Tens of thousands of protesters jammed the streets of Strasbourg as the fate of the law at the heart of the EU's economic reform plans prompted fierce last-minute wrangling. MEPs were holding tense talks ahead of a crucial vote tomorrow on the proposed so-called services directive, which prompted fears in France of an invasion of Polish plumbers. Although the measure is certain to be watered down, the precise outcome of the vote on more than 400 amendments in the European Parliament will be seen as a yardstick of the EU's commitment to economic reform. It is also a chance for the parliament to extend its influence since, if it delivers a large majority in favour of a compromise, it will be hard for member states or the European Commission to overturn it. The row in France over the services directive was widely blamed for contributing to the country's "no" vote in a referendum on the EU constitution. Since then, law-makers have remained divided over the future of the EU's efforts to open up the multibillion- euro market in services. Negotiators in the two main political blocs have already agreed to water down the text of the draft law which prompted last year's ructions. Last night, they were trying to sell these amendments to their respective MEPs.
MEPs were holding tense talks ahead of a crucial vote tomorrow on the proposed so-called services directive, which prompted fears in France of an invasion of Polish plumbers. Although the measure is certain to be watered down, the precise outcome of the vote on more than 400 amendments in the European Parliament will be seen as a yardstick of the EU's commitment to economic reform.
It is also a chance for the parliament to extend its influence since, if it delivers a large majority in favour of a compromise, it will be hard for member states or the European Commission to overturn it.
The row in France over the services directive was widely blamed for contributing to the country's "no" vote in a referendum on the EU constitution. Since then, law-makers have remained divided over the future of the EU's efforts to open up the multibillion- euro market in services.
Negotiators in the two main political blocs have already agreed to water down the text of the draft law which prompted last year's ructions. Last night, they were trying to sell these amendments to their respective MEPs.
ROME, Feb 14: Italy's Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli has had T-shirts made emblazoned with the anti-Islam cartoons in a move that could embarrass Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government. Mr Calderoli, a member of the anti-immigrant Northern League, told Ansa news agency on Tuesday that the West had to stand up against Muslim extremists and offered to hand out the T-shirts to anyone who wanted them. "I have had T-shirts made with the cartoons that have upset Islam and I will start wearing them today," Ansa quoted Mr Calderoli as saying. He said the T-shirts were not meant to be a provocation, but added that he saw no point trying to appease extremists. "We have to put an end to this story that we can talk to these people. They only want to humiliate people. Full stop. And what are we becoming? The civilisation of melted butter?" Mr Calderoli said. The League has long opposed mass immigration into Italy and its leaders say violence over the cartoon shows the dangers of allowing Muslim immigrants to settle here.
Mr Calderoli, a member of the anti-immigrant Northern League, told Ansa news agency on Tuesday that the West had to stand up against Muslim extremists and offered to hand out the T-shirts to anyone who wanted them.
"I have had T-shirts made with the cartoons that have upset Islam and I will start wearing them today," Ansa quoted Mr Calderoli as saying.
He said the T-shirts were not meant to be a provocation, but added that he saw no point trying to appease extremists.
"We have to put an end to this story that we can talk to these people. They only want to humiliate people. Full stop. And what are we becoming? The civilisation of melted butter?" Mr Calderoli said.
The League has long opposed mass immigration into Italy and its leaders say violence over the cartoon shows the dangers of allowing Muslim immigrants to settle here.
Why didn't our governments protest against the outrageous attacks against various embassies?
This is all pathetic. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Why aren't we fighting for David Irving's freedom of speech? Where are the protests from the left on that?
The left - and a surprising number of people here - seem to be saying that we should avoid confronting Islam on this because it's needlessly provocative, and we should meekly turn the other cheek.
Well, I'll be on the line of the Canard Enchaîné (How about zero intolerance?) and keep on telling people to stop trying to impose their religions on society. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
However, people being rational doesn't make headlines, does it?
Why must we confront Islam? What good does it do? The correct response was "We're sorry about those prats, but that's the price of freedom of speech. It's the same freedom of speech that allows you speak out against us. If you want to live here you have to learn to accept it. Sorry, part of the package." Instead the situation has been exploited for circulation and political advantage.
