"Vulgar and cowardly"   "stupidity"   "German law provides 
for jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
In Europe, anti-cartoon voices rise

PARIS - A growing number of European journalists and political
caricaturists are condemning the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed 
that have deepened the schism between Europe and the Muslim world. 

In France, where several newspapers reprinted the Danish cartoons,
leading caricaturists have particularly condemned the depiction of
Mohammed as a terrorist. 

"Such a cartoon directly associates one religion with terrorism, and
this is unacceptable," said Rene Petillon, a cartoonist for the
satirical weekly newspaper Le Canard Enchaine. "You cannot just say
whatever you want about the Muslim community." Jul, another French
caricaturist, said,...

Swedish writer Jan Guillou said in a telephone interview with Inter
Press Service from Stockholm that the Danish cartoons were "vulgar 
and cowardly,...

In Germany, the Association of Journalists (Deutscher Journalisten
Verband - DJV) criticized the printing of the cartoons. "Publications,
be it in word or in images, that insult the religious convictions of a
community are incompatible with the responsibility of the press,"
spokesperson Hendrik Zoerner said. 

Many German political caricaturists have condemned the cartoons. Klaus
Staeck, a renowned political cartoonist, said he would have refused to
draw a cartoon of Mohammed. "There are moments and situations in which
one has to consider the implications of making jokes about others," he
said. 

Political cartoonist Gerhard Haderer called the Danish newspaper
Jyllands-Posten's idea of drawing images of Mohammed "a stupidity".

Some commentators and cartoonists have pointed out that European
freedom of the press is not absolute as some editors pretend, and that
tribunals often rule against journalists and artists. French Catholic
associations "bombard newspapers with petitions every time they
believe journalists and cartoonists have offended Christian dogmas",
Jul said. 

Christian Schertz, a lawyer in Berlin, said German law provided for
jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs. "And those
beliefs are not confined to Christian ones, but to all religions." 

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

"hummingbird"  wrote in message
news:gcbnu1t7vbptvlt581c1eoskhif9fd93ah@4ax.com...
> "Vulgar and cowardly"

In some cases yes. Is it a crime to be vulgar and cowardly?

>   "stupidity"

Likewise, it's not yet a crime to be stupid.

>   "German law provides
> for jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs."
>
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
> In Europe, anti-cartoon voices rise
>
> PARIS - A growing number of European journalists and political
> caricaturists are condemning the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed
> that have deepened the schism between Europe and the Muslim world.
>
> In France, where several newspapers reprinted the Danish cartoons,
> leading caricaturists have particularly condemned the depiction of
> Mohammed as a terrorist.
>
> "Such a cartoon directly associates one religion with terrorism,

Why does he object? On the whole, terrorists associate themselves with one
religion. Putting a bomb on Mohammed's head wasn't an arbitrary thing, it
was a response to an increasing number of events in which muslims kill
themselves in order to kill others in the name of Islam.

> and
> this is unacceptable," said Rene Petillon, a cartoonist for the
> satirical weekly newspaper Le Canard Enchaine. "You cannot just say
> whatever you want about the Muslim community."

Actually you can, Jul. You can say stupid things, or even grossly distort
the Muslim community (and what is cartooning if not gross distortion?) The
majority "community" is fair game, but not Muslims. You can draw a yawning
crucifix, but not a dead prophet.

> Jul, another French
> caricaturist, said,...
>
> Swedish writer Jan Guillou said in a telephone interview with Inter
> Press Service from Stockholm that the Danish cartoons were "vulgar
> and cowardly,...
>
> In Germany, the Association of Journalists (Deutscher Journalisten
> Verband - DJV) criticized the printing of the cartoons. "Publications,
> be it in word or in images, that insult the religious convictions of a
> community are incompatible with the responsibility of the press,"
> spokesperson Hendrik Zoerner said.

Death threats, bomb threats, riots and bringing down a thousand Danish
websites are all OK.

> Many German political caricaturists have condemned the cartoons. Klaus
> Staeck, a renowned political cartoonist, said he would have refused to
> draw a cartoon of Mohammed. "There are moments and situations in which
> one has to consider the implications of making jokes about others," he
> said.
>
> Political cartoonist Gerhard Haderer called the Danish newspaper
> Jyllands-Posten's idea of drawing images of Mohammed "a stupidity".

The pips are squeaking. Not a single mention of freedom of expression so
far.

>
> Some commentators and cartoonists have pointed out that European
> freedom of the press

Ah!

> is not absolute

Oh.

> as some editors pretend, and that
> tribunals often rule against journalists and artists. French Catholic
> associations "bombard newspapers with petitions every time they
> believe journalists and cartoonists have offended Christian dogmas",
> Jul said.

So what he's saying is that cartoonists often offend Christian dogmas, and
despite evidence of repeated offence taken, they continue doing so? Why,
that shouldn't be allowed! Remember, "You cannot just say anything you want
about the X community".

> Christian Schertz, a lawyer in Berlin, said German law provided for
> jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs. "And those
> beliefs are not confined to Christian ones, but to all religions."

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:07:48 +0000, hummingbird
  

  typed:

>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html

asian times

> A growing number of European journalists and political
>caricaturists 

what they done buzzy? grown from 5 to 6?

i always get this awful suspicion when people use adjectives
    instead of numbers...

>Christian Schertz, a lawyer in Berlin, said German law provided for
>jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs. "And those
>beliefs are not confined to Christian ones, but to all religions." 

what about your 'divine' beliefs buzzy?

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:57:35 +0100, abelard 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:07:48 +0000, hummingbird
>  
>
>  typed:
>
>>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
>
>asian times
>
>> A growing number of European journalists and political
>>caricaturists 
>
>what they done buzzy? grown from 5 to 6?
>
>i always get this awful suspicion when people use adjectives
>    instead of numbers...

This'll cure your paranoia:  http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

>>Christian Schertz, a lawyer in Berlin, said German law provided for
>>jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs. "And those
>>beliefs are not confined to Christian ones, but to all religions." 
>
>what about your 'divine' beliefs buzzy?

Ave Maria, you didn't scream "socialists" once 'abelard sunset'.

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:57:47 +0000 (UTC), "DVH" 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>"hummingbird"  wrote in message
>news:gcbnu1t7vbptvlt581c1eoskhif9fd93ah@4ax.com...
>> "Vulgar and cowardly"
>
>In some cases yes. Is it a crime to be vulgar and cowardly?

People have been prosecuted for the first and executed for the second.

>>   "stupidity"
>
>Likewise, it's not yet a crime to be stupid.

Depends what stupidity leads you to do.

>>   "German law provides
>> for jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs."
>>
>> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
>> In Europe, anti-cartoon voices rise
>>
>> PARIS - A growing number of European journalists and political
>> caricaturists are condemning the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed
>> that have deepened the schism between Europe and the Muslim world.
>>
>> In France, where several newspapers reprinted the Danish cartoons,
>> leading caricaturists have particularly condemned the depiction of
>> Mohammed as a terrorist.
>>
>> "Such a cartoon directly associates one religion with terrorism,
>
>Why does he object? On the whole,

Is that the whole in your head dumpty after you fell over?
Or is that what you do after a hard day at the keyboard?

>terrorists associate themselves with one
>religion. Putting a bomb on Mohammed's head wasn't an arbitrary thing, it
>was a response to an increasing number of events in which muslims kill
>themselves in order to kill others in the name of Islam.

Either that or it was gratuitous offence.

>> and
>> this is unacceptable," said Rene Petillon, a cartoonist for the
>> satirical weekly newspaper Le Canard Enchaine. "You cannot just say
>> whatever you want about the Muslim community."
>
>Actually you can, Jul. You can say stupid things, or even grossly distort
>the Muslim community (and what is cartooning if not gross distortion?) The
>majority "community" is fair game, but not Muslims. You can draw a yawning
>crucifix, but not a dead prophet.

He was obviously referring to issues which you apparently don't
understand: common courtesy and mutual respect.

>> Jul, another French
>> caricaturist, said,...
>>
>> Swedish writer Jan Guillou said in a telephone interview with Inter
>> Press Service from Stockholm that the Danish cartoons were "vulgar
>> and cowardly,...
>>
>> In Germany, the Association of Journalists (Deutscher Journalisten
>> Verband - DJV) criticized the printing of the cartoons. "Publications,
>> be it in word or in images, that insult the religious convictions of a
>> community are incompatible with the responsibility of the press,"
>> spokesperson Hendrik Zoerner said.
>
>Death threats, bomb threats, riots and bringing down a thousand Danish
>websites are all OK.

Few are supporting tolerance of the reaction but one must also not
forget the sequence of events. It's called provocation.

>> Many German political caricaturists have condemned the cartoons. Klaus
>> Staeck, a renowned political cartoonist, said he would have refused to
>> draw a cartoon of Mohammed. "There are moments and situations in which
>> one has to consider the implications of making jokes about others," he
>> said.
>>
>> Political cartoonist Gerhard Haderer called the Danish newspaper
>> Jyllands-Posten's idea of drawing images of Mohammed "a stupidity".
>
>The pips are squeaking. Not a single mention of freedom of expression so
>far.

