Rasmussen to apologize to ‘Islamic World’ – UPDATE: Rasmussen Says No UPDATE: Yes, political apology offered
UPDATE II: Yes, this is what we call a political apology.
UPDATE: A Danish newspaper reports that Rasmussen says he will not apologize.
Turkey should not expect any apologies when NATO’s next Secretary-General and former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen makes a speech in Istanbul today.
“Listen. In Denmark we do not apologise for having freedom of speech,” Fogh Rasmussen is quoted by Ritzau as saying.
“You all know that a Danish Prime Minister cannot apologise on behalf of a newspaper,” he continues.
The newly-appointed upcoming secretary-general for NATO is in Turkey to speak at a United Nations conference on intercultural dialogue and understanding.
Turkish media
The Turkish media has widely reported that Fogh Rasmussen will issue an apology during his speech today, and that the apology was one concession offered in order to get Turkey to withdraw its opposition to Fogh Rasmussen’s appointment.But Fogh Rasmussen rejects the assertion.
“We have nothing in the bag,” he is reported as saying.
Not apologizing is obviously the right way to go. However, if he did agree to the conditions as reported by German, Dutch and Turkish media, he could cause a major international controversy by not following up on his promises. Interesting: will he ‘not apologize’ but ‘reach out’? Or will he apologize nonetheless? Or, lastly, will he continue to defend the freedom of speech in the West and refuse to compromise during his speech in Istanbul, even if this means that Turkey will revolt?
END UPDATE
To become NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen will apologize for the Mohammed cartoons.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark’s leader, was one of the few European politicians who refused to give in to pressure from fundamentalists in the Middle East when a Danish newspaper published the now infamous “Mohammed cartoons.” His attitude was welcomed by may Europeans, especially by conservatives. He was quickly promoted to “hero of the freedom of speech,” and became one of the old continent’s most popular politicians.
But then something changed. Rasmussen set his eyes upon NATO. He wanted to become the organization’s next secretary general. An ambitious man, he proved willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish his goals.
One of those ‘things’: apologizing to the “Islamic world” for the cartoons.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip does not like Rasmussen very much (among other reasons because Rasmussen is anti-Turkey). So when the latter appeared to be the man most likely to succeed secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the former put up a fight. Turkey would not agree to let Rasmussen accomplish his goal, Erdogan said, unless Turkey got something in return and unless the prime minister would apologize to “the Islamic world.’
Rasmussen reportedly agreed. Dutch magazine Elsevier says he will do so tomorrow, in Istanbul.
If true, it’s a major blow to the freedom of speech the prime minister said he held so dear. Rasmussen should have stuck to his guns and defended Western principles. This is not about whether one agrees with him on every single subject, nor about whether or not one is a fan of his (country’s) policy towards Turkey. It’s about the freedom of newspapers to publish whatever cartoon they want, no matter how controversial they may be in some quarters.
It is not only a sad day for those who love the freedom of speech, but also for Turkish secularists; Erdogan presented himself once again as spokesman for the “Islamic world,” which would have been unthinkable only ten years ago. Lest we forget, Turkey was, for over 80 years, a proud secular country. Erdogan has done everything in his power to end that beautiful streak. The negotiations over NATO’s next secretary general are yet another step in the wrong direction.
Lastly, not all news is bad: a Turk will be appointed vice-secretary general (which is not a problem at all of course) and its generals will enrich NATO’s top command with their knowledge and experience. These are rather obviously good results, both for Turkey and for NATO.
The cartoon-deal, on the other hand, is terrible for all involved.
We thank the Huffington Post, Little Green Footballs and Hot Air for linking to this story.
Last updated at 6:51 PM ET.
This is NOT about free speech. It’s about hate speech – which we all (except you and a few others) agree we do not want to indulge.
Damianna: it wasn’t “hate speech” at all. It was part of a debate raging in Europe about fundamentalism, extremism, Islam in general, and Western values and principles. There are certainly ‘haters’ in Europe, but the cartoons weren’t the product of hate but of a public debate about this material.
Also, a prime minister has no business apologizing for something a newspaper does. That’s the newspaper’s business, not the government’s.
Who determines what is hate? Is all criticism directed at any institutions or persons now to be categorized as offensive? Are we all collectivists now who must check at the latest memo from the ministry of speech to see what we may or may not say? Free speech is for the protection of unpopular speech. Giving in to the protesters who want us to recede to the 6th century is to bring us back to the conventions of that century. They weren’t known as the dark ages for nothing.
The cartoons were not hate speech and even if they were, they should still be protected (who determines what is hate speech? How is it free speech if you don’t allow speech from people you disagree with?). Even still, the cartoons were criticizing an ideology –not a race– and an ideology is a belief system that people CHOOSE to follow, and thus should be susceptible to criticism like any other ideology. We should not be apologizing for “hurting the feelings” of fundamentalists who yearn for a return to the dark ages. This is just disgusting. Rasmussen should be ashamed of himself.