The correct response was "We're sorry about those prats, but that's the price of freedom of speech. It's the same freedom of speech that allows you speak out against us. If you want to live here you have to learn to accept it. Sorry, part of the package."
But that's exactly what's been done, and that's precisely what has been called "confronting Islam" or "bullying the weak" by afew, DeAnander et al.
so Colman, are with us or against us? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
are with us or against us
Forgive me for not seeing the self-derision. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Look, what are you trying to achieve? How does repeating the offence move those aims forward? My aim is to maintain the progress we've made in Europe while trying to help the middle east away from the despotic governments and fundamentalists. This doesn't help that at all. Quite the opposite: it helps out both the despots and the loonies.
Ultimately, we are saying that they can do it, because that's the kind of things "they" do, and it's pretty damn racist on its own. Yeah, they are run by savage, manipulating dictatures or fundamentalist preachers, that's how they are, and there's nothing to say about it. I disagree. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
And I'm afraid here that the European secularists are the strong ones here.
In the context of a Danish peninsula in September last year, perhaps they were. But 20 percent of humanity (1.3 billion) are Muslim. It's the world's most practiced religion. How, after this issue has been internationalized so as to cause outrage from Indonesia to Morocco, are the European secularists "the strong ones"? Numerically and economically, they sure as hell are not. The world's northernmost desert wind.
So, compared with 1.3 Billion people, mostly in developing countries, I think Europe is economically stronger and numerically comparable.
What really, really worries me about this whole thing is that the left is on the brink of signing up to "fortress Europa" and reneging on the right of refugees (including political and religious) to obtain asylum in Europe without having to go through ideological (including religious) litmis tests. THAT is what I'm worried the European left is about ready to sacrifice. I don't want ideological litmus tests imposed on human rights. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
There are 800 million europeans according to the Council of Europe.
And these are all secularists? News to me. The world's northernmost desert wind.
There are 800 million europeans according to the Council of Europe.And these are all secularists? News to me.
I actually got pilloried in the cartoon debates for suggesting that secularism and freedom of speech are not necessarily fundamental to being European. So, is Europe secular and committed to free speech, or is it not?
A false dilemma. Secular people (let alone "secularists," your original term) are of course a mere subset of the free speech supporters. A big proportion of European Christians, say, would accept the right to lampoon Christianity. It wasn't always thus, but let's face it: Life of Brian - which makes fun and games of the Crucifixion - routinely runs on primetime TV in large European countries with nary a protest, let alone cries for cencorship. This despite the fact that even in Norway, the world's most secular country, fully 50 percent believe in God.
However, there are blasphemy paragraphs in a number of legal codes including ours. Hereabouts it is dormant, with the last prosecution, which led to acquittal, taking place in 1933. But leading Muslim spokesmen and organizations now call for reviving it.
While I doubt they will get this through, I sure don't appreciate the effort. The world's northernmost desert wind.
You forgot about the Czech Republic, Sweden and Russia. (There is East Germany too.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I consider Muslims a minority among us, certainly. I have never said that explaining our principles was bullying. I am saying that explaining our principles requires encouragment of the moderates so we have people we can speak to. But that kind of virtuous movement has been compromised by the cartoon controversy. So I will not take sides with the provocateurs.
But you are essentially saying that we should explain our principles, but not use them because that's "provocative", so we come agaisnt that dead-end again. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Forget about the "bullying" for the moment, you're twisting what I'm saying even more with this:
explain our principles, but not use them because that's "provocative"
I have used the term "provocation" to talk about the publication of the cartoons, and I'll add the deliberate piling-on of republication. I have not used the term in relation to principles like, we have women teachers and doctors (since you offered those examples). I have said clearly that we should refuse to accept extremist demands on these.
You persist in conflating the issue of the cartoons with other issues in everyday life and its organization.