You obviously don't read too well. The German comments referred to
press responsibility in the context of free speech.

>> Some commentators and cartoonists have pointed out that European
>> freedom of the press
>
>Ah!
>
>> is not absolute
>
>Oh.

How disappointing for you.

>> as some editors pretend, and that
>> tribunals often rule against journalists and artists. French Catholic
>> associations "bombard newspapers with petitions every time they
>> believe journalists and cartoonists have offended Christian dogmas",
>> Jul said.
>
>So what he's saying is that cartoonists often offend Christian dogmas, and
>despite evidence of repeated offence taken, they continue doing so? Why,
>that shouldn't be allowed! Remember, "You cannot just say anything you want
>about the X community".

I think he's also saying that it's not so clear cut when Catholics are
offended, whereas the Islamic rule of never depicting Mo is 100% clear

>> Christian Schertz, a lawyer in Berlin, said German law provided for
>> jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs. "And those
>> beliefs are not confined to Christian ones, but to all religions."
-- 
"Bloody hell, you're so fucking thick it's painful."
....DVH 2nd Feb 2006 ukpm.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:22:27 +0000, hummingbird
  

>People have been prosecuted for the first and executed for the second.

>Depends what stupidity leads you to do.

>Is that the whole in your head dumpty after you fell over?
>Or is that what you do after a hard day at the keyboard?

>Either that or it was gratuitous offence.

>He was obviously referring to issues which you apparently don't
>understand: common courtesy and mutual respect.

>Few are supporting tolerance of the reaction but one must also not
>forget the sequence of events. It's called provocation.

>You obviously don't read too well. The German comments referred to
>press responsibility in the context of free speech.

>How disappointing for you.

>I think he's also saying that it's not so clear cut when Catholics are
>offended, whereas the Islamic rule of never depicting Mo is 100% clear


-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"hummingbird"  wrote in message
news:70qnu15sgue3ffv1pcfkv6km1qtmvc9a8f@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:57:47 +0000 (UTC), "DVH" 
>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> >"hummingbird"  wrote in message
> >news:gcbnu1t7vbptvlt581c1eoskhif9fd93ah@4ax.com...
> >> "Vulgar and cowardly"
> >
> >In some cases yes. Is it a crime to be vulgar and cowardly?
>
> People have been prosecuted for the first and executed for the second.

So what? Are you saying this is an argument in favour of prosecution of the
vulgar and cowardly? What's your point?

> >>   "stupidity"
> >
> >Likewise, it's not yet a crime to be stupid.
>
> Depends what stupidity leads you to do.

Nobody is prosecuted for stupidity, hummy. This is not a good rebuttal.

> >>   "German law provides
> >> for jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs."
> >>
> >> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
> >> In Europe, anti-cartoon voices rise
> >>
> >> PARIS - A growing number of European journalists and political
> >> caricaturists are condemning the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed
> >> that have deepened the schism between Europe and the Muslim world.
> >>
> >> In France, where several newspapers reprinted the Danish cartoons,
> >> leading caricaturists have particularly condemned the depiction of
> >> Mohammed as a terrorist.
> >>
> >> "Such a cartoon directly associates one religion with terrorism,
> >
> >Why does he object? On the whole,
>
> Is that the whole in your head dumpty after you fell over?
> Or is that what you do after a hard day at the keyboard?
>
> >terrorists associate themselves with one
> >religion. Putting a bomb on Mohammed's head wasn't an arbitrary thing, it
> >was a response to an increasing number of events in which muslims kill
> >themselves in order to kill others in the name of Islam.
>
> Either that or it was gratuitous offence.

Well, if you believe it's an either/or case, and was gratuitous offence,
then please show how you came to this conclusion. I think in the process of
doing so you'll have to show that the events leading up to the publication
in JP are unconnected. I don't see how you can do this, but give it a go.

> >> and
> >> this is unacceptable," said Rene Petillon, a cartoonist for the
> >> satirical weekly newspaper Le Canard Enchaine. "You cannot just say
> >> whatever you want about the Muslim community."
> >
> >Actually you can, Jul. You can say stupid things, or even grossly distort
> >the Muslim community (and what is cartooning if not gross distortion?)
The
> >majority "community" is fair game, but not Muslims. You can draw a
yawning
> >crucifix, but not a dead prophet.
>
> He was obviously referring to issues which you apparently don't
> understand: common courtesy and mutual respect.

I'm not claiming the publication of the cartoons in JP was courteous. I
don't think it was.

> >> Jul, another French
> >> caricaturist, said,...
> >>
> >> Swedish writer Jan Guillou said in a telephone interview with Inter
> >> Press Service from Stockholm that the Danish cartoons were "vulgar
> >> and cowardly,...
> >>
> >> In Germany, the Association of Journalists (Deutscher Journalisten
> >> Verband - DJV) criticized the printing of the cartoons. "Publications,
> >> be it in word or in images, that insult the religious convictions of a
> >> community are incompatible with the responsibility of the press,"
> >> spokesperson Hendrik Zoerner said.
> >
> >Death threats, bomb threats, riots and bringing down a thousand Danish
> >websites are all OK.
>
> Few are supporting tolerance of the reaction

It's true that few in the west are directly supporting toleration of the
reaction. But many are tacitly supporting it by failing to stand up for its
opposite.

> but one must also not
> forget the sequence of events. It's called provocation.

I still don't understand why one type of provocation is acceptable and
another not. Why have I never seen you objecting to cartoons or satire
mocking Christians, for example?

> >> Many German political caricaturists have condemned the cartoons. Klaus
> >> Staeck, a renowned political cartoonist, said he would have refused to
> >> draw a cartoon of Mohammed. "There are moments and situations in which
> >> one has to consider the implications of making jokes about others," he
> >> said.
> >>
> >> Political cartoonist Gerhard Haderer called the Danish newspaper
> >> Jyllands-Posten's idea of drawing images of Mohammed "a stupidity".
> >
> >The pips are squeaking. Not a single mention of freedom of expression so
> >far.
>
> You obviously don't read too well. The German comments referred to
> press responsibility in the context of free speech.

In other words, they refer only to instances when free speech should be
restricted.

> >> Some commentators and cartoonists have pointed out that European
> >> freedom of the press
> >
> >Ah!
> >
> >> is not absolute
> >
> >Oh.
>
> How disappointing for you.

Yes, somewhat.

> >> as some editors pretend, and that
> >> tribunals often rule against journalists and artists. French Catholic
> >> associations "bombard newspapers with petitions every time they
> >> believe journalists and cartoonists have offended Christian dogmas",
> >> Jul said.
> >
> >So what he's saying is that cartoonists often offend Christian dogmas,
and
> >despite evidence of repeated offence taken, they continue doing so? Why,
> >that shouldn't be allowed! Remember, "You cannot just say anything you
want
> >about the X community".
>
> I think he's also saying that it's not so clear cut when Catholics are
> offended, whereas the Islamic rule of never depicting Mo is 100% clear

Huh? How d'you work that one out? What's not clear about "bombarding"
newspapers with petitions "every time" they believe Christian dogmas have
been offended? What clearer signal would you need?

> >> Christian Schertz, a lawyer in Berlin, said German law provided for
> >> jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs. "And those
> >> beliefs are not confined to Christian ones, but to all religions."
> -- 
> "Bloody hell, you're so fucking thick it's painful."

Heh. You liked that one, didn't you?

In article , ZYLYDWINUSED@spammotel.com wrote:
>"Vulgar and cowardly"   "stupidity"   "German law provides 
>for jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs."
>
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
>In Europe, anti-cartoon voices rise
>
>PARIS - A growing number of European journalists and political
>caricaturists are condemning the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed 
>that have deepened the schism between Europe and the Muslim world. 

Translation:
A growing number of journalists have come out against the cartoons because 
they do not like the thought of being tracked down and beheaded by 
dickheads.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 06:34:44 +0000 (UTC), "DVH" 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>"hummingbird"  wrote in message
>news:70qnu15sgue3ffv1pcfkv6km1qtmvc9a8f@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:57:47 +0000 (UTC), "DVH" 
>>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>> >"hummingbird"  wrote in message
>> >news:gcbnu1t7vbptvlt581c1eoskhif9fd93ah@4ax.com...
>> >> "Vulgar and cowardly"
>> >
>> >In some cases yes. Is it a crime to be vulgar and cowardly?
>>
>> People have been prosecuted for the first and executed for the second.
>
>So what? Are you saying this is an argument in favour of prosecution of the
>vulgar and cowardly? What's your point?

My point is that your assertion was wrong. Pity you missed that.

>> >>   "stupidity"
>> >
>> >Likewise, it's not yet a crime to be stupid.
>>
>> Depends what stupidity leads you to do.
>
>Nobody is prosecuted for stupidity, hummy. This is not a good rebuttal.

Depends what stupidity leads you to do.

