| Bookmark this post: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Add a Comment
from United Kingdom
said:...correction: Our ambasador is NOT alone wiht his approach to things!! 
Sorry!
from Jordan
said:Dear Anders;
Thanks for your visit and your well articulated argument.
Inddedm the missing "NOT" word meant a lot of difference in your paragrpah, as "missing" principles do contribute to the misunderstanding between the West and Islam in some cases.
I agree that the issue of the cartoon went beyond all logical proportion. In the Arab world there are lots of other urgent problems that need to be solved by collective civic action, especialy in issues of poverty, unemployment and corruption but the passion of the religious issues always dominate the platform. Our government are also smart in the way they facilitate public anger based on "religious dimensions" to release the pressure of prohibiting "political anger". As you mentioned dialogue should be based on mutual respect, and in this case Muslims should respect the secular nature of Denmark as Danish press should also respect the feelings of muslim. I think the only way out is for the UN system to craft an international agreement on the respect of religions that does not contradict freedom of expression. When there is a world norm it will be easier to evaluate instead of trying to impose my own values on other people.
from United Kingdom
said:Yeah, I suppose the trouble is how such UN resolution could actually look. I mean: in Denmark we have laws against blasphemy and racism. The one against racism is frequently used to convict people. Blasphemy, however, proves a lot more difficult. I guess the obvious reason is, that the judicial system will need a common standard for what can be considered blasphemous. It has, in other words, to be a very outright and intended act of blasphemy to qualify. This in turn means that individual religious groups cannot set their own standards for what they would consider blasphemous (in the judicial sense) without either imposing it on the rest of the population or undermining the universal authority of that law. Put more practical: how can you have a system that at once guarantees free press but at the same time will enforce the taboos of various religions. Imagined situation: the guys plotting to kill the cartoonist a month ago had succeeded, claiming afterwards they were acting to vindicate the prophet M (PBUH). Clearly an issue of paramount domestic importance. Would the danish press be allowed to reflect freely on the killers self-aclaimed religious motives? I am curious how a UN resolution with deal with that kind of complexity.
Thanks by the way for an exellent blog
First off where are the Batir Wardam's in the Arabic world? I have seen many smart people but they are very vague and try to not consolidate their opinion in anything concrete so as to not clash with the manifested and prevailing opinions of religious leaders, who seem to be in power.
Next off it is untrue to claim we are not learning, or do you rather suggest the West just gives in to any intimidation attempts by Muslims and become discriminated against and ultimately Dhimmis in their own homeland.
(On a sidenote, I almost dislike the ultra-liberalism in the West as much as I do Islamists. The acceptance even media glorification of showing Jesus as an assf* and so on, is something that has become the norm and I can live with that. But the constant fecal and brutal language and culture portrayed in the totally liberal media -which boils down to pleasing the most basic of human instincts: eating, sex and violence - is a disgrace to our Past, and damages the minds of our children. Though not to such an extend as does the Islamic world with their Anti-West, Anti-Israel propaganda or Hitler's third reich did.)
Some people have to make sacrifices, and people like Wilders, who is incorrectly labeled as a right winged politician - though he is a conserv. liberal, pro-Israel, respects Muslims as people as much as anyone else, and has traveled a lot in the Islamic world - are the true heroes of our time. At least IMHO.
His sacrifices translate for him into a life limited to a minimum of public walks - with six sturdy bodyguards, seeing his wife every one or two weeks once, giving up on the idea of having a family for now, and living with constant threats and insults by the political far left.
Greetings from Vienna
Add a Comment
<<Home
from United Kingdom
Dear Batir
I am a Danish national living in the UK and I can assure you that our ambasador is alone with his approach to things. I believe it is deeply misconveived that this whole affair, regardless of it's reception in the Middle East, has got anything to do with an antipathi towards muslims or Islam as such. I also beleive that dialogue on the basis of a minimum of sanity is the only viable way forward. So thank you for propagating that
I think, however, that you overlook some important points in this debate. First of all: the 12 cartoons was intended as and formed part of a domestic Danish debate on religious censorship. They were an absoulutely acceptable and normal way of debating sensitive issues and falls well within the limits of Danish law. As you menion the same applies to Jesus, our Queen or whoever you might believe in. But how do you justify the attempts of Eastern regimes to intervene in that? Secondly: I realize there is a difference in passion, as you call it, between secularized societies and societies where religion is still rivalling the authority of the state. And I respect your way of doing things. However, it does feel like you are not returning the favour when you insist that we should reinstate the taboos imposed by religious authorities and thereby undermine our hard earned form of governance? I think that is dangerous to intercultural dialogue. Secularism should be equally respected as long as we are not imposing it on you. Don't you agree? In Denmark there is probably, as in all western countries, a minority of islamophobes. It is REALLY a minority. Most people a rational thinkers. However there is a huge majority, including myself, standing up for attempts to limit the freedom of speech (we have also stood up for Chechenyan politicians or Kurdish satelite TV in the face of threats, so it's not about an anti-islam agenda). What I am saying is: If we want a major disagreement, demanding censorship is the way forward. If we