I agree. There have been many historical instances of racist cartoons and anti-semitic cartoons that people can easily identify as hate speech. Is it so unreasonable to ask for a little thoughtful restraint on hateful portrayals? Unless one is intentionally trying to provoke hatred, I can’t see why it would be necessary to print images that degrade an entire nation or ethnic group.
These cartoons were hateful in my opinion.
It is fine to use social pressure to discourage so-called “hate speech” or other offensive expression.
But when the tools of the state or of violence are used, it is deeply damaging to important personal liberties, especially since it is possible to define virtually anything as “hate speech” if you work at it. And the experience with speech codes on college campuses shows that those who do work at it often cross the line into suppression of relatively mainstream political viewpoints with their endless expansion of the scope of proscribed “hate speech”.
It will hardly surprise anyone, that the issues are more complicated than stated here. The problem with Rasmussen was not that he defended free speech, but that he refused to meet with the ambassadors from the Islamic countries to defend free speech.
LIne of events:
1: hatemonger claims that it is impossible to find an artist who will illustrate his stupid hate-mongering book about Islam, because artists are scared. Already here, there is a problem; who says they are scared? I wasn’t asked, but if asked I would have said no, not out of fear, but because I disagree with the man’s politics. Is it just possible that Danish artists often disagree with Islamophobes?
2: right-leaning newspaper decides to test whether artists are self-censoring to accomodate islamists. (Still, they didn’t ask me, or hundreds of other artists, who are not scared, but disgusted).
3: 12 artists make cartoons, most of which are ridiculing the paper for it’s islamophobic views. 1 of these artists is employed by the paper and makes a cartoon very similar to the antisemitic cartoons of “Der Stürmer” in thirties Berlin.
4: protest grows slowly, with some islamic elders going to the middle east to engage people and governments there.
5: ambassadors from Islamic countries ask Rasmussen for a meeting to discuss the cartoons and general state of Denmark. Rasmussen refuses to meet the ambassadors.
6: all hell breaks loose. Now even the artists who ridiculed the paper are under constant threat, because islamists never bother to fact-check before killing people.
The right-leaning paper and mister Rasmussen are now heroes for free speech everywhere, in spite of their ignorant and even hateful behaviour. Even in Denmark, hardly anyone knows what happened, because most journalists seem to favor the good story about a fight for freedom of speech over the real story about ignorance and hate-speech. Surprise.
The worst thing I heard is that they are going to close down a Kurdish TV station broadcasting from Denmark (and has an office in Belgium) in exchange for the Turkish acceptance of Rasmussen’s presidency. How important is his carrier? Important enough to shut down a TV station? What happened to the freedom of speech in Europe? I guess only “you have the right to remain silent”.
@Jane M
It may not be “unreasonable to ask for a little thoughtful restraint on hateful portrayals” but it is unreasonable to demand that by threat of violence.
Secondly, I’d like to ask what inherently is bad about a “hateful” portrayal? If someone murdered your whole family would it be wrong to “hate” the person? Sometimes hate is a legitimate emotion and response to an injustice.
What is inherently wrong about hate speech? If you threatened to kill someone, there’d be a difference between threatening a child and threatening someone that’s just broken into your house to kill you. Context is everything. Same with speech. “Hate” is just an emotion, sometimes ill-placed and sometimes well founded.
The problem with the claim of “This is NOT about free speech. It’s about hate speech – which we all (except you and a few others) agree we do not want to indulge.” is that anyone who doesn’t like someone elses opinion gets to label it hate speech. Every written and spoken word offends some party in the world.
Don’t confuse Christ with killing nurses and doctors at abortion clinics, the Holocaust, two World Wars …, burning witches, slavery, the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions, and on and on and on.
By the way, what is being done in the name of Islam has nothing to do with Islam.
If I’ve said it once, I’ll say it a thousand times. Freedom of speech doesn’t not negate the responsibility associated with what’s said, printed or displayed. Regardless of the issue, the question shouldn’t be “can I”? The question should be, “should I”? In these instances, too often people care more about being right as opposed to doing right. There are ways to handle any issue responsibly. Inflammatory remarks, etc only serve to fan the flames of negativity… like the world needs more of that. Allen J provided an abstract analogy that only scratches the surface of the issue (imho). It’s true, context plays a part, but not everyone judges issues in the same way, so one person’s contextual interpretation of an event may differ substantially from another. Using his analogy, “Sure, one may hate a person who broke into our house to kill us, but does that mean we have to kill that person?” We all, in some form or another carry the scars of someone else’s disdain or misdeeds, but those things don’t have to stain the core of who we are. Regardless of how we respond to events in our lives or in our society, we are all obliged to take account of and be held accountable for our actions no matter how justified we feel.
f apologizing means peace in the world, then be it.