>> >>   "German law provides
>> >> for jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs."
>> >>
>> >> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
>> >> In Europe, anti-cartoon voices rise
>> >>
>> >> PARIS - A growing number of European journalists and political
>> >> caricaturists are condemning the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed
>> >> that have deepened the schism between Europe and the Muslim world.
>> >>
>> >> In France, where several newspapers reprinted the Danish cartoons,
>> >> leading caricaturists have particularly condemned the depiction of
>> >> Mohammed as a terrorist.
>> >>
>> >> "Such a cartoon directly associates one religion with terrorism,
>> >
>> >Why does he object? On the whole,
>>
>> Is that the whole in your head dumpty after you fell over?
>> Or is that what you do after a hard day at the keyboard?
>>
>> >terrorists associate themselves with one
>> >religion. Putting a bomb on Mohammed's head wasn't an arbitrary thing, it
>> >was a response to an increasing number of events in which muslims kill
>> >themselves in order to kill others in the name of Islam.
>>
>> Either that or it was gratuitous offence.
>
>Well, if you believe it's an either/or case, and was gratuitous offence,
>then please show how you came to this conclusion. I think in the process of
>doing so you'll have to show that the events leading up to the publication
>in JP are unconnected. I don't see how you can do this, but give it a go.

What events might they be dumpty?

>> >> and
>> >> this is unacceptable," said Rene Petillon, a cartoonist for the
>> >> satirical weekly newspaper Le Canard Enchaine. "You cannot just say
>> >> whatever you want about the Muslim community."
>> >
>> >Actually you can, Jul. You can say stupid things, or even grossly distort
>> >the Muslim community (and what is cartooning if not gross distortion?)
>The
>> >majority "community" is fair game, but not Muslims. You can draw a
>yawning
>> >crucifix, but not a dead prophet.
>>
>> He was obviously referring to issues which you apparently don't
>> understand: common courtesy and mutual respect.
>
>I'm not claiming the publication of the cartoons in JP was courteous. I
>don't think it was.

So you agree it was discourteous. But was it gratuitously offensive?
Many people seem to think so.

>> >> Jul, another French
>> >> caricaturist, said,...
>> >>
>> >> Swedish writer Jan Guillou said in a telephone interview with Inter
>> >> Press Service from Stockholm that the Danish cartoons were "vulgar
>> >> and cowardly,...
>> >>
>> >> In Germany, the Association of Journalists (Deutscher Journalisten
>> >> Verband - DJV) criticized the printing of the cartoons. "Publications,
>> >> be it in word or in images, that insult the religious convictions of a
>> >> community are incompatible with the responsibility of the press,"
>> >> spokesperson Hendrik Zoerner said.
>> >
>> >Death threats, bomb threats, riots and bringing down a thousand Danish
>> >websites are all OK.
>>
>> Few are supporting tolerance of the reaction
>
>It's true that few in the west are directly supporting toleration of the
>reaction. But many are tacitly supporting it by failing to stand up for its
>opposite.

Baahh! It's not black or white dumpty.
By not openly supporting unfettered free speech or the blanket right
to offend anybody at anytime does not mean one is tacitly supporting
the reaction. But I'm aware that many folks choose to argue that....

>> but one must also not
>> forget the sequence of events. It's called provocation.
>
>I still don't understand why one type of provocation is acceptable and
>another not. Why have I never seen you objecting to cartoons or satire
>mocking Christians, for example?

I don't see them.

>> >> Many German political caricaturists have condemned the cartoons. Klaus
>> >> Staeck, a renowned political cartoonist, said he would have refused to
>> >> draw a cartoon of Mohammed. "There are moments and situations in which
>> >> one has to consider the implications of making jokes about others," he
>> >> said.
>> >>
>> >> Political cartoonist Gerhard Haderer called the Danish newspaper
>> >> Jyllands-Posten's idea of drawing images of Mohammed "a stupidity".
>> >
>> >The pips are squeaking. Not a single mention of freedom of expression so
>> >far.
>>
>> You obviously don't read too well. The German comments referred to
>> press responsibility in the context of free speech.
>
>In other words, they refer only to instances when free speech should be
>restricted.

Well the German bloke was commenting on the limit of free speech
because it was relevant to this debate. Doubtless he also has views on
when free speech should be unfettered - eg if a high ranking politico
is caught with his hand in the till. He appears to be against
gratuitous offence which serves no useful purpose other than to stir
up trouble.

>> >> Some commentators and cartoonists have pointed out that European
>> >> freedom of the press
>> >
>> >Ah!
>> >
>> >> is not absolute
>> >
>> >Oh.
>>
>> How disappointing for you.
>
>Yes, somewhat.

Kind of blows you out the water.

>> >> as some editors pretend, and that
>> >> tribunals often rule against journalists and artists. French Catholic
>> >> associations "bombard newspapers with petitions every time they
>> >> believe journalists and cartoonists have offended Christian dogmas",
>> >> Jul said.
>> >
>> >So what he's saying is that cartoonists often offend Christian dogmas,
>and
>> >despite evidence of repeated offence taken, they continue doing so? Why,
>> >that shouldn't be allowed! Remember, "You cannot just say anything you
>want
>> >about the X community".
>>
>> I think he's also saying that it's not so clear cut when Catholics are
>> offended, whereas the Islamic rule of never depicting Mo is 100% clear
>
>Huh? How d'you work that one out? What's not clear about "bombarding"
>newspapers with petitions "every time" they believe Christian dogmas have
>been offended? What clearer signal would you need?

That's after the event isn't it. It may be more difficult to determine
what is/isn't offensive to Catholics before the event. In the case of
Islam, we know that its forbidden to depict Mo before we do it.

>> >> Christian Schertz, a lawyer in Berlin, said German law provided for
>> >> jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs. "And those
>> >> beliefs are not confined to Christian ones, but to all religions."
>> -- 
>> "Bloody hell, you're so fucking thick it's painful."
>
>Heh. You liked that one, didn't you?

For sure.

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

"hummingbird"  wrote in message 
news:v9rou1hbmbrpph9143vavlnf438h8cn1fi@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 06:34:44 +0000 (UTC), "DVH" 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>"hummingbird"  wrote in message
>>news:70qnu15sgue3ffv1pcfkv6km1qtmvc9a8f@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:57:47 +0000 (UTC), "DVH" 
>>>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>>
>>> >"hummingbird"  wrote in message
<snip>
>>> >>   "German law provides
>>> >> for jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs."
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
>>> >> In Europe, anti-cartoon voices rise
>>> >>
>>> >> PARIS - A growing number of European journalists and political
>>> >> caricaturists are condemning the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed
>>> >> that have deepened the schism between Europe and the Muslim world.
>>> >>
>>> >> In France, where several newspapers reprinted the Danish cartoons,
>>> >> leading caricaturists have particularly condemned the depiction of
>>> >> Mohammed as a terrorist.
>>> >>
>>> >> "Such a cartoon directly associates one religion with terrorism,
>>> >
>>> >Why does he object? On the whole,
>>>
>>> Is that the whole in your head dumpty after you fell over?
>>> Or is that what you do after a hard day at the keyboard?
>>>
>>> >terrorists associate themselves with one
>>> >religion. Putting a bomb on Mohammed's head wasn't an arbitrary thing, 
>>> >it
>>> >was a response to an increasing number of events in which muslims kill
>>> >themselves in order to kill others in the name of Islam.
>>>
>>> Either that or it was gratuitous offence.
>>
>>Well, if you believe it's an either/or case, and was gratuitous offence,
>>then please show how you came to this conclusion. I think in the process 
>>of
>>doing so you'll have to show that the events leading up to the publication
>>in JP are unconnected. I don't see how you can do this, but give it a go.
>
> What events might they be dumpty?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy> 
and the political-social background in Denmark.

There is always a context.

<snip>
>>> >> Jul, another French
>>> >> caricaturist, said,...
>>> >>
>>> >> Swedish writer Jan Guillou said in a telephone interview with Inter
>>> >> Press Service from Stockholm that the Danish cartoons were "vulgar
>>> >> and cowardly,...
>>> >>
>>> >> In Germany, the Association of Journalists (Deutscher Journalisten
>>> >> Verband - DJV) criticized the printing of the cartoons. 
>>> >> "Publications,
>>> >> be it in word or in images, that insult the religious convictions of 
>>> >> a
>>> >> community are incompatible with the responsibility of the press,"
>>> >> spokesperson Hendrik Zoerner said.
>>> >
>>> >Death threats, bomb threats, riots and bringing down a thousand Danish
>>> >websites are all OK.
>>>
>>> Few are supporting tolerance of the reaction
>>
>>It's true that few in the west are directly supporting toleration of the
>>reaction. But many are tacitly supporting it by failing to stand up for 
>>its
>>opposite.
>
> Baahh! It's not black or white dumpty.
> By not openly supporting unfettered free speech or the blanket right
> to offend anybody at anytime does not mean one is tacitly supporting
> the reaction. But I'm aware that many folks choose to argue that....

We have the right to offend.  We don't (in general) have a right to harm.

