We use cookies to deliver our users content and ads they want and to analyze our traffic. These cookies are necessary for the TranslatorsCafe.com website to function and cannot be turned off in our system. You can set your browser to block these cookies. However, some parts of the website will not work in this case. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from our website. More details
Originally written by Nanna Mercer on December 7, 2005 12:16 PM
'The UN's high commissioner of Human Rights has asked UN experts on freedom of expression and racism to look at the case about the 12 drawings of the prophet Mohammed. “It is very positive to internationally clarify, where the limits are,” said Lars Normann Jørgensen to Ritzau. The dispute about the caricature-drawings is about two sets of human rights that push up against each other.' (NM. Basedon the Danish article below).
In other words one's freedom of expression is conflicting with one's right to tell others what not to say.
I think putting these "rights" on the same standing is a direct challenge to the very concept of human rights. That the UN should even think about studying such a case tells a lot about how much violations of freedom of speech have increasingly been accepted recently.
It is also quite shocking to see an international body try to criminalise a conduct that wouldn't be in positive law.
Originally written by member5578 on December 7, 2005 2:02 PM
Originally written by Nanna Mercer on December 7, 2005 12:16 PM
'The UN's high commissioner of Human Rights has asked UN experts on freedom of expression and racism to look at the case about the 12 drawings of the prophet Mohammed. “It is very positive to internationally clarify, where the limits are,” said Lars Normann Jørgensen to Ritzau. The dispute about the caricature-drawings is about two sets of human rights that push up against each other.' (NM. Basedon the Danish article below).
That the UN should even think about studying such a case tells a lot about how much violations of freedom of speech have increasingly been accepted recently.
I was shocked when I read the short article. I am not so certain that countries where human rights are taken rather rather lightly as is certainly the case in Pakistan, have the right to use or exploit the fact that some countries take human rights very seriously and are therefore a great deal more likely to bend over backwards to accommodate another country's worldview.
The Pakistani political party who made the death threats against the Danish illustrators have not, I believe, objected to the millions of kroner the Danish government is spending in order to send Danish relief organizations to Pakistan to help the earthquake victims. Probably no political brownie points to be had in mentioning such direct aid.
Nanna
[Edited by N. M. on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 14:39]
"FN er bekymret over tegninger De omstridte tegninger er i dag på dagsordenen på et topmøde for de islamiske lande, og samtidig går FN’s højkommissær for Menneskerettigheder, Louise Arbour, nu ind i sagen efter en fælles henvendelse fra de 56 islamiske stater i organisationen OIC.
I sit svar, som omtales i dag i Berlingske Tidende, skriver Louise Arbour, at hun forstår landenes bekymring. »Jeg forstår jeres bekymring og vil gerne understrege, at jeg beklager enhver erklæring eller handling, som kan vise manglende respekt for andres religion«, skriver Louise Arbour.
Ifølge bladet er de islamiske regeringer tilfredse med Louise Arbours reaktion."
-------------------------------
Briefly.
Fifty-six Islamic states have made a joint complaint to the UN.
Louise Arbour, the UN's high commisioner, in a reply statement:
"I understand your concern and wish to underline that I regret any statement or action that can show a lack of respect for other people's religion. "
According to the newspaper Berlingske Tidende, Louise Arbour's reaction is considered satisfactory by the 56 Islamic states who made the joint complaint.
The World Association of Newspapers today (15 November) called on the summit meeting of the Islamic Conference in December to drop from its agenda an item concerning caricatures of Mohammed that were published in a Danish newspaper.
The WAN Board, meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, defended the right of Jyllands-Posten to exercise its rights to freedom of expression by publishing the cartoons, which caused an uproar in Muslim communities in Denmark and elsewhere.
In a resolution, the WAN Board said: "The World Association of Newspapers calls on Islamic nations to respect freedom of expression and to drop its protests against the publication of the caricatures in Denmark."
"The WAN Board, meeting in Copenhagen today, 14 November, defends the right of Jyllands-Posten to exercise its rights to freedom of expression with regard to Islam or any other religion, particularly when the religion is an essential element of the global political debate.
(...)
"Jyllands-Posten had invited cartoonists to submit drawings of the prophet Mohammed after an author complained that nobody dared illustrate his book on Mohammed. The newspaper published 12 cartoons in September, calling them a test of whether fear of Islamic retribution had begun to limit freedom of expression in Denmark.”