Muslims should not respond to provocations by the racist newspapers who capitalize on this hatred to make a buck.
If one cannot be given freedom of speech to deny the holocaust, one cannot also be given freedom of speech to denigrate people on the basis of their religion, be it Islam, or Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or any other religion.
Freedom of speech stops there where it can generate unnecessary and st*upid worldwide conflicts.
Freedom of speech is acceptable only if it serves the peace in the world.
Freedom of speech should be inspirational, not conflictual and belligerent.
I am a Dane and would like to give my review on the matter at hand.
First off, the cartoons was NOT what you call it a “Hate Speech”. Far from it! Danes have a very particular sense of humor not unlike the brits. Very dark and gloomy. The humor in the cartoons was a cultural thing that the rest of the world will never understand. Of course a danish newspaper would never print such things simply to spite that part of the world.
The cartoons was published during a debate as Michael says. NOT to offend any religion. JK, Buddha and others are critizised on a daily basis without anyone beeing offended.
Furthermore the Profet has been ridiculed many times before by other nationalities without the whole world watching and complaining.
The “Mohammed crises” is in many ways the fault of spin doctors, hatefull islamic elders and the global media stirring the kettle.
And I agree. Anders Fogh should NOT apologize for something he isn’t the cause of just to ensure his political future. But he should have meet with the ambassadors from Islam.
First the Muslims came to work in the West. Then they asked for a day off to pray on Fridays. Then they asked for a few minutes a day to pray. Then they demand that the world respect their prophet unconditionally, though they have not agreed to mutually respect Western values or laws that would be contrary to their beliefs.
The West is gradually losing its bearing dealing with Islam. Instead of moderating, Muslim see the West as weak and will demand more concessions without reciprocating. Now they openly blackmail a head of state to apologize for a perception of a cartoonist! Where will this end?
Mr. Rasmussen, a man is defined by his values and he will be judged on those values. If you give in now, your credibility is naught and become a puppet in your new position. Instead, tell Turkey and the Muslims to go back to their own countries and come back only if they are ready to respect our Western values.
And when will a prominent Muslim leader apologize to the Jewish world and European world for the revolting “hate speech” cartoon done by Muslim Dyab Abou Jahjah?
“One showed Adolf Hitler and 15-year-old Holocaust victim Anne Frank both naked in bed with the caption: “Write that in your diary, Anne”.”
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/250527/Home-Secretary-Jacqui-Smithrsquos-department-is-under-fire-for-allowing-two-leading-terrorist-sympathisers-to-enter-Britain-during-G20.html
@damianna
Of course it is hate speech. It is NOT OK to criticize the policies of Israel in the Middle East, if you try that you are bound to be called an anti-semite and be ostracized.Or as in a dozen EU-nations, be imprisoned.They jailed several professors of history because they dared questioning the established belief regarding the circumstances for Jews who perished during 1940s.
People who want to see the cartoons as instances of free speech do tend to see Holocaust cartoons exhibition in Iran as hate speech. A double standard.
But it is OK to curse the values and belief system 1,5 billion Muslims around the world hold dear/most sacred. What is to be gained out of this open attack on the fastest growing monotheist religion on earth? Is it out of a fear? Out of a desire to destroy the different? I do not know but it became so fashionable after 9/11 and Bush’s moronic crusade in the western world. Enough is enough.
First there was the ‘much ado about nothing’ over the silly cartoons.
Then there is the latest uproar over an asinine apology and foolish ‘freedom of speech’.
All the while the real ‘meaty issue’, the existence, provocative and insidious expansion of NATO, is being ignored.
The NATO ‘creep’ is generating anxiety and military buildup by NUCLEAR-ARMED Russians and others, in response to the mindless NATO expansion.
The already overly polluted life-giving environment cannot withstand NUCLEAR POLLUTION, which continues to harm and kill life forms for tens of thousands of years.
Yet western powers continue to fuel the nuclear build up on the planet, by stockpiling an irrational amount of nuclear weapons.
And the lost leaders of these western powers foolishly think that the rest of humanity will be so bullied and cowered that they will not respond with nukes also.
NATO should be disbanded! It serves not good purpose, only bad ones.
NATO is an invitation for others to join the military build up of western warmongers, who are ALWAYS the leading proliferators.
let me say this; the cartoon was offensive and was depicted hatefully.
and you said this;
“If true, it’s a major blow to the freedom of speech the prime minister said he held so dear”.
you fail to address the larger issue; which is anti-Islam in Europe, and your article is full of it.
Anyone who questions whether 6 mil Jews were killed in WW2 goes to jail in most of European countries for hate crime. yet when hate speech is directed against Islam, it cloaked under freedom of speech.
you will not defend freedom of speech then, no matter how immoral or hateful it is.
that is the double standard of your bigoted article.
