get” it. The linguistic informality, slang, and verbal quibbles characteristic of many jokes are barriers to understanding. An alleged caricature of Mohammed is particularly taxing, since nobody knows what he looks like, and not too many people throughout history have tried to depict him. We don’t know what Jesus or the Buddha actually looked like either, but for each of these revered figures there is an ancient iconographic tradition that let’s us recognize it when we see a picture of a picture of him. There is nothing in the “Mohammed cartoons” that can identify him-- pictorially. For identification we depend the textual statement: “These are imaginary pictures of the Prophet Mohammed”.

I intuitively grasp the humor of only three of the cartoons, and in no case do I find cause for offense. The cartoon depicting a cartoonist sweating in anxiety as he sketches a presumed picture of Mohammed makes an amusing statement about the European press. It is particularly witty that the actual prophet in the drawing is the cartoonist himself, as he predicts, probably better than he ever knew, the possible result of his own work. The illustration of a ferocious “Mohammed”, sword in hand, flanked by two veiled ladies, is also very witty. The only part of the man unseen, his cancelled eyes, visually echoes the only part of the women that you do see. The cancellation of the eyes, the device commonly used to protect identities of innocent parties, guard privacy, avoid lawsuits, etc., is perhaps ambiguous. The visual echo of the three blank spots is surprising and arresting. Since the historical Mohammed is unusual among religious founders as having been an actual warlord and fighter, so depicted both in scripture and sacred tradition, the weapon cannot be regarded with offense. The funniest of them all, in part because it is politically trenchant, is the one regarding the exhaustion of the supply of paradisal virgins. I am not sure that Mohammed even features in this drawing. My understanding is that it was God’s promise that martyrdom would win seventy-two virgins, so that I took the heavenly figure to be God, not Mohammed. The object of criticism in this cartoon, as I see it, is so-called suicide bombing, better called homicide bombing, though that may be a misunderstanding. Speaking of which (misunderstanding) there is the further interest that recent scholarship (Christoph Luxenberg, pseud., Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran : ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache) widely reported in the press suggests that the sacred text reading “seventy-two” is based on a mistranslation, the actual rate of exchange being seventy-two white raisins per martyr.

Some of the cartoons strike me as being not, well, cartoons. The first in the series for example shows a bearded, semitic looking man, perhaps a merchant, leading a pack animal. “I met a traveler from an antique land...” It does indeed look like a normal book illustration drawn by a commercial artist. According to Jyllands-Posten the whole episode began with the search for book illustrations.

All this leaves me with the following genuine questions regarding Muslim offense at the cartoons.

1. Does the offense reside in a doctrine of religious anti-iconism? Is any pictorial representation claiming to depict Mohammed offensive? Is any pictorial representation of Mohammed ipso facto guaranteed to be an “excess of freedom of speech”?

2.If so, are all such attempts equally offensive? Specifically, is it possible that among these cartoons some are offensive and some not, or some more so than others?

3.Does offense reside in the real or supposed motives or religious commitments of those who commissioned, executed, or published the cartoons?

4.Do those taking offense at the cartoons claim a special privilege in their interpretation? That is, does offensiveness reside in the eye of the beholder?

Can anyone answer these questions for me, calmly, objectively, in language free of rancor and polemic? They are particularly addressed to those who have taken offense, of course, but I seek enlightenment from any knowledgeable person. Here is a real opportunity for the much vaunted "dialogue", a "teachable moment" that might cure my "orientalism".

harsh truth

Submitted by inawe on Sun, 2006-02-19 12:40.

to kungfu master, I am sorry to say, but your words ring a harsh truth to todays reality. Why is Islam not now "The Evil Empire", were we to believe that during the cold war, all russians were bad people acting on truths of world take over.....no, but we still acted like it. War of civilizations has begun, and unless our leaders and our media can act as agents for the people rather than institutions against, it is up to the populus to do so-----------

but we wont, america and europe is to complacient------europe more so, but for good reason, fighting among themselves over centuries has made them tired, and germany, once a strong and proud race, now to scared to say anything in fear of being labeled nazi----WE DID IT TO OURSELVES-----

PRINCE CALLS

Submitted by peace on Sat, 2006-02-18 15:40.

PRINCE CALLS SOURCE: The Times. By Alan Hamilton.

THE need for an understanding of Islam has arguably never been greater than now, the Prince of Wales told an audience of Muslim academics and community leaders yesterday. Speaking at the opening of a postgraduate studies building at a Muslim education centre, the Prince praised the contribution of Islamic culture to European civilization in fields as diverse as mathematics, astronomy, medicine and the arts.

Christianity itself is poorer for having lost

Submitted by peace on Sat, 2006-02-18 15:37.

