March for freedom of expression, London the 25th of March
DanishViking @ Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:49 pm
http://marchforfreeexpression.blogspot.com/
I wish them all the best – on a peaceful and sober march.
And I hope this march will be a great example to follow - if it’s carried through!
DanishViking @ Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:19 am
DanishViking DanishViking:
http://marchforfreeexpression.blogspot.com/
I wish them all the best – on a peaceful and sober march.
And I hope this march will be a great example to follow - if it’s carried through!
I wish them all the best – on a peaceful and sober march.
And I hope this march will be a great example to follow - if it’s carried through!
I don’t know if it's all organized yet – but it seems like there’s going to be some sister demonstrations in Australia, Canada (Montreal and Toronto) and USA as well.
(same link)
BartSimpson @ Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:22 am
I wonder how many tolerant and moderate muslims will show up with suicide bombs?
Tman1 @ Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:13 am
I applaud these Muslim organizations in Western countries doing the right thing in protesting "peacefully" although this protesting is wearing a little thin already. Unfortunately, these are the 1% of Muslims who actually "think" instead of raising the religous furor that seems all to rampant in Arab or other predominately Muslim countries and burning down embassys. The 99% in those countries need to take a lesson from their Western counterparts if they expect their protest to garner any support from anybody and make their protest of dipictions of Muhammad credible if such thing is possible.
Wullu @ Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:27 am
Tman1 Tman1:
.......to garner any support from anybody and make their protest of dipictions of Muhammad credible if such thing is possible.
Unfortunately Tman I don't think it is possible now, the whole thing became way too politized once people started dying. Folks with a hell of a lot more say in how things are done on this planet than you and I now have way too much invested in it.
Tman1 @ Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:35 am
You're right, it probably is too late for that I suppose considering all the burnings and violence already but still, you would be surprised that some people actually support the Muslim protests (not the violence of course) and it's supposed offense to ones religion. I'm curious why non-Muslims have not been as forthcoming about these protests against the cartoons in Western countries as the Muslims have. The Western Standard tried it, Professors in University's have tried it yet seemingly get shafted more by both non-Muslims and Muslims alike.
Motorcycleboy @ Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:42 am
Tman1 Tman1:
I'm curious why non-Muslims have not been as forthcoming about these protests against the cartoons in Western countries as the Muslims have. The Western Standard tried it, Professors in University's have tried it yet seemingly get shafted more by both non-Muslims and Muslims alike.
Well, I can't speak for all non-Muslims obviously, but the reason I haven't publicly objected to the cartoons is simple. I think they were clever and accurate.
And I don't care if they offend Muslims because if Muslims are offended by the cartoons, then they are free not to look at them.
DerbyX @ Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:50 am
$1:
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - The Danish newspaper that first published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad infuriating Muslims worldwide previously turned down cartoons of Jesus as too offensive, a cartoonist said on Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Twelve cartoons of the Prophet published last September by Jyllands-Posten newspaper have outraged Muslims, provoking violent protests in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
"My cartoon, which certainly did not offend any Christians I showed it to, was rejected because the editor felt it would be considered offensive to readers -- readers in general, not necessarily Christians," cartoonist Christoffer Zieler said in an email he sent to Reuters on Wednesday.
Jens Kaiser, the former editor of Jyllands-Posten's Sunday edition who turned down the cartoons three years ago, said he had done so because they were no good.
"Having seen the cartoons, I found that they were not very good. I failed to see the purportedly provocative nature," he said in a statement.
"My fault is that I didn't tell him what I really meant: The cartoons were bad." Kaiser said he told Zieler he had not used the cartoons because they were offensive to some readers.
Zieler's five colored cartoons portrayed Jesus jumping out of holes in floors and walls during his resurrection. In one, gnomes rated Jesus for style, another entitled "Saviour-cam" showed Jesus with a camera on his head staring at his feet.
"I do think the cartoons would offend some readers, but only because they were silly," Kaiser said.
Unlike Muslims, who consider depictions of the Prophet to be deeply offensive, many Christians adorn churches with images and sculptures of Jesus. However, some Christian congregations have protested at portrayals they perceive as blasphemous, especially in the cinema.
The editor of Jyllands-Posten has apologized for offending Muslims by printing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, including one of the founder of Islam holding a bomb in his turban, but defended his right to do so in the interests of free speech.
Dozens of newspapers in Europe and elsewhere have reproduced them with the same justification.
"Perhaps explaining my story of three years ago in its proper context at least won't make matters any worse," Zieler said
ADVERTISEMENT
Twelve cartoons of the Prophet published last September by Jyllands-Posten newspaper have outraged Muslims, provoking violent protests in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
"My cartoon, which certainly did not offend any Christians I showed it to, was rejected because the editor felt it would be considered offensive to readers -- readers in general, not necessarily Christians," cartoonist Christoffer Zieler said in an email he sent to Reuters on Wednesday.
Jens Kaiser, the former editor of Jyllands-Posten's Sunday edition who turned down the cartoons three years ago, said he had done so because they were no good.
"Having seen the cartoons, I found that they were not very good. I failed to see the purportedly provocative nature," he said in a statement.
"My fault is that I didn't tell him what I really meant: The cartoons were bad." Kaiser said he told Zieler he had not used the cartoons because they were offensive to some readers.
Zieler's five colored cartoons portrayed Jesus jumping out of holes in floors and walls during his resurrection. In one, gnomes rated Jesus for style, another entitled "Saviour-cam" showed Jesus with a camera on his head staring at his feet.