You Said;
Instead, tell Turkey and the Muslims to go back to their own countries and come back only if they are ready to respect our Western values.
Well, you’ve shown your true color on that one. there are millions of native Europeans who happen to be Muslims, that does not make them less of a European as you would like.
My conclusion is freedom comes with responsibility. you don’t yell “bomb” in a subway after all.
Have you ever heard or seen any muslim offending JESUS? it will never happen, and if it happens that person is not considered a muslim.
thanks
Did Nato publish the cartoons? Then, why on earth are is the new head apologizing for it?
Sorry in this Democracy free speech is protected if a religion has thin skin over a cartoon they need to grow up. My freedoms, my democracy is more important than someones fanaticism.
@taratata
What part of “freedom” do you not understand?
Are muslims going to apologize for rampaging, making threats, taking hostages, and burning embassies?
How come jews, christians, athiests, and hindus don’t engage in such behaviour when they’re offended?
There is a big difference between free speech and hate speech.
I support the former, not the latter, which only inflames moderate Muslims like myself and pushes fence-sitters into the arms of militant groups like al Qaida, who I actually like more than some of the extreme westerners promoting the hate speech.
I commend Mr. Rasmussen for finally speaking out against the hate speech, though it should have never been allowed in the first place. Hate speech led to the Holocaust.
Gabriel, I wasn’t arguing that if something can be done, it should be done. Discretion is necessary. But, again, I was asking what is necessarily bad or wrong about hate and “hate speech”. I contend nothing is inherently wrong; it depends on context.
Here’s another example: Most of us have ample hatred for child rapists. We openly speak out against them, and point out publicly why they are acting immorally and so on. Our “hatred” here, we feel is justified, and we feel we’re making positive use of our hatred by keeping the issue in the publics’ eye and raising awareness. We are publicly fighting for a better future when we channel our hatred for child rapists towards our public discourse of the matter.
The people defending this as “free speech” claim that Islam is a toxic that’s eroding their society, they feel outraged and hate the effects of this, and want to fight for a different future by keeping the issue in the realm of public discourse.
In that context, we can discuss if we should or should not be having the conversation. But naively labeling this as “hate speech”, implying that’s necessarily wrong, calling for an end to the discussion and prosecution of those discussing, is a course many Muslims seem intent on pursuing and one which I personally think is entirely misguided.
Apart from that, many here have defended the cartoons under the “free speech” argument and I’d like to remind you such a position is entirely hypocritical if you also support your government’s banning of holocaust denial speech.
@JG
We Jews have a sly and sardonic sense of humor about the world’s putative hatred of us. We are more likely to shrug and say “So, what else is new?” In fact, we wouldn’t expect anything else from certain factions. It is not our way to issue fatwas and death threats. We do not need your apologies – we know our worth – and we just get on with it.
A shameful capitulation on Mr. Rasmussen’s part. Those of you who support this sort of Islamic bullying should think twice. What goes around comes around.
Maybe you could put a little thoughtful restraint into your fascist anti-speech diatribes. Free speech cannot be categorized. Your talk about “hate speech” is classic doublethink.
The responses to this article are depressing. Pity the West–with such cowardly idiots in it. We don’t deserve the freedom we inherited. In 100 years darkness will descend over mankind in the form of world-wide islamic rule. Thank the left.
What is your worth exactly? How is it measured? How is it any different from anyone else’s?
So when will the Islamic world apologize for members of their religion raging through the streets, burning cars, murdering and blowing stuff up? How the heck does someone even begin to compare a CARTOON to violence and murder?
Alinsky would be proud:
The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
The eleventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that goals must be phrased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Of the Common Welfare,” “Pursuit of Happiness,” or “Bread and Peace.”
All that matters is people claimed to be offended and therefore the cartoons are amoral… pay no attention to the deeds of those offended… all that matters now is words, just words. Those that defend the stripping of free speech do it in the name of the “common good” or “peace”. The irony is not lost on anyone.
@damianna
Do you have a clue at all… HATE SPEECH..???
Did you see the cartoons??? The one supposedly most offensive, showing Mohammed as a pig was not a cartoon. It was a photocopy of a photocopy of a Frenchman wearing a pigs nose for a hog calling conmtest. Added to the cartoons by the Danish Imam to incite muslims..
The fact is that Muslim radicals KILLED in response to what were cartoons… The muslim community lied saying you canot reproduce the image ofMohammed .. while thousands exist in Muslim art.
The real tragedy is that fools like you have bought the BS and defend the killing of innocents, sad
@vola
WOW ” if it happens that person is not considered a muslim.
How convenient.. when Muslims do/say vile things, like riot and kill over cartoons you just excuse it by saying they’re not considered Muslim.. as I sed WOW ..