Charles considers Christianity inadequate to the task of spiritual restoration and denigrates science for having caused the West to lose its spiritual moorings. Echoing a common Muslim theme, he declares that "Western civilisation has become increasingly acquisitive and exploitive in defiance of our environmental responsibilities." Instead, he praises the "Islamic revival" of the 1980s and portrays Islam as Britain's salvation:
Islam can teach us today a way of understanding and living in the world which Christianity itself is poorer for having lost

Re Christianity itself is poorer for having lost: Oh please!

Submitted by A New Believer on Sat, 2006-02-18 17:58.

Oh please that just required audacity and unmitigated gall to use Charles as a spokesperson for morality!
Hmm! For all HR whoring,lying to wife and mistress, as well as country..making them think his marriage was stable in the beginning whilst he was carrying on an affair; double dealing, partying, and good time being had for all ways. Perhaps, he should once again, should not comment. Before you have a hysterical hissy fit, this is ALL COMMON and PUBLIC knowledge, so please do not act as if YOU did NOT know before.. ONLY an ostrich with it's head in the sand would not have known. And frankly, I would have thought you would have chosen someone with more fidelity than him. After all, his speaking on mores and values ranks up there with Newt Gingrich ..who left his first wife in a
sanitarium deathly ill then divorced her; married his "secretary", and dumped that woman in absolute shock when just before Clinton was bing pilloried for Monica Lewinsky, divorced her and married his new "heartthrob." You really must find moral people who will state that islam is very exceptional and we need to follow it then.. Have you any stellar religious figures such as the Pope, Billy Graham, Billy Graham Jr. etc. Oh and no more Reverend Jenkins and his ilk, because ANY minister who converts to islam is an apostate, and therefore no longer able to speak for his religion. Well that ought to do it.

Thank You! Have a great day!

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

European women

Submitted by peace on Sat, 2006-02-18 15:33.

Charles suggests that European women may even find something to envy in the situation of their Muslim sisters:
Islamic countries like Turkey, Egypt and Syria gave women the vote as early as Europe did its women-and much earlier than in Switzerland! In those countries women have long enjoyed equal pay, and the opportunity to play a full working role in their societies

Re: European Women

Submitted by A New Believer on Sat, 2006-02-18 17:44.

Excuse me, the Prince of Tasteless behavior has nothing to say on the mores or positions of European and any other women. This chiefly having to do with the following items:

1) his acquisition as well as maintainence of a married woman, Camilla Parker-Bowles nee Shand at the time ( you may remember they had ended their tempestuous affair in the 1970's, then later married other people.

2) The man she married Andrew Parker Bowles , jusy happened to be an Amry officer with a eye to his career. Intersting how one maintains a friendship with one's friend, and shares his wife. Or is the world supposed to believe his promotions were based on his stellar performance in the military. No matter. What is apparent is that they both shared Camilla. Ask not what you can do for your.. eh what?!?

3) Having caused Camilla's divorce from her husband in 1995, though not named in the suit; his relationship with her begins again. It lasts until he meets Diana Spencer, and he marries her.. Making her the Princess of Wales. Happiness all around.. but NOOO! Charles cannot be a simple married Prince.. He resumes his relationship with Mrs. Parker-Bowles, while still newly married. People have always wondered why it went so wrong.. Perhaps?

4. Publicly, the enduring relationship of Charles and Camilla was blamed by the late Diana, Princess of Wales for the break-up of the Waleses' marriage; privately, the princess referred to Mrs Parker Bowles, with whom she had originally been on affable terms, as "the Rottweiler". Diana reported that Camilla had known before she did that Charles was going to propose to her. Charles and Camilla bought one another presents and used the pet nicknames of "Fred" and "Gladys" to one another. The prince's supporters maintained that Diana's "paranoid fixation" over his friendship with Camilla broke up their marriage.

5. The continuing relationship between Charles and Camilla was kept secret until the early 1990s, when the rift between Charles and Diana became public knowledge. It was the "Camillagate" scandal -- tape recordings of a private telephone conversation between Charles and Camilla -- that brought it to the surface. It has been claimed by royal "insiders," though denied by both the couple and their friends, that their affair had been conducted throughout Charles's engagement. The affair publicly resumed after he made the decision to separate from his wife. However, it was his public admission, in a television interview with Jonathan Dimbleby, that he had committed adultery that caused Mr and Mrs Parker Bowles to announce their own divorce. Andrew Parker Bowles soon remarried.

6. Camilla Parker-Bowles then moved in publicly with Prince Charles.

7. He married her.

8, Will she get to be Queen though? Hmmm? However, two issues remain over the relationship. As future Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the prospect of him marrying a divorcée, with whom he had a relationship while both were married, is controversial. (Since Diana, Princess of Wales has died, he himself is technically a widower, not a divorcé, and so there is no problem with him marrying a second time. But as Mrs. Parker Bowles has a former husband still alive, she is technically a divorcée, hence the problem.)

