Europe's Defamation of the Prophet

[J @ M @ L]

Please read the original post in its entirety... or just this excerpt....

Under the Danish Constitution, Freedom of Expression is found under section 77. It states:

"Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in writing, and in speech, subject to being held responsible in a court of law”.

Under the Responsibility of Media Act (Act no. 348 of June 6, 1991), the author, publisher, and editors are responsible for their actions under the law. AND:

“While carrying out their tasks mass-media should recognize the need to take the individual citizens rights to personal integrity into account and recognize the need of non-infringement without due course”.

The updated Media Liability Act of1992 includes sections on Press Ethics entitled: “The National code of Conduct:” adopted by the Danish Parliament. The rules comprise all editorial materials (text and picture) published in the written periodical press...(that) comprise persons mentioned and depicted; including deceased persons…The Code requires that the press publish factual information, especially if susceptible to personal bias or tortuous intention which may be prejudicial or insulting to others.

Additionally, the Danish Penal Code: Section 266b States:

"Any person who publicly or with the intention of dissemination to a wide circle of people makes a statement or imparts other information threatening, insulting, or degrading a group of persons on account of their race, color, or national or ethnic origin, belief" or sexual orientation shall be liable to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."

According to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC):

"The terms "statement or other information" should be interpreted broadly. They cover both oral and written expressions, pictures, "CARICATURES".

[Jome]

^ Yeah, I saw the ones about Denmark, but who else ?
The Danish government officials already explained that they can not apologize on behalf of Jyllands-Posten since they didn't do anything illegal, so I can't see the big deal.
To defame somebody/something, you must deliberately spread slander or libel, in other words false or malicious info/statements, but we're talking about a cartoon here.

[J @ M @ L]

"Any person who publicly or with the intention of dissemination to a wide circle of people makes a statement or imparts other information threatening, insulting, or degrading a group of persons on account of their race, color, or national or ethnic origin, belief" or sexual orientation shall be liable to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."

According to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC):

"The terms "statement or other information" should be interpreted broadly. They cover both oral and written expressions, pictures, "CARICATURES".

France also has anti-defamation laws in place.

A French court last week found three writers for Le Monde, as well as the newspaper’s publisher, guilty of “racist defamation” against Israel and the Jewish people. In a groundbreaking decision, the Versailles court of appeal ruled that a comment piece published in Le Monde in 2002, “Israel-Palestine: The Cancer,” had whipped up anti-Semitic opinion.

The writers of the article, Edgar Morin (a well-known sociologist), Daničle Sallenave (a senior lecturer at Nanterre University) and Sami Nair (a member of the European parliament), as well as Le Monde’s publisher, Jean-Marie Colombani, were ordered to pay symbolic damages of one euro to a human-rights group and to the Franco-Israeli association. Le Monde was also ordered to publish a condemnation of the article, which it has yet to do.

So what happened to "freedom of speech" there???

In my opinion, these people are trying to re-establish this notion of a "clash of civilizations" that was witnessed in the Middle Ages... the fact that Muslims responded in the way they did, only helped promote it.

If people still believe that this really has nothing to do with an attack on Islam/Muslims.. they really need to open their eyes. Freedom of speech?

If you think about it, things like this put these countries in the same category as let's say.. Saudi Arabia... before you jump to any conclusions, I'm not saying it's to the same extent or same manner, but I'm using the analogy as way of portraying the concept... the way the government looks upon the people's values. The Saudi Arabian government has this notion that "Islamic values" (which in their country aren't really Islamic to begin with)... are more important than Western values, and they totally disregard the values of the non-Muslims. In the same way, if Muslim values include that the Prophet shouldn't be depicted, especially not in the way that this newspaper did, and these countries are doing it in the name of "freedom of speech", they're putting their values above the values of the Muslims.

[Jome]

The Danish government officials already explained that they can not apologize on behalf of Jyllands-Posten since they didn't do anything illegal, so I can't see the big deal.
To defame somebody/something, you must deliberately spread slander or libel, in other words false or malicious info/statements, but we're talking about a cartoon here.

[J @ M @ L]

The rules comprise all editorial materials (text and picture) published in the written periodical press...(that) comprise persons mentioned and depicted; including deceased persons…The Code requires that the press publish factual information, especially if susceptible to personal bias or tortuous intention which may be prejudicial or insulting to others.

The Danish government officials already explained that they can not apologize on behalf of Jyllands-Posten since they didn't do anything illegal, so I can't see the big deal.
To defame somebody/something, you must deliberately spread slander or libel, in other words false or malicious info/statements, but we're talking about a cartoon here

Cartoons are included in "all editorial materials".