@damianna
Hate speech? It is a sad day when one’s freedom to criticize religion is labeled as such. Islam is as ridiculous a religion as Christianity, and people must take a stand against all manifestations of censorship.
Insanity. Anders Rasmussen = Philippe Petain of the Vichy regime. The”Mohammed cartoons” affair shows how weak the West is, and how vile and ignorant Muslims are. Every day you can read where Muslims kill each other, treat their women as slaves, and blame the West for their failed religion and culture.
Muslims are not going to enslave the world while the United States exists.
what’s wrong with hating Islamic terrorists? since when did that type of hate become a bad thing? if only we hated them as much as we hated the Nazi’s – then maybe we’d wake up & take action
Turkey are the spokes person for the Islamic world. They certainly know how to put uppity Dhimmi Christian males back in place least they forget their inferior status in third place after Muslim women. I guess we know who they will continue to be a spokesperson for when they become full member of the EU – the Islamic world first and foremost before non-Islamic Europe.
Islam is the cancer that will destroy Europe if it doesn’t wake up. Nothing will appease these religious fanatics. He should not have apologized for defending free speech.
You are a liar.
‘Hate speech’ didn’t lead to the Holocaust. Regardless, it’s such a ridiculous comparison. Muslims number a billion+, yet, somehow, they are under the threat of installation from a cartoon. How weak minded they are, as are their enablers in the West.
Being offended is a fundamental product of freedom of speech. Europe has always lagged in this regard, so it’s not really surprising they would backslide. Slow motion suicide. Kick em out while you can.
er, should be ‘threat of annihilation’
When free speech is suppressed because it offends some one, then you no longer have free speech. Either Europe has got to stand up for free speech, or drop the pretenses. As noted above, rioting, burning cars, killing people – all are unacceptable responses to having been offended. As noted above, you very cannot defend suppressing speech to avoid giving offense, and to do so is a serious mistake. People who riot, commit murder, and so on should be punished for their behavior. If murder, riot, and intimidation are not punished, there will be more instances of these behaviors.
Good luck, world. We seem to have the latest appeasement group taking office in the west. We are not going to be well served by this approach.
This is not about free speech. If free speech is so important to the Europeans then how come they (Like
Germany and France) throw people in jail for questioning the Holocaust? This is about the free speech that the Europeans like.
Would any PoliGazette Reader like to take a guess who brokered the Rasmussen apology? None other than Barack Obama: http://tinyurl.com/cgnqlf (Bloomberg)
—-
Obama Again Invokes Personal Diplomacy to Avert NATO Stalemate
Share | Email | Print | A A A
By Edwin Chen and Hans Nichols
April 5 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama waded into a diplomatic stalemate for the second time on his European trip and once again succeeded in bringing his more senior peers into harmony.
With a North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit facing potential deadlock yesterday over Turkey’s opposition to Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen as the next head of NATO, Obama brought Rasmussen and Turkish President Abdullah Gul together for a talk.
After an hour-long session, they rejoined the summit with beaming faces that telegraphed the result: Turkey would drop its objections in exchange for a promise from Rasmussen to “ensure the best relations possible between NATO and the Muslim world” — and shut down a Kurdish TV channel if Turkish claims of links to terrorism were proven.
—
And a side note to any Austrian readers: your country’s language isn’t German any more. It’s “Austrian”: Obama just said so.
—
Obama said his debut on the international stage had convinced him that “political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate,” where he served before entering the White House.
“There’s a lot of — I don’t know what the term is in Austrian — wheeling and dealing, and people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics,” he said in response to an Austrian reporter’s question
—
A long four years.
@damianna
How are cartoons about Muhammad hate speech? I hope your indignation and label of hate speech is applied to the many many cartoons that are produced all over the Arab world about Jews and Israel. Your indignation with these cartoons should be greater because in many instances the newspapers in the Middle East are controlled by the govt.
The West is losing bit by bit their freedoms due to this ignorant concept that all cultures are valid and equal. Europeans and Westerners have been brow beat about all the bad things that their culture has done to the world while the cultures of the rest of the world are held up as only being noble. Well we are seeing the fruit of this now and all I have to say to that is good bye Europe.
This should be obvious but I see that it’s not: Hate speech is a subjective term and should not be made a matter of law or government save for the most egregious violations. These cartoons meet no such standard and should be protected speech in every country on Earth that claims representative government, bar none.
Yes, they offend. What of it? No one is guaranteed a life free of hurtful words, nor should anyone be, for enforcing silence on citizens to ease the minds of others is no function of government or religion.
Moreover, on a continent whose peace has been marred by killings of those critical of Islam, waves of violence caused by “rioting Asian youths”, to quote a local euphemism, and deliberate undermining of western freedoms and cultural mores they are also highly relevant, as is the principle represented by their publication.