9. Seeing Charles view of a women through his personal behavior, I would think it in HR best interest to remain quite, quite "mum" on any such subjects.
He is the last person in that respect, that "islam" should turn to for a hearty back slapping "AMEN!" Ah! * slapping my forehead* I forget! muslims like hiding women all over the place. It is quite alright to have a messy affair, home life and scandal. How silly of me!

Thank You! Have a nice day!

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save US

women in England

Submitted by peace on Sat, 2006-02-18 15:26.

Islam gives women a number of rights, some of which were not enjoyed by Western women until the 19th century. For example, until 1882, the property of women in England was given to their husbands when they married, but Muslim women always retained their own assets. Muslim women could specify conditions in their marriage contracts, such as the right to divorce should their husband take another wife. Also, Muslim women in many countries keep their own last name after marriage.

A peasant woman tending her sheep in Turkey [ enlarge ]

The Quran explicitly states that men and women are equal in the eyes of God. Furthermore, the Quran:

Encourage the moderates

Submitted by Bob Doney on Fri, 2006-02-17 01:48.

Johann Hari, who writes regularly for the Independent newspaper in the UK, has a nice piece on his website.

...The right are busy hyping this fight as a Clash of Civilisations between democracy and Islam ... This is a clash within Islam between democrats and totalitarians, and demonising all Muslims is a racist, foolish way to ensure the wrong side wins. Religions are not inert, homogenous blocks; they are elastic, and they stretch and shift shape over time. The British Muslim community is genuinely divided, as a recent Populus opinion poll proved: some 12 percent of Muslims my age believe suicide-murder in this country can “sometimes” be justified and 34 percent believe British Jews are “a legitimate target”, although at the other end of the spectrum more than half of British Muslims believe Israel has a right to exist. These are much better than the figures at the time of the Rushdie affair, showing that Muslim opinion is in flux – and can be swayed by persuasive argument.

Only a fierce, fighting moderate Islam can win this struggle. In France’s Muslim ghettoes, an amazing movement of Muslim women called "Ni putes ni soumises" (neither whores nor doormats) has risen up, initially to fight against the epidemic of domestic violence in their communities but increasingly to craft a liberal – even feminist – brand of Islam. In the past fortnight, we have seen the first stirrings from their British sisters.

I live round the corner from the East London mosque, and most weekends there are stalls of jihadists perched outside, preaching sharia law and suicide-slaughter. However tempting it might seem, I don’t want to see these young men driven underground (or Underground) through censorship and the introduction of thought-crimes like the government’s mooted ban on “glorifying terrorism”. I want to see every one of their stalls matched by a stall of feisty Muslim women like Sairah [achieved celebrity status on "The Apprentice" TV show last year!] and Fareena [editor of "Q News"], ridiculing their bizarre beliefs and manifest sexual inadequacy, and offering young Muslims a different and better brand of Islam. Don’t suppress the battle within Islam – let’s have it out on the open and on the streets...

http://www.johannhari.com/index.php

Bob Doney

Big Bob says...

Submitted by Bob Doney on Sat, 2006-02-18 15:07.

"Big Bob thinks its all a big hype, does he..."

Big Bob recommended the article. Doesn't mean he agrees with it. More later.

Bob Doney

von Schlichtningen,  

Submitted by DanishDynamite on Thu, 2006-02-16 14:04.

von Schlichtningen,

 

"In a book maybe. Because the drawings have become famous."

It's kind of irrelevant where they're published isn't it? I mean, the muslims want them to be unpublishable. Hell, I've already seen some muslim moaning about Gyldendals plans. If we don't finish this crap in a proper way now, then we'll have to go through it, again, in a years time...

And what about the summer revues? Many have already said they'd be making fun of the Muhammed controversy, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit, if some of them dress up as Muhammed, ready for ridicule ;)

 

"In a newspaper I don't believe. And never new drawings. We Danes are too scared now. The government might even try to stop it. Just as they through the secret police/police intelligence service (PET) warned people not to demonstrate against Muslims.
http://hmmh.blogspot.com/2006/01/now-basic-freedoms-are-being-lost-in.html
(BTW to the best of my knowledge it is not forbidden to burn books in Denmark. Even the Quran. The Legal experts have looked into it. The police were lying. You do not get 6 months of jail for burning it. But you are of course not allowed to make fires in the street - but at the most you get a fine for that. Not that I think anybody would have burned books. It just reminds us a little too much of other fascists we have dealt with.)"

Personally I don't really have much of a problem with the warning they gave. I do believe burning of the koran, or any other "holy" book, is well within the scope of our current blasphemy §, which can result in 4 months in prison. Ofcourse, the organisation behind the demonstration had stated they wouldn't be burning the koran, and that they didn't want to see it happen. In that light, the warning was "wrong", but they issued the warning before "Dansk front" stated there'd be no koran burnings...