(...)
"The WAN Board deplores the pressure Arab governments have put on the Danish government to force the newspaper to apologize for the caricatures, and it commends Prime Minister Rasmussen for defending freedom of expression and for his refusal to try to influence the newspaper."
Originally written by Nanna Mercer on December 7, 2005 7:37 PM
I was shocked when I read the short article. I am not so certain that countries where human rights are taken rather rather lightly as is certainly the case in Pakistan, have the right to use or exploit the fact that some countries take human rights very seriously and are therefore a great deal more likely to bend over backwards to accommodate another country's worldview.
The Pakistani political party who made the death threats against the Danish illustrators have not, I believe, objected to the millions of kroner the Danish government is spending in order to send Danish relief organizations to Pakistan to help the earthquake victims. Probably no political brownie points to be had in mentioning such direct aid.
I know, dear. For my part I got a chuckle out of reading in the same issue of a newspaper an article on the Camp X-Ray Archipelago of Eastern Europe and another on some U.S. human rights envoy who got kicked out of Indonesia, probably for being too nosy -- Washington still keeps sending those folks out in quantities so industrial that they suggest no newfound sense of humility over its own behaviour.
....the prime minister at last tackled the matter in his new year's speech, condemning any attempts “to demonise groups of people on the basis of their religion or ethnic background”. But although he alluded to “a few unacceptably offensive” instances, he did not mention Jyllands-Posten by name. And he also insisted that the general tone of the Danish debate was “civilised and fair”.
For many Muslims, this is too little, too late. Ahmed Said Kassem, a leading Copenhagen Muslim, has called on Jyllands-Posten to apologise and on the government to dissociate itself from the cartoons. In a sign that the row may have some time still to run, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, a 57-strong group of countries, has also announced a boycott of “Images of the Middle East”, an exhibition due to be held in Denmark this summer. What should have been a celebration of Denmark's cultural links with the Islamic world now looks like falling victim to Danish free speech.
The cartoonists can draw what they want, even they can show any arab or muslim leader as a terrorist if they want. But I'm still thinking what incited them to use the prophet Mohammed to make their cartoon.
As far as I know, in the mexican daily I use to read (www.jornada.unam.mx) they constantly make cartoons against the obscene richness of catholic priests in Mexico and in Rome. Sometimes, priests are getting into a BMW, sometimes they are with sexual toys ready to abuse a kid. But they haven't drawn Jesus in such a similar cartoon.
Of course, jews are a different ethnic topic. No one should draw their god. Indeed, criticising A POLITICAL movement such as zionism and their related genocide is considered..(YEAH YOU GUESSED ).... ANTISEMITISM, ANTISEMITISM!!!!! and then one could be forced to pay an indemnization.
It seems many people want muslims as the XXI century pariahs and they HAVE to deal with it.
I'm not agree with the fatwa because it's to give importance and fame to those "artists" who blackmail with the so famous "freedom of speech".
Originally written by Yaotl Altan on January 6, 2006 4:37 PM
criticising A POLITICAL movement such as zionism and their related genocide is considered..(YEAH YOU GUESSED ).... ANTISEMITISM,
I imagine that Jews might get pissed off when some critics, instead of specifically focussing on things like genocide of Palestinians, proceed to deny the Jews' very right to have a homeland and thus negate the entire concept of Zionism which, according to dictionaries, is a movement supporting the existence of the state of Israel. Personally, I believe in every nation's right to self-determination, and that includes not only Palestinians bust also Jews. During the 20th c. mass killings of Poles, with all the hatred towards the occupying nations, I don't remember anyone in Poland coming up with the idea of exterminating Germans or Soviets in retaliation. You fight your aggressor, that's Newton's Third Law, but you normally do not think of liquidating its entire nation and denying its right to exist. Or do you?
On a lingustic note, other than the chosen nation, all the others normally settle for the collective "racism" or "xenophobia." Come to think about it, there is also "antipolonism" though (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipolonism) and antiamericanism. Do we have similar terms with respect to other nations, perhaps in their respective languages? Or, to come back to English, is the word "phobia" the only solution, like in Russophobia, Francophobia, Germanophobia, Hispanophobia?