[Jome]

The Danish government officials already explained that they can not apologize on behalf of Jyllands-Posten since they didn't do anything illegal

That's the bottom line.
Either the paragraph mentioned is a sleeping one, meaning: already outdated, or the Danish authorities figured what millions of other people figured, it's a joke. Or both.

[Jome]

Just saw the edited post about France, do you have a link to it ?
I'd like to see what "racist defamation" they were convicted for as well, cartoons/caricatures is one thing, spreading hate propaganda or racism is a whole another case.
The freedom of speech doesn't go to well with racism, you can't say that a comic caricature is the same as spreading racism & hate, with the intent to create chaos/conflicts.

In the same way, if Muslim values include that the Prophet shouldn't be depicted, especially not in the way that this newspaper did, and these countries are doing it in the name of "freedom of speech", they're putting their values above the values of the Muslims.

Sharia laws does not apply here, except maybe in some muslim communities who thinks it stands over the countries own laws.

[J @ M @ L]

The freedom of speech doesn't go to well with racism, you can't say that a comic caricature is the same as spreading racism & hate, with the intent to create chaos/conflicts.

A comic caricature can't be used to spread racism and hate? It doesn't have to be with the intent to create chaos/conflicts... but it can definitely spread racism/hate. The ones you posted about Jews coming from the Middle East attest to this. In the same way, Europe has used such caricatures to spread exactly that... racism/hate... for centuries... especially anti-Semitic ones... and anti-Islamic ones during the Middle Ages... used as propaganda for support of the crusades.

[Jome]

A comic caricature can't be used to spread racism and hate? It doesn't have to be with the intent to create chaos/conflicts... but it can definitely spread racism/hate.

Sure it can, but I guess most people found the Danish caricatures comic, and not offensive, unlike the muslim world did.
If the newspaper was, say, Iran based, or Syria based, the whole newspaper staff would probably be locked up for good now.

The ones you posted about Jews coming from the Middle East attest to this.

Yup, but why wasn't there big reactions, protest marches, or riots after these pictures ?
It's all about perception, I doubt anybody could foresee riots or embassy torching over these cartoons, far worse things have been printed about Christianity.
All the Danish Imam's did, was bring more publicity to the pictures, and helped improve the tension on purpose, they're the big force between the whole conflict.

Europe has used such caricatures to spread exactly that... racism/hate... for centuries... especially anti-Semitic ones... and anti-Islamic ones during the Middle Ages... used as propaganda for support of the crusades.

It's a new day and a new world, most Western countries have thousands or millions of muslims in their countries, and all other races/religions, there's no crusade.

With all the suicide bombing and terror acts going on, in the majority of cases performed by muslims, it's almost strange that there hasn't been caricatures/parodies before..

[J @ M @ L]

A comic caricature can't be used to spread racism and hate? It doesn't have to be with the intent to create chaos/conflicts... but it can definitely spread racism/hate.

Sure it can, but I guess most people found the Danish caricatures comic, and not offensive, unlike the muslim world did.
If the newspaper was, say, Iran based, or Syria based, the whole newspaper staff would probably be locked up for good now.

GOOD JOB SHERLOCK... IT AMAZES ME HOW WELL YOU PUT 2 AND 2 TOGETHER THERE... "MOST PEOPLE FOUND IT COMIC, NOT OFFENSIVE, UNLIKE THE MUSLIM WORLD"....  ONE CAN ONLY WONDER WHY THAT IS SO... LOLLLL

The ones you posted about Jews coming from the Middle East attest to this.

Yup, but why wasn't there big reactions, protest marches, or riots after these pictures ?
It's all about perception, I doubt anybody could foresee riots or embassy torching over these cartoons, far worse things have been printed about Christianity.
All the Danish Imam's did, was bring more publicity to the pictures, and helped improve the tension on purpose, they're the big force between the whole conflict.

I NEVER STATED THAT RIOTS/EMBASSY TORCHINGS WERE FORESEEN.

Europe has used such caricatures to spread exactly that... racism/hate... for centuries... especially anti-Semitic ones... and anti-Islamic ones during the Middle Ages... used as propaganda for support of the crusades.

It's a new day and a new world, most Western countries have thousands or millions of muslims in their countries, and all other races/religions, there's no crusade.

With all the suicide bombing and terror acts going on, in the majority of cases performed by muslims, it's almost strange that there hasn't been caricatures/parodies before..