The fact that it was the far-right, incl. nazis, that held the protest, would ofcourse have been enough of a warning to stay away... People don't want to be associated with the nazis.

The great thing about this whole debacle is that there might be a political majority for getting rid of the blasphemy code.

 

"No in fact we have lost some of our freedom of expression.

I have read all editorials of the large newspapers. The ones of Politiken are shameful. PC, apologist and appeasing. The ones of Berlingske just little better. And the ones of Jyllandsposten resigned to but still fiesty to a degree. Information strangely enough has been a defender of free expression."

I agree with you about Politikens crap. As for the rest, I think they've been quite supportive of free speech/expression. You've forgotten BT and Ekstra Bladet though. They've been extremely supportive, especially Ekstra Bladet.

I know, they're more like tabloids, but they do have many many readers.

 

"In Denmark there has been an efficient campaign of calming down and explaining. Appeasement propaganda in full. 90% of all invited "experts" on tv and radio have been apologists. A PC type of censorship."

I disagree with that. Most of the debates I've seen, have had more people defending free speech/expression, though I'll agree the vast majority have urged "calm" and "dialog"... I'll be damned if I can understand what's to talk about. If they don't want to understand freedom of speech/expression, then that's their problem, not ours.

 

"It has now gotten to the point that a majority in Denmark believe the Cartoons should not have been published as they hurt the sensitivities of Muslims. This is more apolegic than in most other Western countries"

Can't remember having read that. Most surveys tend to blaim the imams and defend Jyllands-Posten. Hell, 44% of the population have lost some "goodwill" towards muslims...

 

The only thing I really miss seeing, is a demonstration in defence of democracy and it's underlying tenets, freedom of speech and expression. I hope one is on its way, but I doubt it...

The Danish government is coming to its senses again

Submitted by von Schlichtningen on Wed, 2006-02-15 22:17.

I have been been negative about the performance of the Danish Governent's way of handling the crisis. Too much appeasement and too many apologies.

But today there is this nice article in the New York Times: Dane Sees Greed and Politics in the Crisis
Probably the government with a little calm and all the support has come to its good senses again.
The Danes will NEVER apologize for being free!

And I can again said I am proud to be Danish.

See this nice drawing of the Danish PM:
http://hmmh.blogspot.com/2006/02/no-danish-apology-for-cartoons.html

Litigation the answer ?

Submitted by Johan Van Loon on Wed, 2006-02-15 15:49.

Perhaps the Danish industry - which is currently losing a lot due to the boycotts - should sue Akkari and the other radical Danish imams for the losses it is suffering.

If faced with a multi-million dollar lawsuit let's see how that affects their position...

Re: Litigation the Answer

Submitted by A New Believer on Wed, 2006-02-15 16:05.

Why not! It makes complete sense to me,do not forget to include the cartoon in the court trail.. and I mean ALL the CARTOONS, the ones the scurrilous little ragheaded tramps took to the Middle East that THEY Drew as well. That should resoundly drive a few nails in that coffin. And sue them for any ensuing damage to Danish property, loss of life or trauma inflicted upon any dane injuried in the skirmishes. I would go so far as suing them for the burning and destruction to the Danish embassies worldwide. Though you might have a little trouble on that point. But why not! Go for it I say!

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

Bob Doney

Submitted by truth serum on Wed, 2006-02-15 14:27.

As I don't live in England, I will have to fess up that I only know of Nick Griffin's recent history.  I will defer to your wisdom.  I did know he was a radical and as the media never seemed to give us the full story these days about anything (for our own protection) I took his radicalism with a grain of salt

I guess where I was really going with that thought is that voting for somebody radical would shake up the status quo politicians who don't seem to understand how people really feel with regards to Islamic activities in their country and abroad.  They have very real fears that I would not call phobic at all.

Many Politicians say they are going to be tough on terrorism but their actions are totally different.  They are letting Political Correctness rule their decisions and because of that they are putting other citizens at risk in the process....which is one point that Paul Belien is trying to make with this article.

Without even going into bombings and such...a perfect case in point is policemen standing by while citizens and their property are attacked by indignant Muslims.  We saw it happen in France, in Australia. Antwerp was just the latest example.

We see in the U.S. where political correctness in various forms shows up nearly every day.  The latest indignation is the sale of 6 major U.S. ports to a United Arab Emirates company.  How insane is that?  It was approved  by the very people who are supposed to be protecting us - a panel of the U.S Government which includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security.

The UN and EU, by defering to Muslims countries and adopting a resolution on defamation of religions is  risking everyone's culture and possibly their lives.  What happens when a religion turns into or has been a political ideology?  Such is the case with Islam and Sharia law.  Muslims are now demanding in their host Western countries to implement some forms of Sharia Law.  Will a country be able to say no...without being condemned or retaliated against in some form at the UN or the EU for not allowing Muslim to practice their religion?