Originally written by Jacek K. on January 5, 2006 12:41 PM
Originally written by Yaotl Altan on January 6, 2006 4:37 PM
criticising A POLITICAL movement such as zionism and their related genocide is considered..(YEAH YOU GUESSED ).... ANTISEMITISM,
I imagine that Jews might get pissed off when some critics, instead of specifically focussing on things like genocide of Palestinians, proceed to deny the Jews' very right to have a homeland and thus negate the entire concept of Zionism which, according to dictionaries, is a movement supporting the existence of the state of Israel. Personally, I believe in every nation's right to self-determination, and that includes not only Palestinians bust also Jews. During the 20th c. mass killings of Poles, with all the hatred towards the occupying nations, I don't remember anyone in Poland coming up with the idea of exterminating Germans or Soviets in retaliation. You fight your aggressor, that's Newton's Third Law, but you normally do not think of liquidating its entire nation and denying its right to exist. Or do you?
Exatly, I don't. Zionists and many jews do.
If the creation and expansion of that state grab others' land becomes a crime. The Industry of Holocaust focuses on that: they are not happy just with the ban of openly racist and anti-jew (Sorry, but I dislike to use the word ANTISEMITISM in my thoughts as it has become politically blackmailed refered only to jews without ncluding Palestinians which are mainly semitic people too) opinions but against any single comment which criticises this fascist-like expansion.
Muslims are beaten, tortured and jailed because they "use towels in their heads" and it's "very probable" they are full-time terrorists and now the Prophet Mohammed too. Guantanamo tortures are the same images of the Nazi camps and nothing happens. We have to respect those Danish illustrators freedom of speech misuse. Muslims have no right to indemnizations as their increasing birth rate becomes a danger for "our" Christian societies.
Of course, if one dares to make a nazi-like cartoon of jews (or worst yet, of their god) as some German illustrators did in the 30's we'd get the label of (YEAH, YOU GUESSED ) ANTISEMITE!!! ANTISEMITE!!! . I think it was very irresponsible not just the actions of the Danish iilustrators but the tendency to divert attention and focus on the murder fatwa. I don't support that fatwa but it's so curious that the inital irresponsible action of two Danes suddenly became another example on how muslims are terrorists, according to those Danes.
Jews around the world unite when they think someone is attacking them (it includes their appartheid operations in Palestine). But if muslims unite, then some people think they are exaggerating.
A very sutile example on how the media runs: double moral.
On a lingustic note, other than the chosen nation, all the others normally settle for the collective "racism" or "xenophobia." Come to think about it, there is also "antipolonism" though (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipolonism) and antiamericanism. Do we have similar terms with respect to other nations, perhaps in their respective languages? Or, to come back to English, is the word "phobia" the only solution, like in Russophobia, Francophobia, Germanophobia, Hispanophobia?
Originally written by Yaotl Altan on January 6, 2006 4:37 PM
The cartoonists can draw what they want, even they can show any arab or muslim leader as a terrorist if they want. But I'm still thinking what incited them to use the prophet Mohammed to make their cartoon.
As far as I know, in the mexican daily I use to read (www.jornada.unam.mx) they constantly make cartoons against the obscene richness of catholic priests in Mexico and in Rome. Sometimes, priests are getting into a BMW, sometimes they are with sexual toys ready to abuse a kid. But they haven't drawn Jesus in such a similar cartoon.
(...)
I'm not agree with the fatwa because it's to give importance and fame to those "artists" who blackmail with the so famous "freedom of speech".
Yaotl,
We have talked about host countries' rights (such as freedom of speech they cherish) before, so let me just add that while the first of your comments above did strike me as making sense, I still don't agree with the fatwa in question for reasons that are different from yours and that have to do with the same freedom I defended in Post #56045 and Post #57784. There (but also in this thread in Post #72004), it was Jesus's figure that was at stake and even though He was not ridiculed, there was the same uproar about blasphemy as among the Danish Muslims in the case at hand. I found that uproar totally reactionary. (I thought you would like this Marxist term )
Forums Disclaimer: The views expressed in the forums are those of the authors and are not necessarily the views of the site owner and/or moderators. If the reader considers a post to cause offence, then she or he should address a complaint to the moderator of the forum concerned. The complaint should be dealt with within 24 hours, but please respect the fact that the moderator may be living in a different time zone. Use of the forums signifies your agreement with the Forum Posting Rules.
Language, Literature, Arts, Religion, Other 
Contact Us
Reply
Quote
Edit
Delete
).... ANTISEMITISM, ANTISEMITISM!!!!! and then one could be forced to pay an indemnization.