A Danish court has rejected a libel case brought by several Muslim groups against a paper that published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
The court in Aarhus said there was not enough reason to believe the cartoons were meant to be insulting or harmful.
The cartoons sparked violent protests around the world after Jyllands-Posten published them in 2005.
There’s a whole class of Euro politicians who believe that political correctness is the horse to ride into perpetual office. Obscurity would be a better destination.
In Syria, where a mob attacked and set fire to the Danish and Norwegian embassies in February, legislator Mohammed Habash said the ruling would “widen the gap between the Western and Islamic world”.
“What the newspaper did represents a true insult to millions of Muslims who do not follow Danish laws,” Mr Habash, who heads the Islamic Studies Centre in Damascus, told AP.
“Since the racism and blasphemy laws cannot be used in a civil suit, the groups sued the editor-in-chief and cultural editor of the newspaper for libel,” the BBC’s Julian Isherwood reports from Copenhagen.
“Of course it cannot be excluded that the drawings offended some Muslims,” the ruling said.
“But there is no sufficient reason to assume that the cartoons are or were intended to be insulting… or put forward ideas that could hurt the standing of Muslims in society.”
The crowds that burned the embassies believe in a mode of behavior that isn’t acceptable in any democracy. The question remains whether or not political leaders of the European democracies will stand up for freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
Finally some good news for a change.
This is “Dejligt” Denmark đ
My added observation:
Religious reaction = Violent đ
Non Religious reaction = Non Violent đ
What ever happened to the Muslims who killed 28 people during the violent demonstrations over the cartoons?
Read the first chapter in “The God Delusion” for a recap on this issue.
What do expect Muslims to do… stay quiet? The depiction of their Prophet is a taboo, it is not allowed. They do not have to tolerate it silently, it is their right, actually their religious duty, to complain about it.
Christianity has no problem with depicting Jesus, but what if Jesus was depicted in a negative way? Would we expect Christians to just be quiet and not complain? Or would it be OUR right and religious duty to complain?
It is my right to hang a Swastica flag in my front yard, but I should expect lots of ‘complaints’ (probably violent attacks) for my choice to do so. We should expect the same reaction from Muslims when we westerners do something that they find highly objectionable, such as a depiction of their Prophet. It’s against their rules, so don’t expect them to take it quietly.
#4
I think #3 has a point……
“Itâs against their rules, so donât expect them to take it quietly. ”
Their rules apply to them in their country. If they are citizens of their adopted country, they need to follow the rules of that country, its called assimilation. Soveriegn nations who have a policy of free speech shouldnt have to respect the rules of the guest. Basically, if they dont like free speech, then they should leave the host country.
#6 – Tom
“It’s called assimilation”
Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated…
Where have I heard that before, and once you figure it out… do we want to live that way? “our way or the highway”.
You must live in a gated pre-planned community, where everyone else tells you how to live. Sweet.
Why do neo-cons and the Borg suddenly occupy the same space in my imagination?
What do expect Muslims to do⌠stay quiet?
Well there is somewhat of a difference between complaining and burning down embassies.
If the socalled “complainees” would just stay civil instead of burning down embassies and burn flags then they might have a chance that i would take them seriously.
You cannot one minute complain about the prophet beeing linked to terrorism(which were the case in atleast one of the cartoons) and then protest this by burning down an embassy in his name.
Wow, I am amazed the court came down on the side of sanity instead of superstition and political correctness.
Awake: Sounds like you have your wires crossed. I’m for freedom of speech. How is that oppressive? The religious fanatics are the ones telling people in their own country what they cannot say. I am no neocon. Far,far from it.
âour way or the highwayâ. Hmmm. Thats sounds more like the mantra of the religious zealot.
Anybody here think of any reason those fearless commentators, South Park, haven’t done more shtick on Mohammad?
RBG
Awake – you seem to misunderstand “complaining” for “bat-shit crazy murders and arson”
If you can’t tell the difference… then you might have a problem.
Plus – Christian groups DO go nuts when Jesus is involved.. or anything goes against the bible. See the fuss of the Jerry Springer Opera being televised in the UK for a good example.
