« Good news | Main | From the things-are-getting-better department »

The cartoon controversy

There's so much to say about this piece that I'm going to say very little, at least for now. Read it for yourself and see what you think.

Much of what's said here is complete bullshit, but the closing lines are spot-on:

I would not have drawn nor published these cartoons, but when the lines are drawn, I stand with Western freedom against traditional authority. I write these lines over a Carlsberg and shall drink no other lager until the boycott of Danish product ends.

Comments

the problem is not one of free speech. there is no questioning that right. however with free speech comes the fact that one must face up to the consequences also. and also, there is the question of what there is to be gained. there is a line that exists between objective statement and provocation. the fact the journal that originally published this, is a very conservative paper and one of the motivations behind it were their dissatisfaction with the migration of muslims to denmark, something which the right wing government there is very unhappy about also.
sz

Tuborg is better than Carlsberg, if you can find it.

Loopy,

I don't know about these cartoons in particular, but what you say about the provocation makes sense. I have no doubt that a lot of right-wing europeans think that the solution to all their problems is simply to keep the muslims out -- which in my opinion is both wrong and impractical.

The same debate, of course, is heating up in the U.S. regarding the immigrants from mexico. The right wing is split on the issue: big business likes the cheap labor; social conservatives hate the arrival of cultural outsiders. Sadly, this turns too often into a hatred of the immigrants themselves.

That's the millstone around the neck of the social conservatives, in my opinion.

From the last paragraph:

That is why Muslims cannot respond to Western jibes at the person of their Prophet except as they did to the Jyllens-Posten cartoons.

??? His piece is allusive and everything, but I don't see how his arguments (such as they are) can get him from there to here. Why can't believing muslims refuse to respond to blasphemy with violence? They're "late to the table of globalization?" Their traditional life is threatened by doubt? Even assuming these things are true (and I'm not convinced), why does this make violence the only option?

Anyone who understands this article is more perceptive (or more credulous) than I.

yes.this is my site http://www.neradio.com/hgh/index.html Thanks.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)