The only outlet at the moment other than rioting in the streets ourselves (it could come to that) is voting the bums out.  If it takes voting for a radical to make a point...so be it. 

to DanishDynamite

Submitted by von Schlichtningen on Wed, 2006-02-15 14:12.

"He's already been proven wrong though. A Danish publisher, Gyldendal, has already said it would publish educational/school books containing the 12 cartoons."

In a book maybe. Because the drawings have become famous.

"Maybe newspapers will think twice in the future, but if you've read some of the editorials of the largest papers, I think you'd seriously question that assertion."

In a newspaper I don't believe. And never new drawings. We Danes are too scared now. The government might even try to stop it. Just as they through the secret police/police intelligence service (PET) warned people not to demonstrate against Muslims.
http://hmmh.blogspot.com/2006/01/now-basic-freedoms-are-being-lost-in.html
(BTW to the best of my knowledge it is not forbidden to burn books in Denmark. Even the Quran. The Legal experts have looked into it. The police were lying. You do not get 6 months of jail for burning it. But you are of course not allowed to make fires in the street - but at the most you get a fine for that. Not that I think anybody would have burned books. It just reminds us a little too much of other fascists we have dealt with.)

No in fact we have lost some of our freedom of expression.

I have read all editorials of the large newspapers. The ones of Politiken are shameful. PC, apologist and appeasing. The ones of Berlingske just little better. And the ones of Jyllandsposten resigned to but still fiesty to a degree. Information strangely enough has been a defender of free expression.

In Denmark there has been an efficient campaign of calming down and explaining. Appeasement propaganda in full. 90% of all invited "experts" on tv and radio have been apologists. A PC type of censorship.

The Prime Minister and the government have not apologized officially - but they have done anything but.

It has now gotten to the point that a majority in Denmark believe the Cartoons should not have been published as they hurt the sensitivities of Muslims. This is more apolegic than in most other Western countries

I have complained:
http://hmmh.blogspot.com/2006/02/islamofascists-have-won-battles-in.html

as I believe that appeasement towards Islamofascists is the worst possible solution. On the other hand the aproximation to the new Moderate Muslims in Denmark is a wonderful event. The Moderate Muslims specifically asked not to be asscociated to the Imams who are right out of the middle ages. And the official Denmark will not converse with the treacherous Danish Imams anymore either. And why should they in a secular society?

HEIL HITLER!

Submitted by antimuhammed on Wed, 2006-02-15 13:23.

ZIG HEIL, ZIG HEIL!ZIG HEIL!

THE GERMAN WAR MACHINE WILL BE RETURNING IN THE 21ST CENTURY TO STOMP ON THE ISLAMIC THREAT.
I HAVE A VISION AS THE NEW GERMAN MUHAMMED. I AM THE IMPROVED VERSION AND THE ANTI MUHAMMED OF OLD.

I DEFEND THE WHITE MAN BECAUSE HE DEVELOPED THE FUCKED UP CAMEL JOCKEY'S SOCIETIES. BUT THE DESERT MONKEYS DO NOT THANK HIM FOR THAT, NEITHER DOES THE RACISTS APES AND GUERRILAS FROM AFRICA AND AMERICA CALLED NATION OF ISLAM...BUNCH OF NIGGERS, AND BUNCH OF CAMEL JOCKIES...

THEY ARE ALL MUSLIMS AND WILL BE EXTERMINATED BY THE NEW HITLER, NAME THE NEW AND IMPROVED MUHAMMED!

"domestic" facism

Submitted by Gordonz on Wed, 2006-02-15 13:17.

substituting a kind of "domestic" facism to combat the influence of a "foreign" facism is cold comfort indeed.

THE NEW AND IMPROVED MUHAMMED

Submitted by antimuhammed on Wed, 2006-02-15 12:41.

I'M THE NEW MUHAMMED! WORSHIP ME! FOR I AM THE ANTI-OLD MUHAMMED. THE FAGGOT IS OBSOLETE!
I AM SUPERIOR BECAUSE I, THE NEW MUHAMMED IS A PREVERT, PERVERT AND A POSTVERT.
I AM HIP...I LIKE TO BE EXPOSED TO WESTERN CULTURE AND VALUES AND HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO TELL MUSLIMS TO WORSHIP ME AND KISS MY ASS!
I THE NEW MUHAMMED DENOUNCE THE OLD MUHAMMED AS BEING A TERRORIST, CHILD MOLESTOR AND MURDERER. THE KORAN I DETEST AND SHOULD BE BURNED ASUNDER AND DESTROYED IN THE ASHES OF THE FURNACE.
ISLAM SHOULD BE BANNED FROM ALL PUBLIC PLACES AND MOSQUES TURNED INTO MOVIE THEATERS!
DISBAND AND EXECUTE ALL SUICIDE BOMBERS AND JIHADISTS.
EXTERMINATE ALL RADICALS.
DESTROY ALL MULLAHS. NO ONE WILL BE ALLOWED TO STUDY THE KORAN OR PUBLISH THE KORAN.
WE WILL GET RID OF ISLAM...