Now some questions for you, tough guy (up to you to decide how far that's a joke, since apparently that's what we have to do with your comments...):
What do you mean exactly by "use" our principles? Just what do you propose to do? How are you going to stop the (admittedly manipulated and outrageous) protests in the Middle East? What are you going to do to European Muslims to force them to accept our piddling right to draw funny pics of Mohammed? Go on publishing and republishing cartoons until... Until what? And what purpose will you have served at the end of it?
End result: an injured, vindicated free speaker; and a jailed, offended violent idiot. Also, the original speech and the court arguments during the assault trial (where the defence will try to argue on the basis of the offensive speech) will be informative to the general public. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
The price of freedom of speech is that someone can get offended enough to assault you as a result. Then you can win a court case for assault.
Or you can be dead. Or, as in the case of Rushdie's Norwegian publisher William Nygaard, who was gunned down on the street in Oslo, you can survive but the attacker gets away.
Are you fine with this type of situation? Because it sounds as though you are. The world's northernmost desert wind.
an injured, vindicated free speaker; and a jailed, offended violent idiot. Also, the original speech and the court arguments during the assault trial (where the defence will try to argue on the basis of the offensive speech) will be informative to the general public.
As to remedies, well, giving in to threats is certainly not going to help in the long run. In that regard (if in no other) it's good that Ayaan Hirsi Ali & co are working on a sequel to van Gogh's film, and that several European papers republished those cartoons. This communicates to potential attackers that their violence isn't going to work. The world's northernmost desert wind.
You're assuming that potential attackers are sane and rational. Odds are they won't be.
Migeru simply explained what happens, not what should happen.
His wording suggested that this is a fact of life we must accept, and even has a silver lining.
I disagree. It's a common mistake among the civilized to assume that violent scum aren't sane and rational. In a political context, they frighteningly often are.
Just to illustrate (since anecdotal evidence of course proves nothing) the attacker in the Nygaard case is believed to have been either a hitman or an Iranian government operative. His tracks disappeared at the Iranian embassy.
For that matter, the thug who stabbed Theo van Gogh is also jugded to be sane. Anna Lindh's killer, too. Both appear to have been politically motivated murders. The world's northernmost desert wind.
Both appear to have been politically motivated murders.
What motivated them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Lindh
Theo van Gogh: Dutch filmmaker, stabbed and shot to death in 2004 by a Dutch radical Islamist with terrorist connections in retribution for a 10-minute film about suppression of women in Islam. On his body the killer appended a note which threatened Western governments, Jews, and the politician A. Hirshi Ali, on whose book the film was based.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29 The world's northernmost desert wind.
Now, how do you suggest Europe can prevent political assassinations from happening other than instituting some sort of thought police? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Allegedly Olof Palme's was also a political assassination.
Probably, but that's never been resolved.
Now, how do you suggest Europe can prevent political assassinations from happening other than instituting some sort of thought police?
I have never said I believe it can be prevented outright. That would be pretty daft.
I have said that yielding to threats is not going to help. Rather it will encourage those making such threats.
Keeping known extremist factions under surveillance, as is being done all over Europe, is obviously also wise. The world's northernmost desert wind.
In modern épée fencing there is the possibility of a "double touch" with both fencers scoring a point on a simultaneous hit. One of the most renowned fencing masters (of the classical school) of the 20th century used to say "double touch: two dead idiots". guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
In what world do you live in? Can you give one example when the violent learned that violence isn't going to work?
What you overlook is that the violent (and the culture warriors in the West, and the far-right in the West) also fight for domestic popularity and recruits, and the cartoons culture war gave them that in droves. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
In what world do you live in?
Third planet out from the Sun. And you?
Can you give one example when the violent learned that violence isn't going to work?
Yeah, this dude down the street, let me see where I have his telephone number. Come on, this is silly.
What you overlook is that the violent (and the culture warriors in the West, and the far-right in the West) also fight for domestic popularity and recruits, and the cartoons culture war gave them that in droves.
Give me some credit of intelligence, huh? How could I "overlook" that?
As I have said repeatedly, I don't approve of the original publication. However, given that it occurred and was whipped into a global campaign for editorial and diplomatic apologies as well as censorship, and where threats of violence abound against the newspapers and even countries involved, the solidarity is called for. Sure, deescalate whereever possible; sometimes it isn't. "If you pay the Dane-geld," an old saying goes, "you never get rid of the Dane."