I DIDN'T SAY THERE WAS A CRUSADE GOING ON. IT'S THE CONCEPT... THAT THERE IS A NOTION OF A "CLASH OF CIVILIZATION".  THERE HAVE BEEN PARODIES BEFORE... YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE BEEN LIVING UNDER A ROCK TO NOT KNOW THAT. THE MUSLIMS AREN'T ANGRY ABOUT "BEING MADE FUN OF".... IT'S THE DEPICTION OF THE PROPHET IN THIS WAY THAT THEY'RE RIOTING OVER.

[Jome]

How about that France link ?

Would be more interesting to see what Le Monde printed, and got convicted for, than arguing over some petty unimportant cartoons.


And another thing:

A comic caricature can't be used to spread racism and hate? It doesn't have to be with the intent to create chaos/conflicts... but it can definitely spread racism/hate. The ones you posted about Jews coming from the Middle East attest to this. In the same way, Europe has used such caricatures to spread exactly that... racism/hate... for centuries... especially anti-Semitic ones... and anti-Islamic ones during the Middle Ages... used as propaganda for support of the crusades.

The last crusade ended in 1291. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

The printing press was invented in the 1450's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press

How could Europe print caricatures/cartoon propaganda to drum up support for the crusades if the printing press hadn't been invented yet?

[J @ M @ L]

Here is a link to the article:
http://www.honestreporting.com/a/lemonde.article.htm


It is kind of sad to see you lacking common sense and being this ignorant... but here is one example:

Year: 1162

And I'm sure you're familiar with Dante's work? (or maybe not)


Anything else?

[nibs]

France also has anti-defamation laws in place.

france, denmark, norway, germany, greece, britain all have these laws on the books.  germany is possibly the most extreme; apparently it's illegal to simply deny the halocaust in germany.

a civil suit has been brought against the newspaper in denmark and it was dismissed.  i believe a similar case was also dismissed in france over the reprinting.  "freedom of speech" was cited. 

this looks like another double standard.  to dismiss the case is to suggest that freedom of speech supercedes these laws against derogatory, defamatory statements made against religions.  which renders these anti-defamatory and anti-blasphemy  laws effectively useless.  most people understand that freedom of speech has limits.  you can't yell fire in a movie theater and cause a false panic.

in the u.s. you probably won't see cartoons in national newspapers lampooning blacks, the types of cartoons that once were deemed acceptable.  loony toons (warner bros) has taken certain cartoons that were racially insensitive out of circulation.  agatha christie's novel "and then there were none" had it's title changed as the original title was "ten little niggers" and later "ten little indians".   it's really not censorship when it's a question of images or languages that can be considered either obscene or defamatory.  most people accept that there must be limits somewhere.

[nibs]

This one Muhammad cartoon is no worse than the countless number of Jesus satires that pop up every few weeks.

well, technically i believe a jesus satire is just as bad because none of the prophets should have their image or likeness reproduced.   i believe the reason for this practice is specifically to prevent people from worshipping any of the prophets, as some have done with jesus.

P.S. Before you tell me it's different because in Islam you aren't allowed to show Muhammad in pictures, could someone please show me where in the Quran it says you can't, and why the Muslim cultures in Iran and Turkey have had pictures of Muhammad for hundreds of years?

i believe it's only acceptable among the shia to do so.  ofcourse, the image was disrespectful so the shia were also pissed.  you're treading on a slippery slope when you start trying to argue dogma; but your argument basically amounts to "in this sense the shia get islam right, and the sunnis have islam wrong".  is that the argument you wish to make?
especially if you wish to turn around and use that logic to disparage established customs and beliefs that may be outside the qu'ran.  all religions tend to establish traditions that are outside the various holy texts.
for example, if you ask the seventh day adventists, they will tell you that all other christian denominations are going to hell because they do not keep the sabbath.  i've actually sat through sda sermons where there was a chart of other religions and other denominations of christianity and the explanations of what all of them were doing wrong that was going to land them in hell.

[Jome]

It is kind of sad to see you lacking common sense and being this ignorant... but here is one example:

Year: 1162

OWN GOAL, the text in French below the picture sonned your whole argument.

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/euro_medi_ren/

Illustration depicting a schematized Mohammed from an early medieval Latin translation of the Koran, from a manuscript in la Bibliotheque de l'Arsenal, in Paris. This may be the earliest known depiction of Mohammed, possibly dating from the mid-12th century. This reproduction is from the book Naissance de l'Europe, by Robert S. Lopez (published 1962) (taken from Deux traductions latines du Coran, by Marie-Therese D'Alverny [published 1948]).

If you can't prove it, make it up.