<snip>
>>> >> Many German political caricaturists have condemned the cartoons. 
>>> >> Klaus
>>> >> Staeck, a renowned political cartoonist, said he would have refused 
>>> >> to
>>> >> draw a cartoon of Mohammed. "There are moments and situations in 
>>> >> which
>>> >> one has to consider the implications of making jokes about others," 
>>> >> he
>>> >> said.
>>> >>
>>> >> Political cartoonist Gerhard Haderer called the Danish newspaper
>>> >> Jyllands-Posten's idea of drawing images of Mohammed "a stupidity".
>>> >
>>> >The pips are squeaking. Not a single mention of freedom of expression 
>>> >so
>>> >far.
>>>
>>> You obviously don't read too well. The German comments referred to
>>> press responsibility in the context of free speech.
>>
>>In other words, they refer only to instances when free speech should be
>>restricted.
>
> Well the German bloke was commenting on the limit of free speech

 - an oxymoron -

> because it was relevant to this debate. Doubtless he also has views on
> when free speech should be unfettered - eg if a high ranking politico
> is caught with his hand in the till. He appears to be against
> gratuitous offence which serves no useful purpose other than to stir
> up trouble.

Talking of stirring up trouble:

<http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/international/middleeast/09cartoon.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1139547600&en=578cb46567d732ae&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin>

[Hat-tip: <http://timworstall.typepad.com>]

<snip>

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:50:37 -0000, "TD" 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>>>"hummingbird"  wrote in message
>>>news:70qnu15sgue3ffv1pcfkv6km1qtmvc9a8f@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:57:47 +0000 (UTC), "DVH" 
>>>>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>>>
>>>> >"hummingbird"  wrote in message
><snip>
>>>> >>   "German law provides
>>>> >> for jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs."
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
>>>> >> In Europe, anti-cartoon voices rise
>>>> >>
>>>> >> PARIS - A growing number of European journalists and political
>>>> >> caricaturists are condemning the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed
>>>> >> that have deepened the schism between Europe and the Muslim world.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> In France, where several newspapers reprinted the Danish cartoons,
>>>> >> leading caricaturists have particularly condemned the depiction of
>>>> >> Mohammed as a terrorist.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "Such a cartoon directly associates one religion with terrorism,
>>>> >
>>>> >Why does he object? On the whole,
>>>>
>>>> Is that the whole in your head dumpty after you fell over?
>>>> Or is that what you do after a hard day at the keyboard?
>>>>
>>>> >terrorists associate themselves with one
>>>> >religion. Putting a bomb on Mohammed's head wasn't an arbitrary thing, 
>>>> >it
>>>> >was a response to an increasing number of events in which muslims kill
>>>> >themselves in order to kill others in the name of Islam.
>>>>
>>>> Either that or it was gratuitous offence.
>>>
>>>Well, if you believe it's an either/or case, and was gratuitous offence,
>>>then please show how you came to this conclusion. I think in the process 
>>>of
>>>doing so you'll have to show that the events leading up to the publication
>>>in JP are unconnected. I don't see how you can do this, but give it a go.
>>
>> What events might they be dumpty?
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy> 
>and the political-social background in Denmark.
>
>There is always a context.

Indeed and this appears to be the relevant bit from wikipedia:
"September: 
Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned
twelve cartoonists to draw cartoons in response to the difficulty 
that Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen had finding artists to illustrate his
children's book about Muhammad, because the artists feared violent
attacks by extremist Muslims. 
   [note: the artists "feared violent attacks" - no threats so far.]
September 30: 
The cartoons of Islamic prophet Muhammad are printed in the Danish
daily newspaper, Jyllands-Posten."

[Note also wiki makes no mention of the Moslem cleric who travelled
from Denmark to Egypt late last year to stir the whole thing up.]

Further, I wonder why Flemming Rose thought it was his business to
procure offensive cartoons of Mo and then publish them in the JP in
the knowledge that other artists had steered away from it? Clearly
Mr Rose knew **exactly** what he was doing. This from wikipedia 
may help explain why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_Rose
"Rose born 3/14/1956 into a Jewish family in the Ukraine...etc"

Or perhaps this helps explain: http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=211 which
claims Rose has friends and contacts among the Washington neo-cons
and zionists, striving to create a clash of civilisations.

><snip>
>>>> >> Jul, another French
>>>> >> caricaturist, said,...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Swedish writer Jan Guillou said in a telephone interview with Inter
>>>> >> Press Service from Stockholm that the Danish cartoons were "vulgar
>>>> >> and cowardly,...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> In Germany, the Association of Journalists (Deutscher Journalisten
>>>> >> Verband - DJV) criticized the printing of the cartoons. 
>>>> >> "Publications,
>>>> >> be it in word or in images, that insult the religious convictions of 
>>>> >> a
>>>> >> community are incompatible with the responsibility of the press,"
>>>> >> spokesperson Hendrik Zoerner said.
>>>> >
>>>> >Death threats, bomb threats, riots and bringing down a thousand Danish
>>>> >websites are all OK.
>>>>
>>>> Few are supporting tolerance of the reaction
>>>
>>>It's true that few in the west are directly supporting toleration of the
>>>reaction. But many are tacitly supporting it by failing to stand up for 
>>>its
>>>opposite.
>>
>> Baahh! It's not black or white dumpty.
>> By not openly supporting unfettered free speech or the blanket right
>> to offend anybody at anytime does not mean one is tacitly supporting
>> the reaction. But I'm aware that many folks choose to argue that....
>
>We have the right to offend.  We don't (in general) have a right to harm.

That right is certainly limited by custom and may soon be limited by
law.

><snip>
>>>> >> Many German political caricaturists have condemned the cartoons. 
>>>> >> Klaus
>>>> >> Staeck, a renowned political cartoonist, said he would have refused 
>>>> >> to
>>>> >> draw a cartoon of Mohammed. "There are moments and situations in 
>>>> >> which
>>>> >> one has to consider the implications of making jokes about others," 
>>>> >> he
>>>> >> said.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Political cartoonist Gerhard Haderer called the Danish newspaper
>>>> >> Jyllands-Posten's idea of drawing images of Mohammed "a stupidity".
>>>> >
>>>> >The pips are squeaking. Not a single mention of freedom of expression 
>>>> >so
>>>> >far.
>>>>
>>>> You obviously don't read too well. The German comments referred to
>>>> press responsibility in the context of free speech.
>>>
>>>In other words, they refer only to instances when free speech should be
>>>restricted.
>>
>> Well the German bloke was commenting on the limit of free speech
>
> - an oxymoron -

No, there are always limits to any freedom. The difficulty, as you 
and I have debated, is where the line is drawn (sorry I just can't 
get that word 'line' out of my head!).

>> because it was relevant to this debate. Doubtless he also has views on
>> when free speech should be unfettered - eg if a high ranking politico
>> is caught with his hand in the till. He appears to be against
>> gratuitous offence which serves no useful purpose other than to stir
>> up trouble.
>
>Talking of stirring up trouble:
>
><http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html>
>
><http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/international/middleeast/09cartoon.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1139547600&en=578cb46567d732ae&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin>
>
>[Hat-tip: <http://timworstall.typepad.com>]

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

"hummingbird"  wrote in message 
news:8j7pu19jbsqjf1k00uhrjpb3j6akouloa1@4ax.com...
<snip>
> No, there are always limits to any freedom. The difficulty, as you
> and I have debated, is where the line is drawn (sorry I just can't
> get that word 'line' out of my head!).

If there are limits, we should stop calling it freedom of speech.

"hummingbird"  wrote in message 
news:8j7pu19jbsqjf1k00uhrjpb3j6akouloa1@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:50:37 -0000, "TD" 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>>>"hummingbird"  wrote in message
>>>>news:70qnu15sgue3ffv1pcfkv6km1qtmvc9a8f@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:57:47 +0000 (UTC), "DVH" 
>>>>>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>>>>
>>>>> >"hummingbird"  wrote in message
>><snip>
>>>>> >>   "German law provides
>>>>> >> for jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs."
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
>>>>> >> In Europe, anti-cartoon voices rise
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> PARIS - A growing number of European journalists and political
>>>>> >> caricaturists are condemning the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed
>>>>> >> that have deepened the schism between Europe and the Muslim world.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> In France, where several newspapers reprinted the Danish cartoons,
>>>>> >> leading caricaturists have particularly condemned the depiction of
>>>>> >> Mohammed as a terrorist.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> "Such a cartoon directly associates one religion with terrorism,
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Why does he object? On the whole,
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that the whole in your head dumpty after you fell over?
>>>>> Or is that what you do after a hard day at the keyboard?
>>>>>
>>>>> >terrorists associate themselves with one
>>>>> >religion. Putting a bomb on Mohammed's head wasn't an arbitrary 
>>>>> >thing,
>>>>> >it
>>>>> >was a response to an increasing number of events in which muslims 
>>>>> >kill
>>>>> >themselves in order to kill others in the name of Islam.
>>>>>
>>>>> Either that or it was gratuitous offence.
>>>>
>>>>Well, if you believe it's an either/or case, and was gratuitous offence,
>>>>then please show how you came to this conclusion. I think in the process
>>>>of
>>>>doing so you'll have to show that the events leading up to the 
>>>>publication
>>>>in JP are unconnected. I don't see how you can do this, but give it a 
>>>>go.
>>>
>>> What events might they be dumpty?
>>
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy>
>>and the political-social background in Denmark.
>>
>>There is always a context.
>
> Indeed and this appears to be the relevant bit from wikipedia:
> "September:
> Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned
> twelve cartoonists to draw cartoons in response to the difficulty
> that Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen had finding artists to illustrate his
> children's book about Muhammad, because the artists feared violent
> attacks by extremist Muslims.
>   [note: the artists "feared violent attacks" - no threats so far.]

