Support freedom of the press - buy Danish products.

nimh wrote:

dlowan wrote:
BTW, these storms would be blown up very deliberately by the governments concerned, I wonder how spontaneous THIS storm is (as others have wondered) and how Danish cartoons got about so widely suddenly?

A Deutsche Welle opinion piece commented:

Quote:
Muslim groups in Denmark, with their interest in continuing to live in Danish society, have accepted the apology [of Jyllands-Posten's editor-in-chief]. The same does not go for Arab and Muslim countries, however. That constitutes the second aspect of this scandal: Certain actors in the Muslim world seem to view the event as a welcome opportunity to accuse the entire western world of arrogance and insensitivity to Islam.

The caricatures were spread throughout the Muslim world -- along with other, worse ones that Carsten Juste said his paper did not publish "because they breached our code of ethics."

The issue was made worse by a basic misunderstanding on the part of the protesters: Arab nations demanded an apology from the Danish government and also asked Copenhagen to punish the authors of the drawings. However, neither act is possible for a western democracy. [..] Once again, ignorance and intentional demonization supplemented each other.

link

I thought that was part of the problem....ignorance, in real terms, of what freesom of the press means...despite Al Jazeera's brave example.

Here is an interesting comment by Australian press gadfly, Crikey.com:

If you want to see the 12 cartoons published by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that satirised the Prophet Mohammed and created an international storm of protests, you can visit websites like Human Events or Tim Blair. Even though Crikey exists to disclose information, we don't intend to join the grandstanding Wellington Dominion Post, the flagship New Zealand newspaper of the Fairfax media group, by macho publishing them here. We've discharged our disclosure role by providing the links of where to view them, just as the Fairfax newspapers in New Zealand could have done without stirring up a confected controversy.

Predictably, those newspapers have attempted to justify publication of these offensive cartoons on the grounds of what the Dominion Post described as "the precious right of freedom of speech" in a facile editorial last Saturday. "In the clash of values at the centre of the dispute, not to publish because of fear of disturbing the sensibilities of Muslims would be to give way in the face of bullying threats," wrote the paper. "That is what Muslims are seeking to have the Western democracies do with their threats of bombs and trade boycotts."

The problem with that simplistic defence in places like New Zealand and Australia – where the issue only becomes an issue if the media gratuitously publishes the cartoons to make it an issue – is that "the precious right of freedom of speech" is a responsibility as well as a right. In that regard we prefer the sentiments expressed in the editorial comment of another New Zealand newspaper last Saturday – this one in The New Zealand Herald, a non-Fairfax newspaper which explained why it had decided not to publish the cartoons:
As soon as an issue is framed as a test of press freedom, the temptation is to publish for no better reason than to assert that freedom. And in some circumstances, where the threat is real, that might be reason enough to publish. But in this country, and most others where newspapers have strutted a hairy chest on this issue, Muslims are a small minority of the population and we are free to offend their religious sensitivities if we want to.

The only question to consider is, why would we want to?
There are really important occasions to invoke "the precious right of freedom of speech." By choosing the wrong one, the Dominion Post has devalued the concept, given more ammunition to opponents of free speech for no reason, and made it a little bit harder for all other journalists to invoke it in the future.

--- The Crikey Team

This is an interesting discussion, I think.

0 Replies

Zippo wrote:

Denying the Holocaust = disapproval of Israel's policy.

Apple. Orange. Two different things. No equation. Your = is completely misplaced.

Disapproving of Israel's policy is one thing. I do too. Whole lot of people do. They write about it in the newspaper, talk about it on the TV, all the time. Take Greta Duisenberg, the wife of the head of the European Central Bank, who hung the Palestinian flag from her house. Nobody gets arrested over any of that.

Denying the Holocaust is a wholly different thing. Israel didnt even exist yet when the Holocaust took place.

Rolling Eyes

right back atcha.

0 Replies

Zippo wrote:

France, Belgium and Germany among other countries have laws that make denial of the Holocaust a criminal offence.

Hu-hum. Of course "denial of the Holocaust" is quite a bit different from "questioning the extant [sic] of the Holocaust", as you might realize. And it's totally different from "criticizing Israel's policy".

...

"criticizing Israel's policy a criminal offence"...

<shaking head>

0 Replies

Oh. Hi nimh!

0 Replies

Zippo wrote:

Denying the Holocaust = disapproval of Israel's policy.

As I thought, your claim is completely baseless.

0 Replies

Hiya, OE .. <smiles>

0 Replies

Punished for criticizing Israel

0 Replies

If the events as outlined in that piece are true, Zippo, that is wrong.

