Comments on: Rasmussen’s political apology

By: Keloglan

Keloglan — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:50:29 +0000

The point is not good or bad cartoons published by a newspaper. The point is that a Prime Minister is in charge of 1) his country’s international relationships withe the rest of our common world; 2) his fellow citizens attitude when adressing foreigners.
Rather wrongly Rasmussen’s choice was to focus on freedom of expression, when the core of the problem was a matter of tact and intelligence.
Rasmussen would have been totally right to remind his fellow citizens that tact is not useless in international affairs and that mutual respect should be a shared value. Exactly what he did not say.
I even wonder if he ever considered this side of the coin.

By: JG

JG — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:38:21 +0000

I wonder if the Turks would want the man who said this about them to apologize to the Turks as well:

“Before the end of the world, you shall fight Turks, whose eyes are small and noses flattened and who have ugly reddish faces, like hammered shields.”

Racism? Hate speech? Guess who said this about Turks: http://www.myspear.org/muhammad_racism_turks.html

By: Chuck Norton

Chuck Norton — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 19:15:51 +0000

I have been thinking about this story since this morning, and that scene from the Karate Kid keeps popping into my mind:

“Miyagi say, you walk one one side of road fine, or walk on other side of road ok, but walk in middle of road and squash like grape.”

Is the “non-apology apology” as bad or worse than the “non-denial denial”?

By: Renwaa

Renwaa — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:16:55 +0000

lrg :
Perhaps the reason the prime minister did not express his “distress” at the time is that he was dealing with attacks on Danish citizens, some of which appeared to be sanctioned by foreign governments. At this point, he can say he’s sorry that elements in the Muslim world took offense, without appearing to justify the threats and violence. What’s really needed is for such words to be countered by equal expressions from other quarters, refusing to justify violence as a response to a newspaper cartoon.

Good post. Expected attacks on Danish citizens were a real threat (anecdotal: my hubby’s company (Danish) relocated a meeting in Dubai Mar ‘06 and moved it to Copenhagen for security reasons) and from what I can figure, the first time the Danes have ever found themselves “hated” specifically for a position–must less a newspaper took! Plus, to think these cartoons from a few years ago don’t have anything to do with his getting the NATO is completely naive. Turkey was well peeved that AFR refused to meet with reps from muslim countries when they wanted to complain back then–and that included snubbing Turkey. Erdogan is an islamist in disguise. He has a covered wife. He is a threat to the secularism of Turkey so I’m sure he is extra annoyed at the AFR. But, with the US in his corner to get into the EU, I would think Erdogan also have to walk a fine line in his outrage.

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2004/06/erdo287an-turkey-is-not-a-country-where.html

By: lrg

lrg — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:49:37 +0000

Perhaps the reason the prime minister did not express his “distress” at the time is that he was dealing with attacks on Danish citizens, some of which appeared to be sanctioned by foreign governments. At this point, he can say he’s sorry that elements in the Muslim world took offense, without appearing to justify the threats and violence. What’s really needed is for such words to be countered by equal expressions from other quarters, refusing to justify violence as a response to a newspaper cartoon.

By: Chuck Norton

Chuck Norton — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:20:40 +0000

Michael,

I would like to send my compliments on the fine argument you have made here. Rasmussen has taken the posture of a Dhimmi and the people shouldn’t stand for it.

By: jannike

jannike — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:22:58 +0000

Why do you make this story, and do you also confuse freedom of speech and responsibility. If you have freedom of speech the prime minister has no responsibility whatever of something written in a newspaper. It is totally ridiculous. Why couldn’t he say that he was distressed by this. That the muslim countries doesn’t understand freedom of speech is ok, but that poligazette doesn’t understand it is more disturbing.

By: blogattelle

blogattelle — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:39:13 +0000

I re-posted on my website near pope’s cartoons

By: Tonus

Tonus — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:45:57 +0000

I think that Michael’s point is that Rasmussen need not have apologized or even mentioned the incident in an attempt to provide ‘clarification’ of his thoughts or feelings about it. If he did indeed open with the statement “Now listen. In Denmark we don’t apologise for having freedom of speech,” he should have stopped and left it at that. Trying to ease wounded feelings while ignoring the response that the publishing of the cartoons elicited certainly comes off as an apology, even if not stated explicitly. In doing so, he legitimizes the over-the-top reactions as valid.

By: Michelle Malkin » Mohammed Cartoons redux: Make no apology for defending Western values; Update: Obama bows again

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:38:54 +0000

[...] Poligazette weighs in on Rasmussen’s political apology. [...]