@StonesK:
Moslems did not “come” to Europe. They were invited, in many instances bribed, by the European nations to move to Europe to help rebuild their war torn countries after WWII. Some of the Moslems had been brought over earlier as slaves and servants when the European powers were colonizing lands thousands of miles away from Europe. They were not trespassing or invading Europe as one would think reading your silly rant. Get your history straight, first!
@EdWhite, @Craig:
Get the sequence of events right. Moslems started protesting and causing street violence only after the Danes showed how tone-deaf they were by provoking the issue by not even considering a dialogue with elders/leaders of the Islamic community (that would have potentially calmed down later reactions). And one would think that protests, car burning, blowing stuff up is an Islamic invention. Are you second graders? You should open your eyes and study the history of European social movements. You don’t have to go all the way back to the French revolution to find blood and violence on European streets. What happened in London a few days ago? People throwing rocks at banks in the middle of the financial district, protesters being beaten up by police. Isn’t England the birthplace of classical liberal tradition? What’s up with that?
lol
This is not a story about Danes or the western world losing their freedoms at all. This is the story of the ambition of one man, who poorly handled the cartoon crisis, and now, as the fates would have, is forced to backtrack and apologize for his deeply held beliefs. Such are the fractured beliefs of the heart of a politician.
Everyone, save perhaps the Danes and the Dutch, understand that freedom of speech is nuanced, not rigid, which speaks more directly to their problems with rule-boundedness. Danish newspapers have all kind of unwritten laws about what to publish and what not to publish. Apparently publishing aspects of one’s personal life is frowned upon. Anyone with any knowledge about the state of Denmark, knows the majority culture likes to bully their largest minority (Arabs/Muslims)and to hide behind freedom of the press to do so is disgraceful. Rasmussen, as many have said in Denmark, should have been made to attend cultural sensitivity classes instead of celebrated as a champion of freedom.
A Dane draws a picture for Danish consumption, and prints it with Danish ink on Danish paper.
If someone has a problem with that let us all please remind them that it is THEIR problem.
Tell them to get with it! But it looks like a Danish spine is going to be a wet noodle.
Anders F. Rasmussen has not apologized for the cartoons, and he’s not going to..(He’s going to Istanbul today 6th of April, to meet with Turkish prime minister.. There will be no apology.)
Nacrem Rimker :
Some Muslims were invited to Europe as guest workers.. That much is true.. The rest you wrote is utter BS! Brought over earlier as slaves? lol, what?? From which Muslim country and where to?
The vast majority of Muslims in Europe are refugees.. Political and war.
Then the muslems in EU wanted to bring the rest of their family to EU too, so they got their moms, dads, grandparents, uncles, cousins, just about everything up here too..
There are other religious groups in EU than just Muslims. Buddhist, Hindu, Jews and ofc Christians. How come only Muslims seem to have a problem adjusting to European laws and way of life?
Did people one day decide just to dislike Muslims? I don’t think so.
People got tired of Muslims wanting everybody else to adjust to their lifestyle.
Tired of Muslims wanting to change our freedom of speech, even though Muslims are exercising that very freedom here in the streets of Denmark.. Talk about being a hypocrite!
Muslims never use HATE speech, they just cut heads off.
“Muslims never use HATE speech”
Oh really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeUzAk1nXy4
Keith,
“Cartoons written and published as a protest over several muslim advertisements in major Danish newspapers advertising a reward for every Kaffir (non-muslim) killed.”
This is simply not true. I live in Denmark and the story is somewhat different from your version.
A danish author wanted to write a childrens book about the lift of Mohammed and he experienced some problems finding an illustrator. Most professionals he asked simply dared not draw the prophet. Outraged, the author talked to one of the larger newspapers here and they became interested in the story. They then challenged a great number of cartoonists and illustrators to draw Muhammed, to see if it was really true that free speech was being cowed. It was. Only a handful or two actually dared submit their drawings which were subsequently published. Six months went by, practically without incident, when a delegation of imams from Denmark took a trip of the middle east, spreading lies and the illustrations… You all know the rest.
And please note the nazi-salute at 0:42 in the video..
Its only those who generalize the muslim world as “scum” “primitive” or whatever other bias remark who would associate a blatantly obvious example of hate speech and parade it under the guise of free speech. Its also not surprising that those completely ignorant to perceptions and worlds outside of the western hemisphere, whether Middle Eastern, African or Asian- cannot identify the red herrings that would genuinely offend or cause considerable tension and misunderstanding (ofcourse, any misunderstanding is the result of primitive cultures and countries misinterpreting the superior ideals of the western world- or their just extremists. The Western world is civilized, and advanced! We’re never wrong!).
Thats not to say that the Arab world is not guilty of this crime. But you are all hypocrites- if some of you could see the publications that come out of Saudi Arabia, i doubt you would still beat the drum of “free speech” and start labeling it “hate speech, anti-semitic and racist”. And it would also be arrogant of me to accuse the commenters of being incapable of comprehending without giving an example-
Section 140 of the Criminal Code in Denmark, known as the blasphemy law, prohibits disturbing public order by publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing religious community in Denmark.
