Dubstepforum.com

Harkat wrote:

hubb wrote:No it really could.

It was designated racism covered up with free speech nonsence, getting the minister of state (prime basicaly) to go out and give an official position (that however you spin it, would agree with or mirror the american neo con version of what muslims are about).

It could only go one way, and there was no reason to go that length for something as abstract as freedom of speech in this context.

Straight up Netanyahu bizz

Im not denying there was something racist about those, cus there was (even if it wasn't on the surface against a certain race but against a religion). But IMO theres cartoon racism and then theres bricks through windows and shit...granted theres a pretty good chance the media tried to spin the fallout to maximize vilification of muslims and people who look like they could be muslims.

It's the other way around. The rightwing newspaper knew that it could get away with a sleeper mine ting, mocking muslim faith and muslims (in the worst way possible to arabic society) inside danish media, because the paper had the same political leaning and because the prime would have to argue the freedom of press in our context and that it would serve as a nice little flick of the pea to the Bush administration in a larger scope -post iraq/afganistan. It was also rightafter a very popular kurdish radiostation had begun broadcasting with a bit of national danish funding (freedom of press stuff etc)...
That stateminister/prime is now the leader of the un - wink fucking wink

When you say "it could only go one way" do you mean that the violence and shit that followed was inevitable and thus the people who provoked it are responsible, even tho the violence was on bullshit premises (imo)?

yes

IIRC There was a good amount of muslims who were completely fair on TV debates and shit saying the cartoons were racist, but that they don't condone some of the reactions they caused. I'm leaning towards that.

ofcourse not condone it, but that is one of the dumb bits about church and state not being seperated, because fuck my neighbours faith - denmark has to realize they are the 'adult' or most advanced part in a discussion of how much weight faith should get to push about in society in this case.. and it's by all standards of law that he can't be drawn, over there. So it's antagonistic on a few different levels deliberately.


I think it's important to have a notion of personal responsibility that draws a certain line, and I don't think even something like those cartoons absolve you of responsibility like that.

That is tbf very abstract and it's not really an answer to anything more like a feeling. I know what you mean though, but you have to remember that on an official level.. like let's call it from head of denmark to heads of the arab world
-the prime actually went out and gave his ok internationally.
He could've excused it happening or just said he was sorry about it causing offence, but the offical line remained, ie freedom of press -which meant they where reprinted - which will then have to happen even in opposing newspapers because of the internal commotion and discussion selling issues and becomming a thing -so it became a thing that you could then defend. Like he drew mohammed on a shield. And that does excuse their behaviour a bit because in a way, they didn't have an authority left in their society that wasn't mocked automatically-

I wanna live in a society where racist shit can be printed and it leads to a discussion that elevates people`s understanding rather than pointless destruction.

But people did/threatened violence cus they thought the cartoons were blasphemic and that's not acceptable.

Harkat wrote:i dunno what that has to do with anything...

Harkat wrote:How about trying to create a culture where you don't solve problems with violence and don't hold the sanctity of your religion (talk about freedom of speech being an abstract concept, how about Muhammad and the rules about how he should/shouldn't be portrayed) above that of your fellow human