I, THE NEW MUHAMMED WILL INSTILL THE GERBIL KUNG FU MASTER QI GONG SCHOOL OF THOUGHT.
YOU WILL LEARN HOW TO GIVE A HOO HA WASHING.
YOU WILL NO LONGER BE BRAINWASHED BY THE FILTHY KORAN AND THE TEACHINGS OF ISLAM.
THE ONLY RELIGION YOU FORMER MUSLIMS MUST ADHERE TO IS TO BOW BEFORE THE NEW MUHAMMED AND LEARN THE WAYS OF THE GERBIL KUNG FU MASTER.
BY MEDITATING ON THE GERBIL MANTRA...
AND IF YOU MISBEHAVE, YOU WILL PLACED IN THE GERBIL LIGHT SOCKET AND FACE THE CONSEQUENCES.
THE NEW MUHAMMED FOLLOWERS WILL NO LONGER BE CALLED MUSLIMBS, BUT MOOSE LIMBS!
THEY WILL WORSHIP NO ONE!
THEY WILL ACCEPT THE WESTERN WORLD AND ADMIT THEIR INFERIORITY TOWARDS THE JEWS, THAT JEWS ARE MORE ADVANCE AND EDUCATED IN EVERY FORM AND THAT THEY SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO THE JEWS, CHRISTIAN, BUDDHIST, HINDUS AND ATHEISTS FOR THEIR MURDEROURS CAMPAIGN AGAINST THESE GROUPS.

PRAYS BE ODIN AND THE YODA!
MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU, YOU INFIDELS!

MUHAMMED FUNKENSTEIN
PRE OCCUPIDE WITH YOUR MIND
P FUNK THE BOMB!
COMING TO YOU DIRECTLY FROM THE MOTHERSHIP, TOP OF THE CHOCOLATE MILKY WAY
YAW BITCHES!

to “protect the sanctity of religions and the prophets.”

Submitted by grumpy on Wed, 2006-02-15 11:13.

So the EU is going to support the inclusion of that type of clause in the human rights charter...
1. Which religions? Scientology? Satanistic sects?
2. No charter without a court to punish offenders. I assume the Human Rights Court will have to include "religious leaders", after all they're the specialists? Back to the 16th century. Spread the carpet for the ayatollahs.
Obviously our socialist politicians will support this. Resentment and hatred for their own culture is what they feed on. But our christian-democrats are as confused, and US conservatives seem to be in a muddle about the relation between religion and the state. A mighty coalition if there ever was one.
As for Patrick Janssens, you only have to see him once to know he's a sissy. Unable to see that you have to hit these "youngsters" on their heads, or they will never understand. “An ambulance was told to switch off its siren because that might provoke the Moroccans.” How thoughtfull. Shitting in their pants ......

von Slichtningen,  

Submitted by DanishDynamite on Wed, 2006-02-15 10:55.

von Slichtningen,

 

"Kåre Valebrokk is right. Norway has lost some freedom of expression. But not only there. The editor of Jyllandsposten stated the same. Something like: In the next years nobody in Denmark will print anything like the 12 drawings."

 

He's already been proven wrong though. A Danish publisher, Gyldendal, has already said it would publish educational/school books containing the 12 cartoons.

Maybe newspapers will think twice in the future, but if you've read some of the editorials of the largest papers, I think you'd seriously question that assertion.

akkari earlier thrown out for molesting a 4 year old in aarhus

Submitted by auxilium on Wed, 2006-02-15 09:41.

Imam Akkari, onthulde Jyllands Posten, heeft zijn opleiding tot leraar niet afgemaakt en werd ontslagen omdat hij op de islamitische Lykkeskolen in Aarhus een 4-jarige kleuter heeft mishandeld. Een schoolmedewerker vertelde de krant. ‘Een vierjarige jongen trok aan de sluier van een meisje waardoor het haar zichtbaar werd. Akkari werd zo boos dat hij er op lossloeg, hij gooide het kind op de grond en sloeg met gebalde vuisten op de borst van het kind.’ Het schoolbestuur, gaat de medewerker verder, is geïnformeerd door een vrouwelijke leraar die ontzet de mishandeling had gadegeslagen. Leraren dreigden vervolgens met ontslag indien het bestuur weigerde iets te ondernemen. Ondanks het ontbreken van een diploma en de mishandeling kreeg Akkari in 2003 snel een nieuwe aanstelling op het Aårhus Dag- en Avondseminarium en een aanstelling op de Selam Friskole. Akkari heeft ontslag genomen toen hij verhuisde naar Kopenhagen.