That said, there are two sides to this republication question; my position is all-things-considered. Unlike the issue of whether freedom of speech is negotiable. The world's northernmost desert wind.
As for the cartoons, I've already spoken up on my own blog about publishers having an absolute right to publish them. Freedom os speech means nothing if it is restricted to the "freedom" to publish only what others find inoffensive. I think many of those publishing are likewise wankers, who are doing it simply to bait and taunt their local Muslim communities and push a xenophobic, anti-islamic agenda (Calderoli is a perfect example of this), but again, that's something they're allowed to do in a free society. And if we deplore it, then we should speak up and say so, and call these people wankers, while defending their right to be so.
What proposal to limit free speech is there?
Also, there are threats to free speech besides government interference. Notably, the one which Jyllands-Posten originally set out to defy, however misguided its approach.
And this threat does not just apply to cartoons on the prophet Muhammed. To illustrate, here's from a blog post by my favorite religious affairs writer, Andrew Brown:
As the for question of fear, I know that I have been frightened in the past myself. I did a long piece for the Sunday Telegraph some years ago about the oldest known fragments of the Koran, which Dominic Lawson spiked. I haven't busted a gut to publish it since. But I now think this was wrong. There is a hugely important principle at stake. Censoring universities is much more important than censoring newspapers. We shall see what happens when I start asking questions.
A commenter remarked:
Re: the Qurâ??an, even European scholars tend to fear applying the same sort of textual and historical analysis that they would to, say, The Bible or The Book of Mormon. Thereâ??s a deadly-dull tome called â??The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Qurâ??anâ?? which argues that parts were derived from earlier Christian Aramaic texts that were actually misinterpreted by Islamic scholars. The bloke who wrote it struggled to find a publisher, and eventually had to resort to a pseudonym - Christopher Luxenberg â?? for fear of retribution. Then there was the Palestinian scholar, Suleyman Bashir, who maintained that Islam developed gradually rather than emerging in one of those â??Hey Presto!â?? moments from the mouth of Muhammad. He ended up being thrown out of a second-story window at Nablus University for his troubles. If you go ahead with your piece, place soft mattresses around your house. Or assume a pseudonym. All the best people do.
If you go ahead with your piece, place soft mattresses around your house. Or assume a pseudonym. All the best people do.
I don't know about you, but I don't like it this way. The world's northernmost desert wind.
When Danish embassies began going up in flames last week, some in the European Union wanted a firm response. But nothing happened. The most the EU could agree on were a few wishy-washy statements. In the Brussels language school "English Academy," a cultural war has broken out. While Danes and Germans -- and even the often contentious Flemings and Walloons -- peacefully learn foreign languages together, Belgian Muslims are stirring up a bit of a ruckus. In language class, they don't want to be "discriminated against anymore," they say. What's their beef? Politics, religion, sex, love and other such topics with their roots in Western decadence are offensive and should no longer be allowed in the classroom. And women teachers? An impertinence. The group has already found a lawyer to represent its offended sensibilities, and the heads of the "English Academy" have no idea how they should respond. Understand and accept? Negotiate a compromise? Or just chuck the rebels out of class? Down the block, interestingly enough, the same debate is playing out on a slightly larger playing field -- namely in the glass palace of the European Union headquarters. And the debate is a much more explosive one. Golden opportunity wasted Ever since a Danish newspaper published 12 caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad and triggered sometimes violent protests against Denmark and the West in the Muslim world, the European Union has been casting about for a common position. So far, though, without success -- and as the EU lack of action on the issue becomes more and more obvious, the realization grows that the 25-member European club has let a golden opportunity slip through its fingers. For years, Europe has repeated the mantra that real international relevance will only come with the development of a common foreign and security policy. The problem, though, has been that whenever difficult decisions need to be made, EU members can't agree. Like right now.
