Muslim boycott of Denmark/The cartoon controversy opinions please

Snickers Man

Muslim countries want to boycott Danish products to express their displeasure at the cartoons of mohammed. Fair enough? A capitalist solution to a Muslim problem.

But what does Denmark produce that Muslims might want?

Well, a neocon blogger, whose reaction to this is to urge Americans to buy Danish at every opportunity has listed some of the exports for which Denmark is famous:

Danish Havarti cheese

OK not sure how big a market for this stuff there is in Muslim countries but let's say they take a hit there.

Carlsberg and Tuborg Beers.
Yep. The cancellation of the contract to replenish Osama's drinks cabinet is really going to hurt!!


Lurpak butter
I'm sure they make their own butter in Muslim countries/

Danish Crown hams and bacon ( DANEPAK etc)
In Muslim countries?? Yeah that one's going to bite!!

Bang&Olufsen TVs

If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it. Not sure there's a local agent for these babies in the Gaza strip/Tora Bora/Beirut refugee camps. Maybe a couple of rich Saudis will switch to Sony but the neocon backlash will take up the slack.

So all in all, I think Denmark's current export levels will hardly be affected at all.

Unless of course Lego is the toy of choice in playrooms east of Suez.

Hobbes

Iran major import from Denmark was Dairy products (eg, cheeses, butter).

But your right its not that big. Something of 0.3% of Denmarks exports go to Iran. $280 Million.

Cronus333

Hobbes wrote:

Iran major import from Denmark was Dairy products (eg, cheeses, butter).

But your right its not that big. Something of 0.3% of Denmarks exports go to Iran. $280 Million.

That much! I thought it would be far less.

mike65

The Danish dairy sector is huge across Europe and the mid east. Poeple are being layed off in certain factories and if supplies come from elsewhere like erm Ireland then the Danes may loose out for good.

Mike.

KerranJast

The people in those countries don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that governments of Western countries cannot censor newspapers and rightly so. Even if the Danish government wanted to stop the publication of these cartoons theres nothing they can do to stop it. The same applies here. I'm pretty sure if an Irish papers was to print the cartoons the Government couldn't stop them.

Hobbes

KerranJast wrote:

Even if the Danish government wanted to stop the publication of these cartoons theres nothing they can do to stop it.

Whatever happend to the EU law on religous intolerance? Did that die or something?

I'm pretty sure if an Irish papers was to print the cartoons the Government couldn't stop them.

I'm pretty sure they do. At least in the case of RTE they can pull stuff under the grounds that the government own the copyright to the article/photo/etc. (excuse used to pull Bushes semi-clothed picture)

seamus

KerranJast wrote:

I'm pretty sure if an Irish papers was to print the cartoons the Government couldn't stop them.

Technically the government can't stop Irish papers printing anything. Since they don't have to consult with the Government before going to press, the paper can be on the streets and the information in the public domain before anyone in Government even sees it.

In reality though, what the papers publish is controlled by their own sense of self-preservation. There are plenty of things which papers can publish, but doing so would result in criminal convictions, and the end of the paper.

phantom_lord

You're forgetting their most famous export......danish pastries....:rolleyes:

Dave!

Apparantly a fair few workers have been, temporarily at least, laid off as a result of this

Boggle

Hobbes wrote:

Whatever happend to the EU law on religous intolerance? Did that die or something?

Would you cop the hell on? This has nothing to do with intolerance and everything to do with perceptions and fear - which, if you bothered to read up on the problem, you may realise.

The real story isn't the cartoons - its the realisation that the Muslim faith is now associated with terrorism in the West.

Hobbes

Boggle wrote:

Would you cop the hell on? This has nothing to do with intolerance

Posting offensive pictures of a religon after being told they were offensive sounds like intolerance to me.

Well Hobbes, its like the old addage about filth on the Telly.
If Mary Whitehouse got her way, we'd all be having tea and scones instead of watching it.

Those that are offended by the cartoons dont have to look at them.They are entitled to protest about them but they are not entitled to have them taken down.
Similarally Mary whitehouse could just have turned the TV off and urged her supporters to do the same.

If a woman visits Iran she may be required to cover her head with a scarf, she wont be allowed to go around in tight shorts and cleavage showing.
http://www.irantravelingcenter.com/women_iran.htm

We dont put any such requirements on Iranian women visiting here, they can wear what they like.

In my home town a few years ago, the cinema across the road from the church was showing "The pope must Die"
Anyone coming out of mass was greeted with a big banner advertisement "The pope must Die" directly in front of them.

There were no riots.

These cartoons were not published in islamic countries afaik.Ergo people in those countries have in my opinion the right to express their distaste for them and say we are all going to Hell.
But I for one also have the right in my western civilisation to say "yeah Right!!" to them and feel sorry for what in my opinion would be their misguidance.
I'm glad I live in a democracy where I'm free to do that.