The Christian groups however are working within the system to change it. The Muslim groups seem to mostly resort to violence.
Which is why, though it is true at its core, it is hard for most people to believe the “Islam is a religion of peace” soundbites.
Anybody here know why Muslims understandably protest so much when their last prophet Mohammad is attacked, but not for one of their earlier ones… Jesus? (Sincere question.)
RBG
11. The story I heard is they had one ready but Comedy Central chickened out and pulled it. I’m not sure if thats correct though. I’m sure it would have been brutal (brutally funny).
Another sincere question;
I assume all the gods they believe in, are pretty powerful, right? (As in almighty I would think.)
So, how come the believers have to do all the dirty work, like blowing up an embassy, an abortion clinic or whatever?
I would think, if the deity had the power and listened to prayers, all the hard work needed from the believers would be to gather on the corner, tuck their heads together, pray hard, and lo and behold: Lightning stroke the prayed for item. Or even better; It would just disappear! Now, that would probably make a believer out of me đ
Anyway, my question is: Why don’t their god help them out?
What do you do when two different religions require the exact opposite response. Suppose Catholics required representations of Jesus but Protestants found it blasphemous? I don’t know of any such requirement but whose to say that amongst all the religions there isn’t one.
Suppose a new religion was set up that required display of the Prophet Mohammed? Would the old outrank the new? Suppose the new became bigger or more important than the old? Then what?
Political correctnes is mad. What was politically correct in Germany in 1939?
What do you do when two different religions require the exact opposite response. Suppose Catholics required representations of Jesus but Protestants found it blasphemous? I donât know of any such requirement but whose to say that amongst all the religions there isnât one.
Actually, when History Channel did a two parter on The Ten Commandments, the ‘make no graven images’ (which is in the Protestant version, the Catholic Ten is different), was one of the problems. Crucifixes, statues of Mary and the saints, were pulled and smashed by the Protestants (don’t recall the exact sect.. I would like to save the episodes) because they considered them to be violating the Commandment. They were VERY good episodes, with a lot of information (check local listings)
J/P=?
15. During Hurricane Katrina a man found his house flooding such that he was forced to retreat to his roof top. A neighbor finally swims by with some rope and an offer of assistance. “No thank you”, the roofie replies, “The Lord will help me.” The water rises. Later, a boat with two guys in it floats by. “Jump in!!” they yell over the storm. “No!! The Lord will save me!!” The water again rises until it is almost touching his feet. A helicopter finds him barely holding on. “Climb the rope ladder!” a voice shouts through a loud speaker. “Never!!! The Lord will save me!!” yells back the fellow. Well, the waters continued to rise, and the man finds himself in front of his God up in heaven. “Why, Lord, did you not save me when I so desperately called out??” The Lord replies… “What the hell are you talking about? I sent you a neighbor, a boat and a helicopter!!”
RBG
BTW, something tells me they only believe in one God.
Just as I have the right to speak in ways that may offend others, those others have the right to complain about what I said. Note “complain” does not encompass death threats, murder or arson. Or employing the government to suppress the speech.
people who come to countries with freedom of speech from countries without it should beef up a storm, if they see fit to do so, but keep in mind that in free countries, being hit with images and speech that you find offensive is par for the course.
#18
Funny joke. Kinda. Maybe….
But, oh so unsatisfactory. Not convincing for me.
And it’s in a way in the line of the freaking Muslims putting the embassy on fire:
“The Muslim god replies⌠âWhat the hell are you talking about? I sent a bunch of Muslim guys to set that embassy on fire!!â
I used plural (gods) as they all believe in different gods, even tho most of them believe in one only. Or some in Father, Son, and….. Eh, never mind. They claim it’s one god most of the time. But others, like Hindus have numerous ones. So, all in all, and in a generic way of putting it, gods make perfect sense to me.
20. Since the headline and most all the replies and the two replies before yours refer to Muslims – the assumption was your pronoun “they” did as well. On the Saudi flag: “There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”
Muslims believe in “Insha’Allah” – God’s will – that every little thing that happens on Earth has been preordained, determined and directed by God.
RBG