In the Brussels language school "English Academy," a cultural war has broken out. While Danes and Germans -- and even the often contentious Flemings and Walloons -- peacefully learn foreign languages together, Belgian Muslims are stirring up a bit of a ruckus. In language class, they don't want to be "discriminated against anymore," they say.
What's their beef? Politics, religion, sex, love and other such topics with their roots in Western decadence are offensive and should no longer be allowed in the classroom. And women teachers? An impertinence. The group has already found a lawyer to represent its offended sensibilities, and the heads of the "English Academy" have no idea how they should respond. Understand and accept? Negotiate a compromise? Or just chuck the rebels out of class?
Down the block, interestingly enough, the same debate is playing out on a slightly larger playing field -- namely in the glass palace of the European Union headquarters. And the debate is a much more explosive one.
Golden opportunity wasted
Ever since a Danish newspaper published 12 caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad and triggered sometimes violent protests against Denmark and the West in the Muslim world, the European Union has been casting about for a common position. So far, though, without success -- and as the EU lack of action on the issue becomes more and more obvious, the realization grows that the 25-member European club has let a golden opportunity slip through its fingers. For years, Europe has repeated the mantra that real international relevance will only come with the development of a common foreign and security policy. The problem, though, has been that whenever difficult decisions need to be made, EU members can't agree. Like right now.
COPENHAGEN: European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso defended Denmark on Tuesday in the cartoons row, telling the Danish media that freedom of expression was "not negotiable". "Freedom of expression is not something that we can negotiate, because it is an essential value in our open and democratic European society," Barroso was quoted as saying in Tuesday's edition of the Danish daily Berlingske Tidende. Barroso said he understood "that these drawings made a lot of Muslims in the world uncomfortable and angry. But I want to say at the same time that the principle of non-violence and freedom of expression is decisive for democracy". The 12 caricatures first appeared in the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten on Sept 30 and have since been reprinted in numerous newspapers around the world. Muslims' reactions have in some places been violent, with three Danish embassy buildings set on fire, five official diplomatic missions closed, Danish products boycotted and a price put on Danes' heads in Afghanistan and Iraq. Barroso said the attacks on the Danish embassies in Damascus, Beirut and Teheran were "totally unacceptable". "That's why we are expressing our solidarity with Denmark. What has happened is unfair (because) Denmark has a long tradition of openness and tolerance, and also of helping others, of dialogue and of culture," he said.
"Freedom of expression is not something that we can negotiate, because it is an essential value in our open and democratic European society," Barroso was quoted as saying in Tuesday's edition of the Danish daily Berlingske Tidende.
Barroso said he understood "that these drawings made a lot of Muslims in the world uncomfortable and angry. But I want to say at the same time that the principle of non-violence and freedom of expression is decisive for democracy".
The 12 caricatures first appeared in the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten on Sept 30 and have since been reprinted in numerous newspapers around the world. Muslims' reactions have in some places been violent, with three Danish embassy buildings set on fire, five official diplomatic missions closed, Danish products boycotted and a price put on Danes' heads in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Barroso said the attacks on the Danish embassies in Damascus, Beirut and Teheran were "totally unacceptable". "That's why we are expressing our solidarity with Denmark. What has happened is unfair (because) Denmark has a long tradition of openness and tolerance, and also of helping others, of dialogue and of culture," he said.
The EU's foreign policy chief has begun a tour of the Middle East to defuse the row over caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. Meanwhile, new cartoons in a German paper have sparked anger from Iran. The European Union's chief diplomat has said Europe and the Muslim world must maintain strong relations despite the clash over caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak on Tuesday discussed mechanisms to protect religious symbols and beliefs. On the second leg of his Middle East tour, Solana said he had a "profound desire to recuperate relations between the EU and the Muslim world." On Monday, Solana met with Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), in Jeddah. The OIC is a pan-Islamic body representing 57 nations. In a joint press conference, Solana said continued dialogue was crucial. "We must not allow the latest events to erode the solid relationship we have built up over so many years," Solana said after meeting with Ihsanoglu. "We need each other, we have to work together, and we have to respect each other." Solana said he and Ihsanoglu also agreed on "the importance of mutual tolerance and the inadmissibility of violence."
