Another thing they don't have: sense of humour

Following up to David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of
besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy

The Muslim Council of Britain met with the Danish ambassador yesterday
to discuss, among other things, to ask him "to consider measures to
prevent the publication of such offensive material in future." I suppose
they'll be meeting with French, Germany, Dutch etc. ambassadors now?

http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail...le=features-53

they will probably boycott Danish bacon.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to The Reid

http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail...le=features-53

they will probably boycott Danish bacon.
--
if the text of the report is accurate they appear to be being
apologetic rather than making the points about the western view
of freedom of thought and speech. It seems to me that we are
caving in on a "bottom line" issue. But I suppose that's what
diplomats and politicians do, just smooth things over for short
term calm, then, (hopefully) address the issues elsewhere, by
encouraging faith schools for instance.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Tom Peel :

Ingeborg Denner wrote:

"Kristian" schrieb :


Die Welt, among other European newspapers,thankfully has had the
guts to show them as well .


Suddenly, for no appearant reason, I wonder if blasphemy is still a
crime in Bavaria. 15 years ago, it was.
inge
And just over thirty years ago, exorcism was still being practiced.

They happen regularly to this day.
--
Tim C.

AJC wrote:

Btw, I presume major newspapers in the US have reprinted the cartoon,
as part of their reporting of all this, it is the land of the free
after all.


Oh dear, I see that one of the founding members of the Dutch Gay Trolling
Mafia cannot resist making little anti - US digs at every turn...it's like
rec.travel.air Old Home Week c. 1999. It actually brings a crystal tear to
my jaded old gimlet eye :-)

[In fact *recently* folks, AJC extrapolated to us peasants on rec.travel.air
that US airline food was generally lousy because *all* Americans had lousy
culinary tastes. Has AJC flown KLM lately one has to wonder?]

Now all we need is Sjoerd to come aboard here barking about how Myanmar,
North Korea, Iran, and Cuba (where he - AHEM - goes on holiday because the
"boys" are seemingly so sweet and innocent and unswayed by perverted First
World capitalist ways) are no worse (or even actually *better* places)
human rights and living standard - wise when compared to the Great Big EVUL
USA...lol.

Is AJC still smarting from when Margaret "Milk Snatcher" Thatcher personally
came to his house after she was first elected, packed his things, and then
so callously casting him out of Sunny Socialist Albion and across the sea to
that rainy land of polders, Gouda, and cheap psychelic weed...???

But then perhaps I'm simply misinterpreting everything and it's simply a
case of "horses for courses" and all that :-)

--
Best
Greg

AJC wrote:

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:35:32 +0000,
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:

AJC wrote:

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:07:55 +0100, Kristian
wrote:

Magda wrote:

PARIS, Feb. 1 (UPI) -- A cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammed as a
terrorist, originally published in a Danish newspaper, has spread across
Europe, inciting anger. Muslims have boycotted Danish products and say
the newspapers are reprinting the cartoon just to spite angry Muslims.

Die Welt, among other European newspapers,thankfully has had the
guts to show them as well . Have a look if you dare, and judge for
yourselves.
http://www.welt.de/ -caption "Bilderspecial"


Good for them. Interesting that the BBC reports the affair, but won't
show what all the fuss is about, nor any UK newspaper to my knowledge.

They're genuinely worried. I don't think that journalistic
considerations are really coming into it.

So they bow their heads, look the other way. Freedom of speech can't
be taken for granted, sometimes it has to be defended, actively and
vigorously.

I completely agree with you. I'm also disturbed by Jack Straw's (UK
foreign secretary) comments today. Why he thinks that _he_ has to call
other newspapers' decisions to print these cartoons is wrong is beyond
me, just as I don't understand why the Danish government had to respond.
They are probably worried that they'll become a target of terrorism,
either at home or abroad- and I don't think their worry is misplaced.
I'm mildly suprised a newspaper like The Sun hasn't reprinted them yet.
Of course, it's worth pointing out that these were first printed half a
year ago...

It's giving into superstitious religious belief at its very worst IMO.
It's not unironic that the head of the MCB, the utterly ridiculous Iqbal
Sacranie, only a few weeks ago called homosexuals dangerous, wrong,
immoral, bad for society, and 'spreaders' of disease. Well, I think he's
got the right to say whatever he wants about homosexuality, no matter
how wrong or hurtful I might personally find it. Pity he can't do the
same.

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org

On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:25:17 +0000,
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:

AJC wrote:

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:35:32 +0000,
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:

AJC wrote:

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:07:55 +0100, Kristian
wrote:

Magda wrote:

PARIS, Feb. 1 (UPI) -- A cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammed as a
terrorist, originally published in a Danish newspaper, has spread across
Europe, inciting anger. Muslims have boycotted Danish products and say
the newspapers are reprinting the cartoon just to spite angry Muslims.

Die Welt, among other European newspapers,thankfully has had the
guts to show them as well . Have a look if you dare, and judge for
yourselves.
http://www.welt.de/ -caption "Bilderspecial"


Good for them. Interesting that the BBC reports the affair, but won't
show what all the fuss is about, nor any UK newspaper to my knowledge.