Boggle

Boggle wrote:

Would you cop the hell on? This has nothing to do with intolerance and everything to do with perceptions and fear - which, if you bothered to read up on the problem, you may realise.

The real story isn't the cartoons - its the realisation that the Muslim faith is now associated with terrorism in the West.

Do Not tell posters here with a different opinion to your own to cop on.
The rules around here clearly state that you deal with the post and not the poster.

Boggle

@ Hobbes:

Alot of news can be taken as offensive to either a person or a group. Being offensive is not a reason thus not to print a story - whats important is was the journalist intentionally trying to offend a religion or was there a story being told.

In this case there was a story that needs to be told as the West is running scared of the nutjob elements that associate themselves with the Muslim faith. Can you not see that or are you gonna make me type it again??

Edited the title of this thread so as to let all the discussion go into this relatively newer shorter one.
The other threads were getting numerous ,lengthy and unwieldy and are therefore closed.

Hobbes

You make a good point Earthman, however I don't think equates to this all that much.

One it sets a perception that all Muslims share the same beliefs as the fanatics (and the minority rioting help that perception). As shown from various other posters some don't even bother to read up on what it is they are actually hating.

If they did they would know that drawing pictures of prophets is not done in the religon (even Jesus is not drawn). It is not a case of threats on life (which have happened) or censorship but part of the religon. Now if he had just printed various normal pictures of Mohammad instead of ones that were purposely trying to be offensive it would of been a completely different story to this point.

Which makes me wonder wtf the author of the story was thinking considering it is supposed to be written because he wanted a picture for a childrens book. If he allowed offensive cartoons what does it say about the book he was writing?

Now where I see this blowing up is Danish law. For starters thier blasphemy law is rarely enforced and in this case when the initial paper was brought up on that law they (muslim group) got ignored. Second Denmark has seriously lax freedom of the press laws in comparison to the rest of the world.

Danish law allows you to print anything you want providing you don't mind going to court afterwards. (thats more or less the wording)

So I can understand the Danes in not wanting thier freedom of the press being stifled, at the same time having them reprinted in other publications purposely inflamed the issue and caused the rioting. Not the initial Danish story.

Boggle wrote:

Being offensive is not a reason thus not to print a story - whats important is was the journalist intentionally trying to offend a religion or was there a story being told.

Again, if this is the case why not print offensive pictures of Jesus by the same paper when they were submitted before this?

In this case there was a story that needs to be told as the West is running scared

It is? Wow news to me. Can you show me how it is running scared?

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

You make a good point Earthman, however I don't think equates to this all that much.

One it sets a perception that all Muslims share the same beliefs as the fanatics (and the minority rioting help that perception). As shown from various other posters some don't even bother to read up on what it is they are actually hating.

When entire countries decide to boycott Denmarks goods though, its gone beyond a minority opinion.
When authorities stand idly by, whilst embasies are sacked and their staff have to leave due to safety issues, its gone beyond a minority opinion.

I've no doubt in my mind that this is being fanned by people with some other agenda.

Skitbra

The problem with this is that there is no right side to be on. On one side you have racists and on the other you have fundamenalists.

Denmark is one of the most racist countries in Europe. They have no policies on immigration or asylum seekers apart from one, no one gets in. They are hiding behind the aurgument of "Free Speech". The government is also responsible. They have laws in Denmark, like England, preventing the incitment of hatred. In not doing anything about these cartoons they have allowed this to occur. Muslims are a minority in Denmark so their voice wasn't heard.

The fundamentalists are also wrong. There is no excuse for what is happening over there. Burning embassies in Syria, which is being allowing by the Syrian government, is completely wrong. They have a right to protest but not this way.

So the problem is there is no correct side to be on. They're as bad as each other.

Boggle

Hobbes wrote:

Again, if this is the case why not print offensive pictures of Jesus by the same paper when they were submitted before this?

Why, what was the story attached to this jesus pic? Are you saying that there was not a story being told in the case of the controversy?

Is caricature not a method of story telling used in the West? Are we no longer allowed to discuss anything relating to the Muslim faith incase it offends them?? Answer at least one question directly - please??

Your deliberately avoiding replying to my argument and instead trying to deflect the discussion into a tit-for-tat argument.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Again, if this is the case why not print offensive pictures of Jesus by the same paper when they were submitted before this?

Probably because there are no suicide bombers in the modern world waving the Christian bible as their right to bomb.
I havent read the context that the cartoons were originally printed in-but if it was in the context of ,the Quoran permits this and muslims are to be feared because this is where they are at-then it was and is wrong.