The European Union's chief diplomat has said Europe and the Muslim world must maintain strong relations despite the clash over caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak on Tuesday discussed mechanisms to protect religious symbols and beliefs. On the second leg of his Middle East tour, Solana said he had a "profound desire to recuperate relations between the EU and the Muslim world."
On Monday, Solana met with Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), in Jeddah. The OIC is a pan-Islamic body representing 57 nations. In a joint press conference, Solana said continued dialogue was crucial.
"We must not allow the latest events to erode the solid relationship we have built up over so many years," Solana said after meeting with Ihsanoglu. "We need each other, we have to work together, and we have to respect each other."
Solana said he and Ihsanoglu also agreed on "the importance of mutual tolerance and the inadmissibility of violence."
And what do you then think of French requirements that girls practise sports at school? and what about demands that they be treated in hospitals not by whatever doctor is on duty, whether male or female, but only by female doctors? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Come off it, Jérôme, you don't expect us to take that crappy journalism seriously.
If this were a well-researched and well-written article about that language school, which established the facts and examined what was happening and listened to the different points of view, and if it then became clear that religious extremists were attempting to change the normal practice of the school in order to make it fit with their beliefs, then of course I would say they should be politely told they were free to leave if they didn't like the teaching.
But you are trying to conflate this with the cartoons (as Hans-Jürgen Schlamp does in his sneaky civilization-clash article in the Spiegel), and they are not the same thing.
I see a great difference between extremists (not only Muslim) challenging the way different institutions, like schools or hospitals, already work in our societies (in which case, if their demands appear to us unacceptable, we should tell them we refuse), and reactions to deliberate provocation by the xenophobic right.
What matters most to me is that we push back the extremes and promote the moderates. And that we stop feeding pernicious idiots like Philippe de Villiers whom I heard once again say this morning that French suburbs are "handed over to Islam".
The only way to fight off the scaremongerers like de Villiers is precisely to speak up as progressives on the topic and say that the Muslims stepped over a line (in calling for violence and in actually conducting violence) while fully acknowledging their right to say they are offended and their right to protest them peacefully. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
As for your point about cartoons, please. Cartoons are not about to disappear. We are not in danger.
To give just one example, there's a hard-hitting cartoonist named Finn Graff working for the liberal Norwegian daily Dagbladet. This guy has a serious problem with authority; allegedly his wife and sister are tasked with erasing as many erect penises as possible from his sketches of authority figures. I remember one of his offerings featuring an elephant screwing another (which had its head draped in the Stars and Stripes) with a crucifix. This prompted a furious letter to the editor from Republicans Abroad.
Graff freely admits that he wouldn't dare draw Muhammed. But apparently that is not enough. When interviewed on TV recently, he nervously displayed an old cartoon slamming the treatment of women under Islamic law. A minaret played the part of an erect male member. Now, al-Jazeera's man in Oslo deliberately refrained from reporting this back to his HQ, since the existence of this cartoon, as he put it, would be sure to "unleash hell." This despite there being no representation of Muhammed.
Morten Kristiansen, editorial cartoonist at the country's biggest newspaper Verdens Gang, says he has often received complaints from Christians when drawing Jesus and from Muslims when drawing their religious leaders, but that in recent years the feedback from the latter has increasingly included threats. I wager you will find the same phenomenon across Europe. The world's northernmost desert wind.
This kind of process may take a little time. It's already under way. But we must support the movement. I've seen (TV) moderate Muslims in Denmark complain that the cartoon controversy has set them back and they have lost influence. A young woman who is working and dressing in a European manner no doubt has a daily struggle to persuade the older, more conservative elements in her family that this is OK. Now she's not being listened to, because the Prophet has been insulted (fundamental symbol), and for her it's now go back to the beginning and start again.
The day will come when Muslims themselves will be doing the cartoons, and I'll be hugely happy to see that and to support the cartoonists. In the meantime, what purpose (other than those of the xenophobic right) do we serve if we seek to face down the extremists by insisting on our absolute right to caricature sacred aspects of Islam? We have won the freedom to do that as regards our own historical religion (and I support that freedom), but let's encourage those who will make Islam evolve so that they will one day have that freedom. For the moment, is it so huge a problem to lay aside the rather arrogant notion that our caustic wit is going to change a religion to which we don't have personal or historical links, and to exercise some understanding and restraint?