That's because they hadn't drawn him.  They feared attacks if they did draw 
him.  Note that some people who have published the cartoons have been 
threatened.

> September 30:

September 30th!  And we are just now hearing the outrage.  Bit odd.

> The cartoons of Islamic prophet Muhammad are printed in the Danish
> daily newspaper, Jyllands-Posten."
>
> [Note also wiki makes no mention of the Moslem cleric who travelled
> from Denmark to Egypt late last year to stir the whole thing up.]

Not yet.

> Further, I wonder why Flemming Rose thought it was his business to
> procure offensive cartoons of Mo

All depictions of Mohammed are offensive.  In fact, we should probably be 
referring to him as the Prophet (PBUH).

> and then publish them in the JP in
> the knowledge that other artists had steered away from it? Clearly
> Mr Rose knew **exactly** what he was doing.

No problem with that.

> This from wikipedia
> may help explain why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_Rose
> "Rose born 3/14/1956 into a Jewish family in the Ukraine...etc"
>
> Or perhaps this helps explain: http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=211 which
> claims Rose has friends and contacts among the Washington neo-cons
> and zionists, striving to create a clash of civilisations.

Or maybe he just wanted to initiate a debate about the extent of press 
freedom.

But then you would much rather believe in a conspiracy involving the 
wascally Jooz and neo-cons.

<snip>

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:43:09 +0000, hummingbird
  

  typed:

>No, there are always limits to any freedom. The difficulty, as you 
>and I have debated, is where the line is drawn (sorry I just can't 
>get that word 'line' out of my head!).

you'll never think effectively until you remove the lines in your head...
all lines are arbitrary....

this nonsense of lines in your head gives you your on/off 'thinking'....
everything is on one side of the line or the other...

from
http://www.abelard.org/category/category.htm#categories
One day, Manjushri stood outside the gate when Buddha called to him.
"Manjushri, Manjushri, why do you not enter?"

"I do not see a thing outside the gate. Why should I enter?" Manjushri
replied.

Where is the gate? Are you inside or outside the gate?

The above is a Buddhist koan. [5a] Such ‘stories’ are designed to evoke
satori (enlightenment), that is, the realisation that all words are grass.

All categories are arbitrary; categories do not exist ‘out there’. Once
your mind is ruled by category, you are in a mind-trap; you are unable to
think with clarity or independence. To think clearly, your mind must be
still and clear of any words.

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:07:48 +0000, hummingbird
 wrote:

>"Vulgar and cowardly"   "stupidity"   "German law provides 
>for jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs."
>
>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
>In Europe, anti-cartoon voices rise
>
>PARIS - A growing number of European journalists and political
>caricaturists are condemning the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed 
>that have deepened the schism between Europe and the Muslim world. 
>
>In France, where several newspapers reprinted the Danish cartoons,
>leading caricaturists have particularly condemned the depiction of
>Mohammed as a terrorist. 
>
>"Such a cartoon directly associates one religion with terrorism, and
>this is unacceptable,"

Why? 

The jihadis explicitly carry out their acts in the name of Islam,
drawing their justifications from the Koran, i.e. there is a link
between their religion and the jihadist's terrorism. 

Drawing attention to that fact should not be a crime or considered
unacceptable.

Those Muslims who do not like this association of their religion with
terrorism should be asking themselves why some people are using their
religion for such purposes and how to stop it, not moaning about those
who have the temerity to point this fact out.

> said Rene Petillon, a cartoonist for the
>satirical weekly newspaper Le Canard Enchaine. "You cannot just say
>whatever you want about the Muslim community." Jul, another French
>caricaturist, said,...
>
>Swedish writer Jan Guillou said in a telephone interview with Inter
>Press Service from Stockholm that the Danish cartoons were "vulgar 
>and cowardly,...

Each to their own. 

Mostly I thought they were innocuous. One I found mildly amusing --
the "stop we've run out of virgins" one. ISTM to be genuine satire
directed at the belief the so-called "martyrs" have that they'll be
given 72 virgins in the after life. Such a belief, which is part of
what drives the suicide murderers, *deserves to be mocked*. 

>In Germany, the Association of Journalists (Deutscher Journalisten
>Verband - DJV) criticized the printing of the cartoons. "Publications,
>be it in word or in images, that insult the religious convictions of a
>community are incompatible with the responsibility of the press,"
>spokesperson Hendrik Zoerner said. 

I'd say they are a duty of the press when people are afraid to
criticise Muslims through fear of death threats.

>Many German political caricaturists have condemned the cartoons. Klaus
>Staeck, a renowned political cartoonist, said he would have refused to
>draw a cartoon of Mohammed. "There are moments and situations in which
>one has to consider the implications of making jokes about others," he
>said. 
>
>Political cartoonist Gerhard Haderer called the Danish newspaper
>Jyllands-Posten's idea of drawing images of Mohammed "a stupidity".
>
>Some commentators and cartoonists have pointed out that European
>freedom of the press is not absolute as some editors pretend, and that
>tribunals often rule against journalists and artists. French Catholic
>associations "bombard newspapers with petitions every time they
>believe journalists and cartoonists have offended Christian dogmas",
>Jul said. 
>
>Christian Schertz, a lawyer in Berlin, said German law provided for
>jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs. "And those
>beliefs are not confined to Christian ones, but to all religions." 

So much the worse for German law.

James

--
James Hammerton, http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
Contributor to Magna Carta Plus: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
Magna Carta Plus News weblog: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:44:09 +0000, James Hammerton
  

  typed:
>On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:07:48 +0000, hummingbird

>>Swedish writer Jan Guillou said in a telephone interview with Inter
>>Press Service from Stockholm that the Danish cartoons were "vulgar 
>>and cowardly,...
>
>Each to their own. 
>
>Mostly I thought they were innocuous. One I found mildly amusing --
>the "stop we've run out of virgins" one. ISTM to be genuine satire
>directed at the belief the so-called "martyrs" have that they'll be
>given 72 virgins in the after life. Such a belief, which is part of
>what drives the suicide murderers, *deserves to be mocked*. 

indeed...i like the one where the females are masked and the bloke's
    eyes are covered...
see no evil.....blind as a bat...

bomb head also has merit!

>>In Germany, the Association of Journalists (Deutscher Journalisten
>>Verband - DJV) criticized the printing of the cartoons. "Publications,
>>be it in word or in images, that insult the religious convictions of a
>>community are incompatible with the responsibility of the press,"
>>spokesperson Hendrik Zoerner said. 
>
>I'd say they are a duty of the press when people are afraid to
>criticise Muslims through fear of death threats.

indeed...

regards...

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:43:09 +0000, hummingbird
 wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:50:37 -0000, "TD" 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>>>"hummingbird"  wrote in message
>>>>news:70qnu15sgue3ffv1pcfkv6km1qtmvc9a8f@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:57:47 +0000 (UTC), "DVH" 
>>>>>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>>>>
>>>>> >"hummingbird"  wrote in message
>><snip>
>>>>> >>   "German law provides
>>>>> >> for jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs."
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
>>>>> >> In Europe, anti-cartoon voices rise
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> PARIS - A growing number of European journalists and political
>>>>> >> caricaturists are condemning the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed
>>>>> >> that have deepened the schism between Europe and the Muslim world.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> In France, where several newspapers reprinted the Danish cartoons,
>>>>> >> leading caricaturists have particularly condemned the depiction of
>>>>> >> Mohammed as a terrorist.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> "Such a cartoon directly associates one religion with terrorism,
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Why does he object? On the whole,
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that the whole in your head dumpty after you fell over?
>>>>> Or is that what you do after a hard day at the keyboard?
>>>>>
>>>>> >terrorists associate themselves with one
>>>>> >religion. Putting a bomb on Mohammed's head wasn't an arbitrary thing, 
>>>>> >it
>>>>> >was a response to an increasing number of events in which muslims kill
>>>>> >themselves in order to kill others in the name of Islam.
>>>>>
>>>>> Either that or it was gratuitous offence.
>>>>
>>>>Well, if you believe it's an either/or case, and was gratuitous offence,
>>>>then please show how you came to this conclusion. I think in the process 
>>>>of
>>>>doing so you'll have to show that the events leading up to the publication
>>>>in JP are unconnected. I don't see how you can do this, but give it a go.
>>>
>>> What events might they be dumpty?
>>
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy> 
>>and the political-social background in Denmark.
>>
>>There is always a context.
>
>Indeed and this appears to be the relevant bit from wikipedia:
>"September: 
>Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned
>twelve cartoonists to draw cartoons in response to the difficulty 
>that Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen had finding artists to illustrate his
>children's book about Muhammad, because the artists feared violent
>attacks by extremist Muslims. 
>   [note: the artists "feared violent attacks" - no threats so far.]

Do you believe their fear was unfounded or that they were lying? 