If it was a parody of those who mistakenly think Allah permits london tube bombings, then I see no reason not to print it.

The religion forbids all images of Mohammed afaik but like I said earlier,they dont have the right to to impose that on non islamics as much as they dont have the right to impose sharia law on us.


Storm in a huge growing teapot this with whoevers agenda to the fore.
The people with the agenda are the ones laughing in my opinion.

LORDOFDOOM

Skitbra wrote:

So the problem is there is no correct side to be on. They're as bad as each other.

I'm my quite humble opinion, I believe that the side which ISNT advocating rioting and the beheading of people over a cartoon is slightly* more correct than the one who is.



*of course by slightly I mean obviously.

SeanW

I'm sure some posters from the PC police would love to remind us that this is all the fault of those horrible, evil, racist newspapers that reprinted the cartoons.

Just because "it's offensive" is not a reason to not print something. So you were offended. Big fat hairy deal. People say and print offensive stuff all the time (in the free world) and the offendees just have to grow up and deal with it.

I'm sure, for example, that feminists are offended by The Sun's daily Page 3 pix, some Jews were offended by the recent Passion movie, and the Catholic Church had some unkind words to say about The DaVinci Code.

But there were no authors getting fatwas on their heads, embassies torched people killed mass boycotts or anything like that.

But when it comes to Islam, some in the PC thought police would love to bury the fact that this madness only tends to happen when Islamists are involved ... like Salmon Rushdie, Danish cartoons etc.

Could I ask Hobbes one direct, hypothetical question?

Suppose some feminists decided to take a page out of Ahmedinijad's book and got all worked up about The Sun's Page 3 daily. They said it was "offensive" after which some other papers carried said pictures, which lead to there being mass riots across Europe, British and Irish embassies being burned, offices bombed, mass boycotts of British goods etc death threats against the photographer etc.

Would you still say that "It's all our evil free press, printing offensive material?" Or would you have the common sense to apply the blame soely where it belongs, the people doing the rioting, boycotting, torching etc?

fly_agaric

SeanW wrote:

Could I ask Hobbes one direct, hypothetical question?

LOL.
You are wasting your time there. I've asked what he/she expects Denmark or any other European country where the cartoons were published to do by way of apology or restitution since he/she feels they are primarily to blame for this mess - but no answer. Just more about Danish bigots and their hate-mail to Mosques and *irresponsible* cartoonists and editors.

I made a few suggestions on another thread but maybe he ignored them because they were a little bit silly! But then this whole row is so I don't feel too bad.:)

Hobbes

SeanW wrote:

Could I ask Hobbes one direct, hypothetical question?

Your hypothetical question has no bearing on what is going on at the moment. I suggest you go read up the whole time line of what has happened to date. I posted the link earlier.

LORDOFDOOM wrote:

I'm my quite humble opinion, I believe that the side which ISNT advocating rioting and the beheading of people over a cartoon is slightly* more correct than the one who is.

Which is also the muslim community. Again 5 seconds in google news would point this out too. The problem is that people rarely think there is a difference between them and the fanatical section.

boggle wrote:

Why, what was the story attached to this jesus pic? Are you saying that there was not a story being told in the case of the controversy?

The paper was offered similar cartoons of Jesus well before this and the paper refused to print them on the grounds they were offensive. The paper also knew the other cartoons were offensive otherwise they wouldn't of apologised.

The issue started when the cartoons were reprinted elsewhere.

Is caricature not a method of story telling used in the West? Are we no longer allowed to discuss anything relating to the Muslim faith incase it offends them??

Yes it is and yes you can discuss anything relating to the religon. But as pointed out the drawing of pictures of the prophets is against the Muslim religon. Of course if someone else draws them the majority are going to be upset but aren't going to riot over it. The author of the story could of just gotten normal pictures drawn, but instead got pictures he knew would be extremly offensive.

When entire countries decide to boycott Denmarks goods though, its gone beyond a minority opinion.
When authorities stand idly by, whilst embasies are sacked and their staff have to leave due to safety issues, its gone beyond a minority opinion.

Boycotting and removing diplomats/closing embassys (by not destroying them) is not rioting. Don't confuse the two. However both previous are certainly allowed.

Hobbes

fly_agaric wrote:

LOL.
You are wasting your time there. I've asked what he/she expects Denmark or any other European country where the cartoons were published to do by way of apology or restitution since he/she feels they are primarily to blame for this mess.

TBH I didn't even see it. Despite what you may think I am not actively scanning your every word you post. If you want direct answers to questions in a thread and you think I am ignoring you then please just in future PM me a link to the question and I'll reply in said thread.