Is it surprising that the EU has difficulty finding a common position on this complex issue? In what way would "a common foreign and security policy" magically solve the problem? What was the "golden opportunity" that the EU is supposed to have let slip, exactly? What "action" does Schlamp expect the EU to take?
He doesn't say -- beyond claiming that the EU has done "little to satisfy the European public" (without saying what that public, according to him, is supposed to think), and should have reacted "responsibly but confidently -- and without kowtowing to Mecca".
As for the unsubstantiated, unexamined, undiscussed anecdote at the beginning of the article, it is exactly what it looks like: a shabby hook.
If the course fulfills a state requirement or the school is public, the issue is more complex. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Germany's first public sector strike in 14 years is barely a week old but, as the uncollected rubbish piles up, Gerhard Widder, mayor of Mannheim, is already warning of rat-infested mountains of burning rubbish in the streets. "Rubbish is a hazard. Once it gets warmer, it could catch fire. It can even explode," he warns. Exploding bins have yetto be reported, but the dispute is shaping up as Germany's toughest industrial action for decades. It is about more than just working hours, the union's stated target. At stake is the credibility of the labour movement. "The unions are fighting against their own decline. Their margin of movement is decreasing," says Klaus Zimmermann, head of the Berlin DIW economic institute. "It will be a tough battle." Ostensibly, Verdi, the service sector union behind the stoppages, opposes a move by public sector employers to raise the working week from 38.5 to 40 hours. Verdi wants Germany's 16 states to sign the framework deal on wages and working time it struck last year with the federal government and local authorities. It also seeks to reverse a decision by local authorities in three states to opt out of the deal and increase working hours for their employees.
"Rubbish is a hazard. Once it gets warmer, it could catch fire. It can even explode," he warns.
Exploding bins have yetto be reported, but the dispute is shaping up as Germany's toughest industrial action for decades. It is about more than just working hours, the union's stated target. At stake is the credibility of the labour movement.
"The unions are fighting against their own decline. Their margin of movement is decreasing," says Klaus Zimmermann, head of the Berlin DIW economic institute. "It will be a tough battle."
Ostensibly, Verdi, the service sector union behind the stoppages, opposes a move by public sector employers to raise the working week from 38.5 to 40 hours.
Verdi wants Germany's 16 states to sign the framework deal on wages and working time it struck last year with the federal government and local authorities.
It also seeks to reverse a decision by local authorities in three states to opt out of the deal and increase working hours for their employees.
It's in the title: Ailing rearguard.
It's in the body: Exploding rubbish.
When will you people at last catch on?
I am also noting that the wording flagged a couple of days ago is spreading:
Fresh dispute threatens deal on services (FT) Last week senior MEPs from the centre-right European People's party and the Socialists agreed to water down plans to liberalise the European services market in an attempt to end two years of fighting over the proposal. (...) The disagreement highlights the deep division between protectionist and liberal lawmakers, as well as broader tensions between the European Union's old and new member states.
Last week senior MEPs from the centre-right European People's party and the Socialists agreed to water down plans to liberalise the European services market in an attempt to end two years of fighting over the proposal.
(...)
The disagreement highlights the deep division between protectionist and liberal lawmakers, as well as broader tensions between the European Union's old and new member states.
liberal = good, but sadly being "diluted" by the opposition, which is no longer social, or socialist, but "protectionist". Where's the Protectionist (Bogeyman) Party.
JEROME NOTCH TECHNOLOGY. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
"Exploding rubbish" I found new and refreshing.