ISTM events both since then and before then have proven that this fear
is not unfounded. 

For example...

Have you not heard of Salman Rushdie, Theo Van Gogh, Geert Wilders or
Ayaan Hirsan Ali?

Did you not know that Jyllends-Posten has received death threats and
bomb-scares since the publication?

Did you not know that the cartoonists are now in hiding?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024306,00.html

Given an opportunity to merely protest peacefully at any insult the
cartoons offered, the jihadists instead when into death threat and
rioting mode (and their actions resulted in some people being killed
too).

>September 30: 
>The cartoons of Islamic prophet Muhammad are printed in the Danish
>daily newspaper, Jyllands-Posten."
>
>[Note also wiki makes no mention of the Moslem cleric who travelled
>from Denmark to Egypt late last year to stir the whole thing up.]

Indeed, and doesn't the fact that some Muslim went to the middle east
with extra cartoons, far more offensive than the original -- one that
has been proven to be a fake and that had nothing to do with the JP
cartoons, tell you that the "anger" has been largely orchestrated and
the offence the cartoons may have caused is merely a pretext for death
threats, rioting and political demands being made? 

And yet you say publication was a provocation -- do you thus condemn
the publication on those grounds? 

Do you think publishing such cartoons should be banned?

>Further, I wonder why Flemming Rose thought it was his business to
>procure offensive cartoons of Mo and then publish them in the JP in
>the knowledge that other artists had steered away from it? Clearly
>Mr Rose knew **exactly** what he was doing. This from wikipedia 
>may help explain why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_Rose
>"Rose born 3/14/1956 into a Jewish family in the Ukraine...etc"

Ah yes, it's all a Joooish conspiracy now... next you'll be telling me
the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled explosion or
something...

Yet it's those who dare to criticise Islam that receive death threats
and often end up having to go into hiding...

I note the remnants of the Taleban have put a bounty on the
cartoonists' heads...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/taliban-offer-gold-reward-for-cartoonist/2006/02/09/1139379595254.html

This whole thing smacks of intimidation by the jihadists, yet your
reaction is to accuse those who stood up to that intimidation of
deliberate provocation.

James

--
James Hammerton, http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
Contributor to Magna Carta Plus: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
Magna Carta Plus News weblog: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:37:14 GMT, 127.0.0.1@127.r (Pb) wrote:

>In article , ZYLYDWINUSED@spammotel.com wrote:
>>"Vulgar and cowardly"   "stupidity"   "German law provides 
>>for jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs."
>>
>>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
>>In Europe, anti-cartoon voices rise
>>
>>PARIS - A growing number of European journalists and political
>>caricaturists are condemning the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed 
>>that have deepened the schism between Europe and the Muslim world. 
>
>Translation:
>A growing number of journalists have come out against the cartoons because 
>they do not like the thought of being tracked down and beheaded by 
>dickheads.

Careful the Taleban might offer people 100 kilos of gold for your
head...

James

--
James Hammerton, http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
Contributor to Magna Carta Plus: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
Magna Carta Plus News weblog: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:24:01 +0000, James Hammerton
  

  typed:

>
>This whole thing smacks of intimidation by the jihadists, yet your
>reaction is to accuse those who stood up to that intimidation of
>deliberate provocation.

he doesn't really mean it...buzzy is a dedicated coward and appeaser...
he will tell any lie in order the get eaten last by the crocodile....

that's why he keep looking around for people to blame...

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:03:03 -0000, "TD" 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>"hummingbird"  wrote in message 
>news:8j7pu19jbsqjf1k00uhrjpb3j6akouloa1@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:50:37 -0000, "TD" 
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>><snip>
>>>>>> >>   "German law provides
>>>>>> >> for jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs."
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
>>>>>> >> In Europe, anti-cartoon voices rise
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> PARIS - A growing number of European journalists and political
>>>>>> >> caricaturists are condemning the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed
>>>>>> >> that have deepened the schism between Europe and the Muslim world.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> In France, where several newspapers reprinted the Danish cartoons,
>>>>>> >> leading caricaturists have particularly condemned the depiction of
>>>>>> >> Mohammed as a terrorist.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> "Such a cartoon directly associates one religion with terrorism,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Why does he object? On the whole,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that the whole in your head dumpty after you fell over?
>>>>>> Or is that what you do after a hard day at the keyboard?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >terrorists associate themselves with one
>>>>>> >religion. Putting a bomb on Mohammed's head wasn't an arbitrary 
>>>>>> >thing,
>>>>>> >it
>>>>>> >was a response to an increasing number of events in which muslims 
>>>>>> >kill
>>>>>> >themselves in order to kill others in the name of Islam.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either that or it was gratuitous offence.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, if you believe it's an either/or case, and was gratuitous offence,
>>>>>then please show how you came to this conclusion. I think in the process
>>>>>of
>>>>>doing so you'll have to show that the events leading up to the 
>>>>>publication
>>>>>in JP are unconnected. I don't see how you can do this, but give it a 
>>>>>go.
>>>>
>>>> What events might they be dumpty?
>>>
>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy>
>>>and the political-social background in Denmark.
>>>
>>>There is always a context.
>>
>> Indeed and this appears to be the relevant bit from wikipedia:
>> "September:
>> Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned
>> twelve cartoonists to draw cartoons in response to the difficulty
>> that Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen had finding artists to illustrate his
>> children's book about Muhammad, because the artists feared violent
>> attacks by extremist Muslims.
>>   [note: the artists "feared violent attacks" - no threats so far.]
>
>That's because they hadn't drawn him.  They feared attacks if they did draw 
>him.  Note that some people who have published the cartoons have been 
>threatened.

So it was an unquantifiable fear. These drawings for the kids book
presumably wouldn't have been abusive and might not have caused any
rumpus. The story sounds highly dubious to me unless I assume that
Danish artists are paranoid.
Maybe they need one of abelard's new tinfoil hats!

Those published since have drawn abuse probably because they are
intentionally offensive - eg showing Mo with a bomb/fuse on his head.

>> September 30:
>
>September 30th!  And we are just now hearing the outrage.  Bit odd.

I've already mentioned that one or two Moslem clerics have been
stirring up the anti.

>> The cartoons of Islamic prophet Muhammad are printed in the Danish
>> daily newspaper, Jyllands-Posten."
>>
>> [Note also wiki makes no mention of the Moslem cleric who travelled
>> from Denmark to Egypt late last year to stir the whole thing up.]
>
>Not yet.

It's quite important because prior to this, Moslem outrage was fairly
subdued.

>> Further, I wonder why Flemming Rose thought it was his business to
>> procure offensive cartoons of Mo
>
>All depictions of Mohammed are offensive.  In fact, we should probably be 
>referring to him as the Prophet (PBUH).

It's probably a matter of degree. Neutral drawings in a kids book
would probably receive a "tut tut" from Moslem clerics, not so the
actual drawings.
I'm not aware that anybody's demanded Christians use pbuh.

>> and then publish them in the JP in
>> the knowledge that other artists had steered away from it? Clearly
>> Mr Rose knew **exactly** what he was doing.
>
>No problem with that.
>
>> This from wikipedia
>> may help explain why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_Rose
>> "Rose born 3/14/1956 into a Jewish family in the Ukraine...etc"
>>
>> Or perhaps this helps explain: http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=211 which
>> claims Rose has friends and contacts among the Washington neo-cons
>> and zionists, striving to create a clash of civilisations.
>
>Or maybe he just wanted to initiate a debate about the extent of press 
>freedom.

His background is bound to raise suspicions.

>But then you would much rather believe in a conspiracy involving the 
>wascally Jooz and neo-cons.

I'm not saying I believe anything...
But sadly, Jews and neo-cons are involved or behind a lot of the
troubles in the world today. You may wish to ignore it but it's
serious stuff. So we have to consider what role they played (if any)
in this fiasco, taking into account that there are some zionist
neo-cons in the US/Israel who want to see a 'clash of civilisations'
to put an end to Islam once and for all.

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:05:06 -0000, "TD" 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>"hummingbird"  wrote in message 
>news:8j7pu19jbsqjf1k00uhrjpb3j6akouloa1@4ax.com...
><snip>

>> No, there are always limits to any freedom. The difficulty, as you
>> and I have debated, is where the line is drawn (sorry I just can't
>> get that word 'line' out of my head!).
>
>If there are limits, we should stop calling it freedom of speech.

Perhaps we should stop calling British democracy "democracy" too.

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:46:58 +0100, abelard 
wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:44:09 +0000, James Hammerton
>  
>
>  typed:
>>On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:07:48 +0000, hummingbird
>
>>>Swedish writer Jan Guillou said in a telephone interview with Inter
>>>Press Service from Stockholm that the Danish cartoons were "vulgar 
>>>and cowardly,...
>>
>>Each to their own. 
>>
>>Mostly I thought they were innocuous. One I found mildly amusing --
>>the "stop we've run out of virgins" one. ISTM to be genuine satire
>>directed at the belief the so-called "martyrs" have that they'll be
>>given 72 virgins in the after life. Such a belief, which is part of
>>what drives the suicide murderers, *deserves to be mocked*. 
>
>indeed...i like the one where the females are masked and the bloke's
>    eyes are covered...
>see no evil.....blind as a bat...

