Justus For All

Dave, I could agree had he included two very simple words in the conclusion.

It is simplistic to “excuse” insult and offence as a protection of the freedom that “requires Americans to show a certain level of virtue, including a phlegmatic tolerance of those who intentionally or unintentionally offend and sometimes — when civil liberties are implicated — even of those who blatantly discriminate.”

There was in yesterday’s opinion columns a very true observation that the level of sex, violence and “immorality” in tv programmes “can never be recalled”. It is like Pandora’s box; the evils within once released can never be recalled.

So too, I submit, must it be with the written and spoken word.

What are the two words missing from David Bernstein’s piece?

Courtesy.

Respect.

I totally agree. However, we are nitting picks here.

If someone does not show you the respect or courtesy that you think you deserve, what is an appropiate response?

In my culture, anything from turning my back to spitting snot in his face depending upon the depth of the insult. A whakapohane would be deadly to most (probably “brown-eye” to you), and after that I would start consulting the local tohunga for an appropriate mataku.

In the US of course it is much simpler. You just draw and shoot… wild west rules.

Seriously, this is going to get to insult trading - who threw the first stone. In this instance there is no question in my mind. The Danish newspaper was the instigator. There lies the fault. They make the first apology. They did not. They should wear the consequences.

If they wanted to test the bounds of the freedom of speech, why not pick on the Pope? Or perhaps GWB (no on reflection too cliched). Or perhaps Christ, or The Virgin Mary? The fact that they chose Mohammet is the reason why it smells to me of a political motivation rather than the testing of boundaries…

I live in the U.S., in the western U.S. in fact. Never have I seen a private citizen ‘draw and shoot’ for any reason, let alone in response to an insult. The only place in the U.S. where that is at all likely to occur would be inner cities, where typically gun ownership is illegal and unfortunately, there is a lack of any law enforcement at all.

I am pretty sure that European papers and publications in general have in fact picked on the Pope, GWB, Christ, and the Virgin Mary. Certainly U.S. publications have. Only when one ‘picks on’ Mohammad does violence tend to result.

I don’t think you need to look deeply for the ‘motivation’ of the Danish Paper. They have told us what is was, they suspected that fear of violence by Muslim extremists was suppressing free speech. One can only guess at how they came up with such a crazy hypothesis.

If they wanted to test the bounds of the freedom of speech, why not pick on the Pope? Or perhaps GWB (no on reflection too cliched). Or perhaps Christ, or The Virgin Mary? The fact that they chose Mohammet is the reason why it smells to me of a political motivation rather than the testing of boundaries…

Well, my little Kiwi e-buddy, you are about to see such an experiment in action. A big-budget big-screen adaptation of The daVinci Code is about to be released. I don’t know if you have read the book, but it could fairly be considered blasphemy by most Christians, if they believe the Gospels to be Divine Truth.

Wanna bet there will be no fatalities from the ensuing hubbub? Tom Hanks and
Ron Howard burned in effigy? Riots? No, the civilized people of the Christian faith will likely register their complaints via legitimate means. I’m sure this is not the last time you will see this comparison drawn, but it might be the first.

This is precisely why moderate muslims are so easily bullied by their radicals: they have no fear that we will react irrationally to provocation, and Islamist nutjobs are far more intimidating. “Look,” people like Min Aher can be imagined saying, “here they tolerate this enormous blasphemy of their deity, Jesus Christ, whom they worship. Clearly their culture does not fear God.”

Probligo, you live on an island very far, far away from anything….

Pablo, while you might live on a very large piece of dirt, and be part of “the most powerful nation on earth”, you can still not separate event and reaction.

Yes, and I would not go see DaVinci Code. You are right about the “reaction” as well.

What I am saying, what you seem unable to see, is that the reason for publishing is often a total disconnect from the reaction.

I do not believe that the DaVinci Code was written and filmed with the intention of causing riots among Christians, or even inflaming opinion. The primary motivation I suspect was money. But that is a separate issue.

I do not believe that the “cartoons” were published with the intention of causing riots in Islamic countries.

So, why choose the subject of Mohammet? That is the question I addressed. Your answer implies (quite incorrectly I believe) that the publication was intended solely to create anger and anti-Christian rioting in Islamic countries. Your rationale might be quite correct, but it is not the reason for the original publication.

The Danish paper itself said that it was interested only in the bounds of freedom of the press. “…can we provoke our government far enough…” is how I read that. The politic with which I believe the editors of the paper are connected (no it is a hunch, I have no proof) is href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_People%27s_Party”>Dansk Folkeparti.

…is a populist right wing political party in Denmark. In the 2005 parliamentary elections, it took 24 seats out of 179 (an increase of 2 seats), on 13.3% of the vote, making it the third largest party in Denmark.

The party has an anti immigration platform, and wants Denmark to relinquish its membership of the EU. They were leaders in opposing the 2000 referendum on membership in the Euro

And I would bet that a little bit of anti-Islam propaganda would not go at all amiss in the politics of Dansk Folkeparti…