Section 266 criminalises insult, threat or degradation of natural persons, by publicly and with malice attacking their race, color of skin, national or ethnical roots, faith or sexual orientation.
22 Countries issued diplomatic protests, and representatives from head of states cited their grievances and reasons.
On 28/01/07, The Danish ambassador in Saudi Arabia interviewed by the American Associated Press Television News (AP-TV) criticises Jyllands-Posten’s lack of judgement and knowledge of Islam. And calls the “free speech” argument a “terrible perversion”.
Danish exports were reduced to 15.5% and the biggest boycott ever was unofficially supported by politicans and people of influence (athletes, actors, singers, etc.)
If you don’t understand (not agree, but understand) what was offensive- the connections that were implied, or the reason why dissatisfaction escalated towards Denmark. Then your premature assumptions will obviously lead you to an incorrect conclusion.
Here is where you go wrong. I can say what I think about ANY subject. That is free speech. There should never be a law passed as those you have quoted. Never. If you don’t like what you read/hear, go away or put it down. no one makes you read it. Muslims are trying to as we speak pass a UN resolution banning all freedom of speech regarding Islam. Can’t say sh!.t. or go to jail or die.
I’ll say one thing about Muslims, they sure do have a lot of extra virgins laying around.
Now that is a law breaker too…. Too Bad.
@Michael:
Brought over “earlier” as slaves. That’s true. Why don’t you google “slave trade” along with keywords “french”, “dutch”, “spanish”, “english”?.. Many African slaves picked up from African and Asian countries and brought over to Europe were Moslems. Even after slavery was abolished in 19th Century in Europe, the second wave of colonization (new imperialism) brought another fresh stream of Moslems in the form of servants. Your ignorance of world history is astounding. Just because you don’t see mosques in European capitals doesn’t mean that there were no moslems in Europe. They just were not allowed to practice their religion openly. Even today, residents of many European countries are very opposed to the idea of having a mosque in their neighborhood.
Michael: this was as close to an open apology as he could go. sad
The man in the photo looks crazy.
“Bill Clinton”, that’s idiotic. There have been many Christian terrorists, and many Christian terrorism acts. Besides, e.g. the most famous examples of Irish Catholics in Northern ireland, there was the Christian Orthodox “November 17th” group in Greece, whose chief terrorists were not just Christians, but the sons of a Greek Orthodox priest.
Sypin, have you even checked the cartoons? There was no hate speech there. There was NOTHING there. There was simply A DEPICTION OF MOHAMMED.
It is significant to note that no single Muslim in Europe even cared about this, until countries Syria and Iran (the most nakedly imperialistic nations in the Middle-east) chose to attack the West over this. It’s noteworthy, but not all surprising, that the countries with the most naked imperialist ambitions (Syria over Lebanon, Iran over Iraq) would be the most anxious to assault another nation’s liberty, attempting to control even the publications in a country as far away as DENMARK.
If this was about offended Muslims, I might respect the argument. But Muslims themselves weren’t offended, until certain fascistic, imperialist regimes in the Middle East told them to get offended, and ordered up protestation rallies. The chronology doesn’t work if this was an honest Muslim reaction.
The supposed “offense” over the Danish cartoon is as such sheer Islamofascist imperialism. Which has little to do with the Islamic faith, everything to do with certain fascist countries seeking to control others.
Aris, I could not agree with you more. I am a Muslim and I do not even live in Europe but I am not offended by the cartoons.
However what I am offended about is how this issue brought surface (or maybe it was already on surface) all the real hate against Muslims. The ones talking about hate speeches are making real hate speeches above. Whether they are aware of it is another story.
Look at the comments above, people saying a word that is slightly in defense of Muslims are labelled as idiots or stupid, even Bill Clinton made a very out of line comment about virgins.
People accusing others of not being civil show very well here how they can be civil.
To the editors out there, I strongly believe some of the comments above need modification or deletion completely.
That’s not an apology – he’s still standing strong on free speech and separation of religion and politics.
Let’s NOT try to shoot the man down for something he did not do – he is STILL one of the worlds strongest leaders when it comes to protecting liberty of speech, thought and other human rights!
Too bad that Obama did not ask Turkey to apologize for the atrocities Turkey committed against the Armenians.
And just as I was wondering in addition to the hate speeches above, when the so called genocide issue would be brought up. Thanks for not letting me down Stone K.
If you had a bit historical knowledge, you would not even talk about Turkey for events that took place in 1915 but I know I am asking for too much.