I liked this take on it...

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/02/truth-revealed.html

>bomb head also has merit!

What merit do you see in it?

James

--
James Hammerton, http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
Contributor to Magna Carta Plus: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
Magna Carta Plus News weblog: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:21:07 +0000, James Hammerton
  

  typed:
>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:46:58 +0100, abelard 
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:44:09 +0000, James Hammerton
>>  
>>
>>  typed:
>>>On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:07:48 +0000, hummingbird
>>
>>>>Swedish writer Jan Guillou said in a telephone interview with Inter
>>>>Press Service from Stockholm that the Danish cartoons were "vulgar 
>>>>and cowardly,...
>>>
>>>Each to their own. 
>>>
>>>Mostly I thought they were innocuous. One I found mildly amusing --
>>>the "stop we've run out of virgins" one. ISTM to be genuine satire
>>>directed at the belief the so-called "martyrs" have that they'll be
>>>given 72 virgins in the after life. Such a belief, which is part of
>>>what drives the suicide murderers, *deserves to be mocked*. 
>>
>>indeed...i like the one where the females are masked and the bloke's
>>    eyes are covered...
>>see no evil.....blind as a bat...
>
>I liked this take on it...
>
>http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/02/truth-revealed.html

it was the moral blindness that appealed to me....

>>bomb head also has merit!
>
>What merit do you see in it?

bit like dick head...

hey...who decided it was moh rather than any old moh...

regards...

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:01:05 +0100, abelard 
wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:21:07 +0000, James Hammerton
>  
>
>  typed:
>>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:46:58 +0100, abelard 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:44:09 +0000, James Hammerton
>>>  
>>>
>>>  typed:
>>>>On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:07:48 +0000, hummingbird
>>>
>>>>>Swedish writer Jan Guillou said in a telephone interview with Inter
>>>>>Press Service from Stockholm that the Danish cartoons were "vulgar 
>>>>>and cowardly,...
>>>>
>>>>Each to their own. 
>>>>
>>>>Mostly I thought they were innocuous. One I found mildly amusing --
>>>>the "stop we've run out of virgins" one. ISTM to be genuine satire
>>>>directed at the belief the so-called "martyrs" have that they'll be
>>>>given 72 virgins in the after life. Such a belief, which is part of
>>>>what drives the suicide murderers, *deserves to be mocked*. 
>>>
>>>indeed...i like the one where the females are masked and the bloke's
>>>    eyes are covered...
>>>see no evil.....blind as a bat...
>>
>>I liked this take on it...
>>
>>http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/02/truth-revealed.html
>
>it was the moral blindness that appealed to me....
>
>>>bomb head also has merit!
>>
>>What merit do you see in it?
>
>bit like dick head...

You calling Moh a bomb-head? ;-)

>hey...who decided it was moh rather than any old moh...

AIUI, Jyllends-Posten asked for pictures of Moh rather than any old
Moh...

James

--
James Hammerton, http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
Contributor to Magna Carta Plus: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
Magna Carta Plus News weblog: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:09:22 +0000, James Hammerton
  

  typed:
>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:01:05 +0100, abelard 
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:21:07 +0000, James Hammerton
>>  
>>
>>  typed:
>>>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:46:58 +0100, abelard 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:44:09 +0000, James Hammerton
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>  typed:
>>>>>On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:07:48 +0000, hummingbird
>>>>
>>>>>>Swedish writer Jan Guillou said in a telephone interview with Inter
>>>>>>Press Service from Stockholm that the Danish cartoons were "vulgar 
>>>>>>and cowardly,...
>>>>>
>>>>>Each to their own. 
>>>>>
>>>>>Mostly I thought they were innocuous. One I found mildly amusing --
>>>>>the "stop we've run out of virgins" one. ISTM to be genuine satire
>>>>>directed at the belief the so-called "martyrs" have that they'll be
>>>>>given 72 virgins in the after life. Such a belief, which is part of
>>>>>what drives the suicide murderers, *deserves to be mocked*. 
>>>>
>>>>indeed...i like the one where the females are masked and the bloke's
>>>>    eyes are covered...
>>>>see no evil.....blind as a bat...
>>>
>>>I liked this take on it...
>>>
>>>http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/02/truth-revealed.html
>>
>>it was the moral blindness that appealed to me....
>>
>>>>bomb head also has merit!
>>>
>>>What merit do you see in it?
>>
>>bit like dick head...
>
>You calling Moh a bomb-head? ;-)

i never met the fellow...before my time....
certainly many of his alleged imitators are most certainly dick heads....

>>hey...who decided it was moh rather than any old moh...
>
>AIUI, Jyllends-Posten asked for pictures of Moh rather than any old
>Moh...

next you'll tell me i can trust the fossil media....
i've never known them refrain from (crude) embroidery...

regards

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:44:09 +0000, James Hammerton

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:07:48 +0000, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>"Vulgar and cowardly"   "stupidity"   "German law provides 
>>for jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs."
>>
>>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
>>In Europe, anti-cartoon voices rise
>>
>>PARIS - A growing number of European journalists and political
>>caricaturists are condemning the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed 
>>that have deepened the schism between Europe and the Muslim world. 
>>
>>In France, where several newspapers reprinted the Danish cartoons,
>>leading caricaturists have particularly condemned the depiction of
>>Mohammed as a terrorist. 
>>
>>"Such a cartoon directly associates one religion with terrorism, and
>>this is unacceptable,"
>
>Why? 

Perhaps because those who advocate jihad in the name of Islam
represent a tiny tiny minority of Moslems and perhaps that they 
are just common criminals hiding behind Islam.
Why therefore should all Moslems be tainted by the few? 

>The jihadis explicitly carry out their acts in the name of Islam,
>drawing their justifications from the Koran, i.e. there is a link
>between their religion and the jihadist's terrorism. 
>
>Drawing attention to that fact should not be a crime or considered
>unacceptable.
>
>Those Muslims who do not like this association of their religion with
>terrorism should be asking themselves why some people are using their
>religion for such purposes and how to stop it, not moaning about those
>who have the temerity to point this fact out.

Doubtless many are asking such questions.
I saw one on Andrew Neil's proggy Thu night doing exactly that.
The few Moslems I know disagree with jihad and violence.

>> said Rene Petillon, a cartoonist for the
>>satirical weekly newspaper Le Canard Enchaine. "You cannot just say
>>whatever you want about the Muslim community." Jul, another French
>>caricaturist, said,...
>>
>>Swedish writer Jan Guillou said in a telephone interview with Inter
>>Press Service from Stockholm that the Danish cartoons were "vulgar 
>>and cowardly,...
>
>Each to their own. 
>
>Mostly I thought they were innocuous. One I found mildly amusing --
>the "stop we've run out of virgins" one. ISTM to be genuine satire
>directed at the belief the so-called "martyrs" have that they'll be
>given 72 virgins in the after life. Such a belief, which is part of
>what drives the suicide murderers, *deserves to be mocked*. 

I found them mostly unfunny but the one with Mo and the bomb/fuse 
was always bound to have been found offensive IMV.

>>In Germany, the Association of Journalists (Deutscher Journalisten
>>Verband - DJV) criticized the printing of the cartoons. "Publications,
>>be it in word or in images, that insult the religious convictions of a
>>community are incompatible with the responsibility of the press,"
>>spokesperson Hendrik Zoerner said. 
>
>I'd say they are a duty of the press when people are afraid to
>criticise Muslims through fear of death threats.

I think you're still muddling up the sequence of events: pictures came
first, death threats came second.

>>Many German political caricaturists have condemned the cartoons. Klaus
>>Staeck, a renowned political cartoonist, said he would have refused to
>>draw a cartoon of Mohammed. "There are moments and situations in which
>>one has to consider the implications of making jokes about others," he
>>said. 
>>
>>Political cartoonist Gerhard Haderer called the Danish newspaper
>>Jyllands-Posten's idea of drawing images of Mohammed "a stupidity".
>>
>>Some commentators and cartoonists have pointed out that European
>>freedom of the press is not absolute as some editors pretend, and that
>>tribunals often rule against journalists and artists. French Catholic
>>associations "bombard newspapers with petitions every time they
>>believe journalists and cartoonists have offended Christian dogmas",
>>Jul said. 
>>
>>Christian Schertz, a lawyer in Berlin, said German law provided for
>>jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs. "And those
>>beliefs are not confined to Christian ones, but to all religions." 
>
>So much the worse for German law.

The Germans have some experience of banning icons/images of people.
They are probably not representative of much of Europe.

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

"hummingbird"  wrote in message
news:1d6qu11mruhiqduc7u9a99ben02il0ud64@4ax.com...

> >I'd say they are a duty of the press when people are afraid to
> >criticise Muslims through fear of death threats.
>
> I think you're still muddling up the sequence of events: pictures came
> first, death threats came second.

Apology from Jyllands-Post came third. Bomb threat against Jyllands-Post
came fourth. Further mollification from Straw and the Vatican fifth.
Embassies burnt, riots, incitement to murder sixth. Do you think if we
apologised again they might leave us alone?