Er is aangifte gedaan, verklaren diverse bronnen rond de school, en Akkari is de toegang tot de school ontzegd.
'Er ontstond veel onrust in het najaar,' vertelt een medewerker aan de krant JP, 'toen Akkari kort voor kerst zich op de school liet zien. omdat hij regelmatig het vrijdaggebed leidt in de zaal van de Arabische cultuurvereniging die de schoollokalen benut.'
Akkari verzekerde eerder als woordvoerder van de imams in Aarhus burgemeester Louise Gade dat zij ‘het Deense vrouwenstandpunt’ respecteren.
Gade betreurt het inmiddels zeer dat zij na die verklaring ontdekte dat Akkari in een jeugdblad voor moslims had geschreven dat een meisje werd aangerand omdat zij geen sluier wilde dragen. Maar achteraf, zegt ze, als ik toen een sluier had gedragen, dan had hij me niet zo zitten aangapen.

I Remind You of the Riots in Amsterdam This Past Week

Submitted by foreign devil on Wed, 2006-02-15 03:11.

I just remind you to read this link from Arjan Dassalaer's "Zacht Ei" which tell of two HAMAS agents being picked up in the Amsterdam demonstrations which were much like the ones in Antwerp and Brussels.  The police had asked the Imams to get these guys to quiet down but as one policeman said "they were looking for a fight".  Eventually two were caught and turned out to be Palestinian HAMAS agents pretending to be counter-protesters to the 'Peace Muslim Demonstrators' except these guys were trashing things.  It was agit-prop by Islam's agents, these HAMAS agents, as surely as anything can be.  Outrageous!  Read the whole story here:

http://www.zachtei.nl/2006/02/11/001119.html

The One Good Thing That Came Out of This

Submitted by Fuqhue Teroris on Wed, 2006-02-15 02:39.

The one good thing that came out of this ridiculous argument over the comic, is that the world sees these Muslim extremists for what they really are...friggin nuts.

Sometimes you get to laugh and sometimes you get laughed at...that's life.

Nobody would have been able to depict the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turbine if his crazy followers weren't blowing themselves in his name. These are the same people who constantly burn flags, cast insults, kidknap, and saw the heads off of anyone who does not follow their beliefs. Burn down embassies and destroy your community to make a point...that's a good idea...everyone will think you're sane then.

Lets face it folks...when I get on an airplane, I'm not looking for the Danish guy strapped with explosives...I'm looking around for a guy who looks like that cartoon. It's not profiling or racism...it's a result of watching a pack of idiots hyjack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper.

Perhaps the Quaran should preach about having a sense of humor...because nothing is funnier than watching an Arab try and defeat an armed Jew by throwing rocks...keep up the struggle fellas...things seem to be going your way.

I really hope there isn't anyone out there that thinks nuclear anything in this region of the world sounds rational.

Re: The One Good Thing Out To Come Out Of It!

Submitted by A New Believer on Wed, 2006-02-15 15:57.

It is not the Danish guy you ned to worry about, I personally look to see where the muslims are, and I make no diffdernce in diferientiating between males, females and children. They are teaching 11 year old sin Palestine to become suicide bombers. I do the same for buses, trains and subways. As soon as we ship them all back where they came from . Then decent people will be able to carry on with their lives peacefully.

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

Michael in London

Submitted by truth serum on Wed, 2006-02-15 02:30.

While, the BNP leader Nick Griffin, is a bit rough around the edges, he does passionately worry about England's coulture and future.  He has been dead-on with regard to the Islamic activity in your country.  He just does't fit the multicultural and PC mold that most want him to fit into.

For another take on Islamophobia see Robert Spencers website....

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010217.php#comments

Rough round the edges

Submitted by Bob Doney on Wed, 2006-02-15 11:24.

While, the BNP leader Nick Griffin, is a bit rough around the edges, he does passionately worry about England's coulture and future.

Er,.... no. England's future, like the rest of the world's, depends on good, peaceful relationships between people of different colours, beliefs and lifestyles. Nick Griffin and his merry band are not helpful in bringing about such a future. It's not only round the edges that they're a bit rough.

Bob Doney

TO BOB DONEY: Rough round the edges

Submitted by Freespeech on Wed, 2006-02-15 21:51.

"England's future, like the rest of the world's, depends on good, peaceful relationships between people of different colours, beliefs and lifestyles".

Muslims do not admit any other lifestyle than "submission". Didn't anybody ever explain to you that 'Islam' is the Arabic word for submission? And "submission" is what you say to be just a different lifestyle? No multiculturalism is possible when muslims are involved.

Quoting George Orwell : “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
IT IS NOT IN THE MUSLIM LIFESTYLE SO SHALL WE GIVE IT UP?