They're genuinely worried. I don't think that journalistic
considerations are really coming into it.

So they bow their heads, look the other way. Freedom of speech can't
be taken for granted, sometimes it has to be defended, actively and
vigorously.

I completely agree with you. I'm also disturbed by Jack Straw's (UK
foreign secretary) comments today. Why he thinks that _he_ has to call
other newspapers' decisions to print these cartoons is wrong is beyond
me, just as I don't understand why the Danish government had to respond.
They are probably worried that they'll become a target of terrorism,
either at home or abroad- and I don't think their worry is misplaced.

Which just goes to show how far off the rails the Blair administration
has gone. They were not worried about becomming a target of terrorism
by invading Iraq and creating chaos there, yet seem happy to erode
freedom of speech at home.



I'm mildly suprised a newspaper like The Sun hasn't reprinted them yet.
Of course, it's worth pointing out that these were first printed half a
year ago...


Another poster says that Murdoch showed the cartoons on his Fox tv
channel in the US, so hopefully he will air them on Sky or in the Sun
or Times.



It's giving into superstitious religious belief at its very worst IMO.
It's not unironic that the head of the MCB, the utterly ridiculous Iqbal
Sacranie, only a few weeks ago called homosexuals dangerous, wrong,
immoral, bad for society, and 'spreaders' of disease. Well, I think he's
got the right to say whatever he wants about homosexuality, no matter
how wrong or hurtful I might personally find it. Pity he can't do the
same.

One should have the right to spout nonsense about any group, up to a
point. One should not, however, have the right to incite violence
against any group, and children do need to be protected from the
bigotry of others until they are able to form reasonable opinions for
themselves.



--==++AJC++==--

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
prestwich tesco 24h offy"

I completely agree with you. I'm also disturbed by Jack Straw's (UK
foreign secretary) comments today. Why he thinks that _he_ has to call
other newspapers' decisions to print these cartoons is wrong is beyond
me, just as I don't understand why the Danish government had to respond.


Even Bill Clinton has jumped into the affray:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8319f4a6-94...0779e2340.html


"Former US President Bill Clinton called the cartoons ``appalling,''
according to Agence France-Presse. "So now what are we going to do? Replace
the anti-Semitic prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?''"

--
Best
Greg

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:47:20 +0100, AJC wrote:

Btw, I presume major newspapers in the US have reprinted the cartoon,
as part of their reporting of all this, it is the land of the free
after all.

I doubt that any US newspaper would ever have printed such a
politically incorrect thing. The idea of printing something that would
offend peoples' religious sensibilities would be unthinkable to most
Americans. Even the bigots are politically correct in the US. (I am
only very slightly joking when I say this.)

I have to say that I myself find the original printing of the
cartoons offensive and ill-advised, because Islam prohibits any images
at all of Muhammed, so even if it weren't satiric it would be
guaranteed to offend. I find it on the same order as offering a dish
based on beef to a Hindu person without informing them what's in it.

However, I would also find it alarming to see any government taking
responsibility for anything printed in a newspaper; even apologizing
for something printed in one of your country's newspapers seems to me
a very dangerous precedent.

The reprinting of the cartoons in other newspapers is much more
excusable to me than the original publication, because there is such
an important principle at stake.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Following up to David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of
besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy

I'm also disturbed by Jack Straw's (UK
foreign secretary) comments today. Why he thinks that _he_ has to call
other newspapers' decisions to print these cartoons is wrong is beyond
me, just as I don't understand why the Danish government had to respond.

Why don't they just say this is a free country etc?

They are probably worried that they'll become a target of terrorism,
either at home or abroad- and I don't think their worry is misplaced.
I'm mildly suprised a newspaper like The Sun hasn't reprinted them yet.

they have done an edited one
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:10:53 +0100, B wrote:

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:47:20 +0100, AJC wrote:

Btw, I presume major newspapers in the US have reprinted the cartoon,
as part of their reporting of all this, it is the land of the free
after all.

I doubt that any US newspaper would ever have printed such a
politically incorrect thing. The idea of printing something that would
offend peoples' religious sensibilities would be unthinkable to most
Americans. Even the bigots are politically correct in the US. (I am
only very slightly joking when I say this.)

I have to say that I myself find the original printing of the
cartoons offensive and ill-advised, because Islam prohibits any images
at all of Muhammed, so even if it weren't satiric it would be
guaranteed to offend.

But you can reckon on there being someone out there that can take
offence at almost anything, so where do you draw the line? Do you
limit it to offending moslems? Do you limit it to the 'major'
religions only. Do you include all variants and sects of all known
religions? Then what about non-religious groupings? That would be a
nightmare for editors. They wouldn't dare publish anything in case
some little group popped up and claimed to be offended.


I find it on the same order as offering a dish
based on beef to a Hindu person without informing them what's in it.

Isn't that completely different? Offering beef to an individual Hindu
knowing they would be offended is very different from an advert for
beef on the side of a bus in a multicultural society.

--==++AJC++==--