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:04:40 +0000, hummingbird
 wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:44:09 +0000, James Hammerton
>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:07:48 +0000, hummingbird
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Vulgar and cowardly"   "stupidity"   "German law provides 
>>>for jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs."
>>>
>>>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
>>>In Europe, anti-cartoon voices rise
>>>
>>>PARIS - A growing number of European journalists and political
>>>caricaturists are condemning the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed 
>>>that have deepened the schism between Europe and the Muslim world. 
>>>
>>>In France, where several newspapers reprinted the Danish cartoons,
>>>leading caricaturists have particularly condemned the depiction of
>>>Mohammed as a terrorist. 
>>>
>>>"Such a cartoon directly associates one religion with terrorism, and
>>>this is unacceptable,"
>>
>>Why? 
>
>Perhaps because those who advocate jihad in the name of Islam
>represent a tiny tiny minority of Moslems and perhaps that they 

I'd say we're talking about a small but significant minority. E.g.
consider the 6 or 7% in polls that say suicide bombing would be
jusitified in Britain, and that's excluding from those who sympathise
with the bombers' motives...

>are just common criminals hiding behind Islam.
>Why therefore should all Moslems be tainted by the few? 

In what way do those images taint all Muslims? 

>>The jihadis explicitly carry out their acts in the name of Islam,
>>drawing their justifications from the Koran, i.e. there is a link
>>between their religion and the jihadist's terrorism. 
>>
>>Drawing attention to that fact should not be a crime or considered
>>unacceptable.
>>
>>Those Muslims who do not like this association of their religion with
>>terrorism should be asking themselves why some people are using their
>>religion for such purposes and how to stop it, not moaning about those
>>who have the temerity to point this fact out.
>
>Doubtless many are asking such questions.
>I saw one on Andrew Neil's proggy Thu night doing exactly that.
>The few Moslems I know disagree with jihad and violence.

Fairynuff.

>>> said Rene Petillon, a cartoonist for the
>>>satirical weekly newspaper Le Canard Enchaine. "You cannot just say
>>>whatever you want about the Muslim community." Jul, another French
>>>caricaturist, said,...
>>>
>>>Swedish writer Jan Guillou said in a telephone interview with Inter
>>>Press Service from Stockholm that the Danish cartoons were "vulgar 
>>>and cowardly,...
>>
>>Each to their own. 
>>
>>Mostly I thought they were innocuous. One I found mildly amusing --
>>the "stop we've run out of virgins" one. ISTM to be genuine satire
>>directed at the belief the so-called "martyrs" have that they'll be
>>given 72 virgins in the after life. Such a belief, which is part of
>>what drives the suicide murderers, *deserves to be mocked*. 
>
>I found them mostly unfunny but the one with Mo and the bomb/fuse 
>was always bound to have been found offensive IMV.
>
>>>In Germany, the Association of Journalists (Deutscher Journalisten
>>>Verband - DJV) criticized the printing of the cartoons. "Publications,
>>>be it in word or in images, that insult the religious convictions of a
>>>community are incompatible with the responsibility of the press,"
>>>spokesperson Hendrik Zoerner said. 
>>
>>I'd say they are a duty of the press when people are afraid to
>>criticise Muslims through fear of death threats.
>
>I think you're still muddling up the sequence of events: pictures came
>first, death threats came second.

Nope, death threats came first, then an actual murder accompanied by
more death threats, then fear of death threats, then the cartoons and
then more death threats:

* Death threats (e.g. consider Salman Rushdie and more recently Ayaan
Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders) and actual murder (of Theo Van Gogh whose
body had a note pinned to it that threatened Ayaan Hirsi Ali) for
being deemed to have insulted Islam in some way preceeded these
cartoons.

* The fear of death threats amongst Danish illustrators came before
the cartoons were published and were the reason for publishing. It was
a fear expressed by several illustrators to Kare Bluitgen when he
tried to find illustrators for this book -- they were afraid of
producing art that might be construed as insulting Islam after the
murder of Theo Van Gogh. This does not look like paranoia to me (as I
recall you suggested in another post), when people have actually been
killed and have actually received death threats for such things.

* The above fear was reported in Danish paper Politiken
(http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1139064103.html) in
September 2005, and later that month, as a response, Jyllands-Posten
solicited and published the cartoons. (Bluitgen did manage to find an
illustrator who agreed to illustrate his children's book anonymously).

ISTM the fear expressed by the Danish cartoonists was well founded
before the cartoons and the reaction to the cartoons has confirmed it.

James

--
James Hammerton, http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
Contributor to Magna Carta Plus: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
Magna Carta Plus News weblog: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:56:24 +0000 (UTC), "DVH"   

  typed:
>
>"hummingbird"  wrote in message
>news:1d6qu11mruhiqduc7u9a99ben02il0ud64@4ax.com...
>
>> >I'd say they are a duty of the press when people are afraid to
>> >criticise Muslims through fear of death threats.
>>
>> I think you're still muddling up the sequence of events: pictures came
>> first, death threats came second.
>
>Apology from Jyllands-Post came third. Bomb threat against Jyllands-Post
>came fourth. Further mollification from Straw and the Vatican fifth.
>Embassies burnt, riots, incitement to murder sixth. Do you think if we
>apologised again they might leave us alone?

ignoring them is an insult...

regards...

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>I still don't understand why one type of provocation is acceptable and
>another not. Why have I never seen you objecting to cartoons or satire
>mocking Christians, for example?

> I don't see them.

Here you go, here's a little scribble I quickly notched up which in the
interests of fairness should hopefully offend both Christians and
Muslims - http://www.canedintotnes.co.uk/cartoons/

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:56:24 +0000 (UTC), "DVH" 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>
>"hummingbird"  wrote in message
>news:1d6qu11mruhiqduc7u9a99ben02il0ud64@4ax.com...
>
>> >I'd say they are a duty of the press when people are afraid to
>> >criticise Muslims through fear of death threats.
>>
>> I think you're still muddling up the sequence of events: pictures came
>> first, death threats came second.
>
>Apology from Jyllands-Post came third. Bomb threat against Jyllands-Post
>came fourth. Further mollification from Straw and the Vatican fifth.
>Embassies burnt, riots, incitement to murder sixth. Do you think if we
>apologised again they might leave us alone?

I doubt it.
They've got you marked down; you'd better go into hiding.
How about abelard sunset's yak barn for a few weeks?

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

abelard wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:56:24 +0000 (UTC), "DVH" 
>
>   typed:
> >
> >"hummingbird"  wrote in message
> >news:1d6qu11mruhiqduc7u9a99ben02il0ud64@4ax.com...
> >
> >> >I'd say they are a duty of the press when people are afraid to
> >> >criticise Muslims through fear of death threats.
> >>
> >> I think you're still muddling up the sequence of events: pictures came
> >> first, death threats came second.
> >
> >Apology from Jyllands-Post came third. Bomb threat against Jyllands-Post
> >came fourth. Further mollification from Straw and the Vatican fifth.
> >Embassies burnt, riots, incitement to murder sixth. Do you think if we
> >apologised again they might leave us alone?
>
> ignoring them is an insult...
>
> regards...
> 

Everyone should ignor you. Where's your foil kipah beanie?

hummingbird wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:57:35 +0100, abelard 
>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> >On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:07:48 +0000, hummingbird
> >
> >
> >  typed:
> >
> >>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
> >
> >asian times
> >
> >> A growing number of European journalists and political
> >>caricaturists
> >
> >what they done buzzy? grown from 5 to 6?
> >
> >i always get this awful suspicion when people use adjectives
> >    instead of numbers...
>
> This'll cure your paranoia:  http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
>
> >>Christian Schertz, a lawyer in Berlin, said German law provided for
> >>jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs. "And those
> >>beliefs are not confined to Christian ones, but to all religions."
> >
> >what about your 'divine' beliefs buzzy?
>
> Ave Maria, you didn't scream "socialists" once 'abelard sunset'.
>

It's because I have him trained.

He knows, if he fucks up again, I'll hunt him down like a wharf rat
with the black plague.

I'm gonna be on him like white is on rice; he has messed with me once
too often and he knows it. The little puny brained moron knows he'll
catch hell.

I think he's lost his foil yarmulka so he's afraid of another
space-alien abduction in the works.

Either that or he went back on his prescribed anti-psychotic
medications again.  ;-)

On 10 Feb 2006 18:51:52 -0800, "Radio Free Israel" 

  typed:
>
>hummingbird wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:57:35 +0100, abelard 
>>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>> >On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:07:48 +0000, hummingbird
>> >
>> >
>> >  typed:
>> >
>> >>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HB10Aa02.html
>> >
>> >asian times
>> >
>> >> A growing number of European journalists and political
>> >>caricaturists
>> >
>> >what they done buzzy? grown from 5 to 6?
>> >
>> >i always get this awful suspicion when people use adjectives
>> >    instead of numbers...
>>
>> This'll cure your paranoia:  http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
>>
>> >>Christian Schertz, a lawyer in Berlin, said German law provided for
>> >>jail of up to three years for insults to religious beliefs. "And those
>> >>beliefs are not confined to Christian ones,