But what have the apparently untoward actions of a university in Virginia, which I believe you will find to be in the USA, have to do with the LAWS you claimed existed to punish criticism of Israeli policies in Europe?

0 Replies

Zippo wrote:

Punished for criticizing Israel

Zippo.

You said, on the last page, that "In Europe you can be prosecuted for [..] criticizing Israel's policy".

I repeat: you said that you can be prosecuted for criticizing Israel's policy. As in: by the state. The government. The judges. Who might send you to prison.

The story you just linked in is about a student who was dismissed from the local university's Jewish students association:

Quote:

"An irate e-mail to the Israeli Embassy in Washington may have cost Jilian Redford her job as the leader of the Jewish student organization on her campus

(Thats also in America, not Europe, but I'll let that one slide cause it's not important).

Note. The girl in your story is absolutely free to criticize Israel's policy the way she did, in America - and she would be in Europe too. She could publish a book about it, she could broadcast her own radio show about it, she could organise a political meeting and speech about it, and nobody would harm her a thing. Nobody would prosecute her.

She was dismissed as President of a Jewish students organisation, because the Jewish students association in question didnt want its own president to criticize Israel. Now, every association, club or organisation is free to dismiss members as it sees fit - it's the same where you live, I'm sure -- what in heavens name is that supposed to show about how one purportedly gets prosecuted in Europe over criticizing Israel's policies?

0 Replies

That above example is a warning, which the Europians have noted, why do you think there is not a big rush of Europian media criticizing Israel's policy ? maybe they know something that you dont.

And dont tell me Israel does/has done nothing wrong.

0 Replies

That was the Hillel president, though.

From the "About Hillel" page on the Hillel website:

Quote:

Hillel helps students find a balance in being distinctively Jewish and universally human by encouraging them to pursue tzedek (social justice), tikkun olam (repairing the world) and Jewish learning, and to support Israel and global Jewish peoplehood. Hillel is committed to excellence, innovation, accountability and results.

(Emphasis mine.)

Whether or not Hillel should have that be a stated purpose/ goal, I dunno (I wouldn't join, for that reason), but it's a stated purpose/ goal, that she went against.

It's like a president of the Young Republicans being ousted because he's pro-choice. I'd still not like it, or the Young Republicans for ousting him, but the import is rather limited.

0 Replies

Oh, hadn't seen that it was already covered.

0 Replies

Zippo wrote:

That above example is a warning, which the Europians have noted, why do you think there is not a big rush of Europian media criticizing Israel's policy ?

Whatever makes you think European media do not criticize Israel's policy?

There's tons of criticism of Israel's policies in the newspapers and on the TV here. Much more than of, say, Saudi Arabia's policies or Pakistani policies.

Zippo wrote:

And dont tell me Israel does/has done nothing wrong.

Ehm ... perhaps you missed where I wrote, just above:

"Disapproving of Israel's policy is one thing. I do too."

0 Replies

Is this the place where I can buy Danish Korans?

0 Replies

No, that's here... for free, even ;-)

0 Replies

"Disapproving of Israel's policy is one thing. I do too."

Ah ok lets see some examples that you have posted on this forum...

0 Replies

Tarbaby!!!

My suggestion, for what it is worth, is that this side discussion will lead nowhere.

This is another person who will not address the arguments.

0 Replies

Zippo wrote:

"Disapproving of Israel's policy is one thing. I do too."

Ah ok lets see some examples that you have posted on this forum...

What would that prove?

Here, I'll do it for you right now.

I believe Israel should cede the occupied territories - completely. I believe its occupation of said territories in the last several decade has been illegal, and has resulted in the violation of numerous human rights. I believe that Palestinians have been deprived, by the Israeli government, of the most basic human rights. I believe that the Wall that the Israeli government is now building, right through parts of the occupied territories, is an abomination.

Now, how much wiser are you and what point do you believe to have made?

0 Replies

Yar probly right, bunny...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Zippo wrote:
"Disapproving of Israel's policy is one thing. I do too."

Ah ok lets see some examples that you have posted on this forum...

What would that prove?

Here, I'll do it for you right now.

I believe Israel should cede the occupied territories - completely. I believe its occupation of said territories in the last several decade has been illegal, and has resulted in the violation of numerous human rights. I believe that Palestinians have been deprived, by the Israeli government, of the most basic human rights. I believe that the Wall that the Israeli government is now building, right through parts of the occupied territories, is an abomination.

Now, how much wiser are you and what point do you believe to have made?

ha ha ha, i caught you lying....

you have lost what ever credibility you had Laughing

0 Replies

Support freedom of the press - buy Danish products.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know