Quoting Winston Churchill : “England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame and will get war.”
THIS IS WHERE THE TOLERATION OF INTOLERANCE HAS LED UK AND MOST OF THE EU.

People like you bear the unenviable responsibility for having trashed the hardly won freedom values upon which the western democracy was built. People like you are now the standard-bearer of cowardice in face of islamic intolerance.

But you and the muslim fascist you are backing shall not get your way so easily.
Churchill and Orwell were very well aware that liberty is the dearest value in the life of human beings, that's why they committed their life to the fight for freedom: so many are still ready to follow their steps. Obviously not in a dhimmi country as UK.

Orwellian

Submitted by Bob Doney on Wed, 2006-02-15 22:02.

People like you bear the unenviable responsibility for having trashed the hardly won freedom values upon which the western democracy was built.

How have I done that?

It's interesting that you recommend George Orwell to us, yet your actual language about Islam and Muslims is like that of the "Two Minute Hates" he describes in "1984".

Bob Doney

TO BOB DONEY : muslim fascist

Submitted by Freespeech on Wed, 2006-02-15 23:10.

Both FASCISM and ISLAM are the facets of the same scourge that haunts human beings since the very beginnings of human history: THE WILL TO SUBJUGATE.

Human societies have grown and developed upon slavery per millennia. The very idea of LIBERTY didn't exist in human history till when humans conceived it as the opposite of SUBJUGATION and the first seed of LIBERTY was sown in England almost eight hundreds years ago with "habeas corpus". I feel crying when I hear a Briton saying that we shall accommodate with ISLAM because England was the first country on the earth to give birth to the very idea of FREEDOM.

Doesn't tell you anything that in the Islam world women are not entitled yet to "habeas corpus"? Is that simply a matter of different lifestyle?
Or shouldn’t perhaps we start to recognize that ISLAM is the last and most frightening mean and way that the WILL TO SUBJUGATE, so deeply rooted in human nature, is using for defeating LIBERTY?
Quoting Thomas Mann : “Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.”

to Bob Doney

Submitted by von Schlichtningen on Wed, 2006-02-15 12:55.

"depends on good, peaceful relationships between people of different colours, beliefs and lifestyles"

Neville Chamberlain thought that about the Nazis too. He even made a pact with them...

There is no such thing as peaceful co-existence with fascism in expansion. Appeasement is the worst possible strategy.

Pacifists and apologists have more dead people on their conscience than just about any other group.

Anti-fascism

Submitted by Bob Doney on Wed, 2006-02-15 13:02.

There is no such thing as peaceful co-existence with fascism in expansion. Appeasement is the worst possible strategy.

Quite! There's no need to vote for the buggers though, as our friend is proposing to do.

Bob Doney

Loss of freedom

Submitted by von Schlichtningen on Wed, 2006-02-15 01:53.

Kåre Valebrokk is right. Norway has lost some freedom of expression. But not only there. The editor of Jyllandsposten stated the same. Something like: In the next years nobody in Denmark will print anything like the 12 drawings.

I am afraid there will now come first guide lines and later laws to the effect of limiting severely the freedom of speech in Europe. Probably by way of the UN and the EU. It will of course not be called a limitation of free speech. Bur rather laws to ensure respect, dialogue, human rights or some such.

In the future we probably may not criticize Muslim religious values or anything that could be translated as such. But is it going to stop there?

There is a case in Germany now, where a cartoonist is in hiding after death threats, and the Iranian embassy has delivered official protests to a newspaper because of a misunderstanding of a caricature of non-religious content.

Read the story here: (http://hmmh.blogspot.com/2006/02/another-european-cartoonist-receiving.html)

It looks very bad for the future of free expression. Maybe soon all women will have to cover their hair not to hurt Muslim religious feelings? Critisizing infringements on human rights by Muslims will of course be verboten.

And we who have dared to raise our voices - we will probably be in hiding else....

My next vote..

Submitted by Michael in London on Wed, 2006-02-15 01:40.

'Yesterday, during a visit to Saudi Arabia, EU Foreign Policy Coordinator Javier Solana promised that the EU will support a clause in an updated human rights charter of the United Nations to “protect the sanctity of religions and the prophets.”'

My next vote's for the British National Party. Sorry, I never thought I'd say it, but there really is no longer any choice. The 'conventional' politicians (especially those in the UK) have surrendered to political Islam. I for one don't want "creeping Sharia", and I don't care how far to the right I have to go to prevent it from governing (or gaining greater influence in) Britain. I have yet to meet anyone who thinks differently. How sad, but how inevitable.

According to a new poll in

Submitted by Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson on Wed, 2006-02-15 00:26.

According to a new poll in Denmark the majority believes the Muslim organizations protesting the Muhammad cartoons are to blame for these crisis, not Jyllands-Posten or the Danish government.