@Nacrem Rimker
Dear Nacrem Rimker
You are missing some facts. you write
“Get the sequence of events right. Moslems started protesting and causing street violence only after the Danes showed how tone-deaf they were by provoking the issue by not even considering a dialogue with elders/leaders of the Islamic community (that would have potentially calmed down later reactions).”
The truth is as follows. A small group of muslim leaders which represented less than 5% of the danish muslims demanded that the danish minister set aside time to speak with them about getting the government to take action against the newspaper.
Seeing that the Danish prime minister had no legal rights in this matter, and seeing that they DID NOT represent the muslim community at large, he DECLINED.
Later those “muslim leaders” searched the internet for other pictures NOT RELATED to those published by the newspaper and when on a muslim tour trying to rally support in muslim countries.
A curious side note was that one of the pictures was from a french pig festival where people competed to dress up as the best looking pig.
These pictures was what was shown to the muslim countries.
But… here is where freedom of speach comes in. If europeans living in many muslim countries had done the same just the other way around. they would have been taken out and shot.
But… Freedom of speach…. you should try it.
How do i know the above…??? simple, be in the middle of it, read and the hard part… UNDERSTAND what you read
Best Regards from Denmark
Thomas
Ps. ofcourse no apologies were nessecary and Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave none
I think there is a difference between free speech and hate speech. USA and westerners need to draw the line and start being nice to us after 8 years of hate and hostility.
Fair criticism now is represented as “hate speech”?
What a curious society some people seem intent on creating. I wonder if, say, Saudi Arabia has the same “anti-defamation” laws that the Turks suddenly expect Denmark to bow to? Or perhaps they do, but for that one religion again?
The world better stop messing with these Muslims. We need to ignore everything they do and call them the intolerant, invading scum that they are. Are you leaving children on this planet when you die? You better get serious about the world you’re going to leave them.
If you had even the slightest morality, your nation would apologize for the events of 1915. But I know I am asking for too much.
Mr. Erdogan’s argument was pretty reasonable. He said one who is unable to draw a line between freedom of speech and insult to other’s beliefs is not supposed to take that position. I believe he is right. We all have certain believes that are holy to us. These may be family, religion, etc. If you let one insult these in the name of “freedom of speech”, that would be nothing but a barbarian act, a moronic behavior. For sure, there is a line between right and wrong. Freedom of speech doesn’t give you an excuse to cross that line.
How did he dislocate his shoulder? How did he fall down the stairs? What a moron…
GeoffP, do you know anything about events of 1915? Do you know anything about what happened before or even after events of 1915? Do you know anything about numbers? Have you even heard about a party called Dasnaktsutiun? Do you know when Turkey was founded?
The worst and maybe the most effective way of making propaganda is when the propagandist accuses the other side having counter-claims making propaganda. The propagandist leaves no room for the other side to defend himself against false accusations and labels the side having counter-claims as a denier or even in your case as lacking morality. This is conviction without a trial and this racist and biased approach leaves the side having counter-claims always in defense resulting in a pyschological break and makes it easier for the propagandist to form his self-fulfilling prophecy along with other haters and communities with vested interests.
A topic which is even not directly related to Turks or so called genocide can easily be turned into a propagandist scene with allegations about Turks by some.
I did not even address my comment to you but does it make any difference? You also prove me right with your accusations that you lack serious historical knowledge, but will this situation make you go and check and analyze that part of history? Let me answer. Absolutely not. So if you have something to say about the article, feel free to do so but making racist accusations about some part of history while having little to no knowlege about it is out of line and I repeat, just proves me right.
How about a new poll on this website once a week? I find it a lot quicker to get a feel of your readers through a poll. Not all of us have time to sit and read, read, read.
Solution, Stay in your own muslim country. If you don’t like the political atmosphere of the country that you are in, move your azz back to where you came from. The USA is a Christian country, NOT muslim. You have done NOTHING to build this country yet all the changes are being asked of you are anti Christian. Screw your muslim faith I don’t care. You are murders and child killers. you treat your women like chattel. You smell and dress in the 6th century. mohommed was a village raider and a pervert with young wives. You hide your women, public beatings and have absolutely crazy “laws” about women talking with the other sex but YOU whore around at every bar. You sure do here in the US as I have been to many bars and witnessed the standard. Who are YOU to tell us how we should do anything? 72 virgins, give me a break you freaks.
I forgot to add this. The Slave Trade in North Africa, West Asia, East Africa and Europe was done by YOU MUSLIM ARABS, not the white Europeans. YOU raided the coast all the way to the shores of the Mediterranean. YOU scum slavers!! Not US YOU. Google it yourself you sand scum.
I am tired of holding my tongue while you people spew so much hate around the world killing Christians. When was the last time that the Christians killed by terrorist acts? Not civil war as in the British Isles ie. Ireland, Belfast etc. but as the muslims are doing throughout the world. When? NOT. All you people do is KILL in the name of your allah. Wow some God you got. Now go home.