What can they do as restitution? It is a good question and probably one beyond my scope. If I was you I'd actually put that up as a seperate discussion in Humanities. Word it as you said, and not to have it discuss the issue at hand but rather how to dissolve the confrontation.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Boycotting and removing diplomats/closing embassys (by not destroying them) is not rioting. Don't confuse the two. However both previous are certainly allowed.

I wasnt confusing anything.
I was refering to what was going on outside the Danish and Norwegian embasies in syria and elsewhere which was rioting.
To be fair I was wrong about standing idly by though, the police did fire tear gas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm

And the group outside the embasy in Tehran was small

http://norwaypost.imaker.no/cgi-bin/norwaypost/imaker?id=21781

Boggle

Hobbes wrote:

The paper was offered similar cartoons of Jesus well before this and the paper refused to print them on the grounds they were offensive. The paper also knew the other cartoons were offensive otherwise they wouldn't of apologised.

Was there a story to go with the pictures of jesus or were they just pictures. Do you have a link to them so I can see? - Basically, I ask you to prove a similarity. Just because they involved deity's does not mean they were comparable situations.

The issue started when the cartoons were reprinted elsewhere.

The issue started when the pictures were taken out of context and paraded around the middle east.

And as for being printed elsewhere - the minute there was debate about the pictures they became newsworthy and people wanted to see them. Hence they were newsworthy and it wasn't a conspiracy against muslims as you seem to think.

Yes it is and yes you can discuss anything relating to the religon. But as pointed out the drawing of pictures of the prophets is against the Muslim religon. Of course if someone else draws them the majority are going to be upset but aren't going to riot over it. The author of the story could of just gotten normal pictures drawn, but instead got pictures he knew would be extremly offensive.

I suggest you look at where the drawings came from. They were 12 artists impressions of Mohammed. You may have noticed that because of the actions of suicide bombers and murderers, mohammed is now associated with bombings and murder - Is that not worth discussing??

Boycotting and removing diplomats/closing embassys (by not destroying them) is not rioting. Don't confuse the two. However both previous are certainly allowed.

But they are not protesting at the papers who published the reports - they are protesting at the countries who refuse to sanction their free press. Do you not see this??

Which is also the muslim community. Again 5 seconds in google news would point this out too. The problem is that people rarely think there is a difference between them and the fanatical section.

Nobody said they didn't. What has been said is that they do not do enough to disassociate themselves from atrocities carried out in their name.

fly_agaric

Hobbes wrote:

TBH I didn't even see it. Despite what you may think I am not actively scanning your every word you post. If you want direct answers to questions in a thread and you think I am ignoring you then please just in future PM me a link to the question and I'll reply in said thread.

Well that put me in my place!:v:
I have been spending more time than is healthy on this bbs.

Hobbes wrote:

What can they do as restitution? It is a good question and probably one beyond my scope. If I was you I'd actually put that up as a seperate discussion in Humanities. Word it as you said, and not to have it discuss the issue at hand but rather how to dissolve the confrontation.

Think I'll pass on that. There are just way too many threads on this nonsense already. Don't think it would stay on topic for long enough anyway.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

The author of the story could of just gotten normal pictures drawn, but instead got pictures he knew would be extremly offensive.

Small correction. Not all of the cartoons could be construed as offensive, beyond the ban on representation of mohammed itself(which I go along with). Four out of the twelve don't show him at all(one of those does however insult the Prophet). One is a straightforward no caricature full length portrait in the desert with the sun behind him. Another has the crescent moon merged with his face. Your contention that the artists in question all wanted to be extremely offensive, regardless of what's happened since may not be the entire of the case. The one with cartoonist huddled in fear, in the dark while drawing him is probably the most pertinent to the whole debate. Luckily even if it is a self portrait, he'd be hard to identify.:)

SeanW

SeanW wrote:

Could I ask Hobbes one direct, hypothetical question?

Hobbes wrote:

Your hypothetical question has no bearing on what is going on at the moment. I suggest you go read up the whole time line of what has happened to date. I posted the link earlier.

I take it the answer is no?

It is entirely relevant. The whole plank of your arguments are that a group found these cartoons offensive. This logically leads to the conclusion that anything that might offend anyone should be censored.

I'm sure plently of women esp. feminists find the publication of pictures of topless women in national newspapers (Ok, tabloid) offensive. By your logic, these should be censored, or The Sun, and any supportive publications, would have to bear responsibility for any consequences.

Or is it just different becuase it's Muslims?

Skitbra

Taking a stance either way is wrong. We may understand the Danish point of view but not the Muslims. There are other factors involved than just cartoons. Having a signature supporting Denmark is just immature and jumping on the bandwagon. That's exactly what's happening over there. People see other people protesting these cartoons and are just joining in. By the way, a couple of hundred people is not representitive of a total of 1.2bn. So grow up and see it from both sides.