"I do think the cartoons would offend some readers, but only because they were silly," Kaiser said.
Unlike Muslims, who consider depictions of the Prophet to be deeply offensive, many Christians adorn churches with images and sculptures of Jesus. However, some Christian congregations have protested at portrayals they perceive as blasphemous, especially in the cinema.
The editor of Jyllands-Posten has apologized for offending Muslims by printing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, including one of the founder of Islam holding a bomb in his turban, but defended his right to do so in the interests of free speech.
Dozens of newspapers in Europe and elsewhere have reproduced them with the same justification.
"Perhaps explaining my story of three years ago in its proper context at least won't make matters any worse," Zieler said
A double standard?
Wullu @ Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:56 am
I am truely at a loss for the reactions of universities. Are they not supposed to be the bastions of free expression and free thought? I think a lot of the so called "soft" support that muslims are getting on this not due to any rigtheous feelings of campassion for the supposed blasphamy, but through plain old fear. Schools and news organizations are not worried about supporters of free speech burning down their buildings and they would tell us that is not the reason they censored themselves, hell they might even believe it but I truely believe that is one of the main reasons they are not engaging this topic head on as they have done for so many examples of things that piss off christians and jews.
And the support really is "soft". Just about the only non-muslim at the protest march in Halifax of Prof March's actions was Prof March........ right there at the tail end of the protest congratulating the protestors on making use of their freedom of assembly and expression. They somehow missed the irony of it 
DerbyX @ Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:56 am
Reactions to insults to jesus
jesus dance
Motorcycleboy @ Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:58 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
A double standard?
A "double standard?" No. It's called an editorial decision. It's a right wing newspaper. A large proportion of their readership are Christians. Why on earth would a newspaper print something that's sure to offend their readers?
I would be very surprised if the Toronto Star launched a series of editorial cartoons lampooning the Liberal Party of Canada, and started running editorials opposing further immigration to Canada.
And I'd be equally shocked if the Toronto Sun started supporting the Liberals and calling for more government funding for the homeless.
That's not an ethical breach.
Motorcycleboy @ Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:03 pm
Wullu Wullu:
I am truely at a loss for the reactions of universities. Are they not supposed to be the bastions of free expression and free thought? I think a lot of the so called "soft" support that muslims are getting on this not due to any rigtheous feelings of campassion for the supposed blasphamy, but through plain old fear. Schools and news organizations are not worried about supporters of free speech burning down their buildings and they would tell us that is not the reason they censored themselves, hell they might even believe it but I truely believe that is one of the main reasons they are not engaging this topic head on as they have done for so many examples of things that piss off christians and jews.
And the support really is "soft". Just about the only non-muslim at the protest march in Halifax of Prof March's actions was Prof March........ right there at the tail end of the protest congratulating the protestors on making use of their freedom of assembly and expression. They somehow missed the irony of it
And the support really is "soft". Just about the only non-muslim at the protest march in Halifax of Prof March's actions was Prof March........ right there at the tail end of the protest congratulating the protestors on making use of their freedom of assembly and expression. They somehow missed the irony of it
You're absolutely right. The decision of universities to mute debate on this subject has nothing to do with "respect" or "tolerance" and everything to do with fear and intimidation.
The media, academia and arts communities lost any claim to showing "respect" and "tolerance" when they allowed open debate and published photos of things like "Piss Christ."
I just wish someone in one of those communities had the guts to come out and admit they've caved in to intimidation. At least then we'd have a little honesty surrounding the subject.
P.S.-That Professor March guy deserves an Order of Canada for what he's done.
DerbyX @ Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:05 pm
Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
DerbyX DerbyX:
A double standard?
A "double standard?" No. It's called an editorial decision. It's a right wing newspaper. A large proportion of their readership are Christians. Why on earth would a newspaper print something that's sure to offend their readers?
I would be very surprised if the Toronto Star launched a series of editorial cartoons lampooning the Liberal Party of Canada, and started running editorials opposing further immigration to Canada.
And I'd be equally shocked if the Toronto Sun started supporting the Liberals and calling for more government funding for the homeless.
That's not an ethical breach.
I don't see it as such and neither would any single muslim on earth nor anyone with an open mind.
It is also important to note the truth behind why the muslim reaction over the cartoons has been extreme and you Xtian apologists respond with "we wouldn't do it if our saviour was insulted thusly".
$1:
Unlike Muslims, who consider depictions of the Prophet to be deeply offensive, many Christians adorn churches with images and sculptures of Jesus.
And for the record you guys get massively pissed off. The violent BS has been coming from areas where they experience violence everyday and its indemic. Peaceful protests have happened all over the world as well. We see that here in Canada. I bet no country but us has seen the news about "peaceful CDN muslims protests". Just not good copy.
Tman1 @ Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:15 pm
Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
P.S.-That Professor March guy deserves an Order of Canada for what he's done.
I agree. He even said he didn't care if he got fired and stands by his decision to make use of his freedom of expression that the protestors seem to enjoy thoroughly enough. I probably worded my initial question wrong but I meant why non-Muslims so far have been quiet on speaking out for freedom of expression and the cartoons, not why they are actually against it.
Blue_Nose @ Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:27 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
The hate mail is great...
$1:
Your so-called sense of humor is very
offensive, but many people have died so that you can be offensive.
That's true. Thanks for pointing that out. From now on I'll be as offensive as possible at all times so that they won't have died in vain.
offensive, but many people have died so that you can be offensive.
That's true. Thanks for pointing that out. From now on I'll be as offensive as possible at all times so that they won't have died in vain.