ANKARA (Reuters) -- Turkey has decided to build its first nuclear power plant at Sinop on the Black Sea coast, energy officials said on Tuesday. "The prime minister's office and the energy ministry have decided to build the nuclear plant at Sinop, taking into account such factors as geological faultlines and cooling water," an energy official told Reuters. Turkey straddles seismic faultlines and is highly prone to earthquakes. Sinop is located in the central stretch of Turkey's lengthy Black Sea coast. The country has no nuclear power plants at present, but a preliminary study envisages the construction of between three and five plants with a total capacity of 5,000 megawatts. The energy officials said Turkey's National Security Council, which groups the president, top politicians and army generals, would examine the issue of building nuclear power plants at its next meeting on Feb. 28. Oil and natural gas imports, along with coal and hydro-electric power, account for most of Turkey's current energy needs.
"The prime minister's office and the energy ministry have decided to build the nuclear plant at Sinop, taking into account such factors as geological faultlines and cooling water," an energy official told Reuters.
Turkey straddles seismic faultlines and is highly prone to earthquakes. Sinop is located in the central stretch of Turkey's lengthy Black Sea coast.
The country has no nuclear power plants at present, but a preliminary study envisages the construction of between three and five plants with a total capacity of 5,000 megawatts.
The energy officials said Turkey's National Security Council, which groups the president, top politicians and army generals, would examine the issue of building nuclear power plants at its next meeting on Feb. 28.
Oil and natural gas imports, along with coal and hydro-electric power, account for most of Turkey's current energy needs.
Russia and France on Tuesday called on Iran to halt uranium enrichment, reinforcing international pressure on Tehran, and French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin urged Palestinian militant group Hamas to listen to Russia's calls to disarm. In a joint statement by Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov and Villepin in Moscow, the two countries said Iran must fulfill the demands of the International Atomic Energy Agency. "Russia and France call on Iran to fully comply with the February resolution and the demands of the board of governors of the IAEA, including on uranium enrichment," said the statement posted on the Kremlin's web site. Fradkov said he was "concerned about the way events are unfolding" around Iran's nuclear program. "We made a series of proposals that, in our view, could significantly ease the situation in the course of a search for a solution," Fradkov said at a joint news conference with Villepin, adding that the potential for a positive outcome was "not yet exhausted." On Monday, Tehran abruptly postponed talks scheduled for this week on Moscow's uranium enrichment offer. Russia is now considering Iran's request for the Moscow talks to be held next Monday, news agencies quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin as saying.
In a joint statement by Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov and Villepin in Moscow, the two countries said Iran must fulfill the demands of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
"Russia and France call on Iran to fully comply with the February resolution and the demands of the board of governors of the IAEA, including on uranium enrichment," said the statement posted on the Kremlin's web site.
Fradkov said he was "concerned about the way events are unfolding" around Iran's nuclear program.
"We made a series of proposals that, in our view, could significantly ease the situation in the course of a search for a solution," Fradkov said at a joint news conference with Villepin, adding that the potential for a positive outcome was "not yet exhausted."
On Monday, Tehran abruptly postponed talks scheduled for this week on Moscow's uranium enrichment offer. Russia is now considering Iran's request for the Moscow talks to be held next Monday, news agencies quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin as saying.
Is there any show more overdue than a major one about contemporary Spanish architecture? For years now, architects and planners have been jetting to places like Barcelona, Bilbao and Merida in an attempt to decipher one of the great architectural success stories in modern history. The endurance of Spain's grand experiment is remarkable. It started, you could argue, during the final years of Franco's rule in the early 1970s, as Spain began to awaken from the isolation of a four-decade dictatorship. It began to flower in earnest after 1986, when the country joined the European Union and money began flowing into large-scale public works projects. Since then, Spanish architects have produced architecture of unusual depth, often with a firm connection to the land, a sense of humility and a way of conveying continuity with the past while embracing the present. As the building boom unfolds, international talents pour into the country to share in the creative foment. "On Site: New Architecture in Spain," which opened Sunday and runs through May 1 at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, skates rather lightly over this back story. Packed with pretty images and elegant models, the exhibition lacks the scholarly depth you might have hoped for on a subject that has mesmerized architects and planners since the 1980s. Also missing is the kind of basic information - historical background, a clear sense of a building's context, the architects' ages and nationalities - that would make the show accessible to a broad audience. What's more, the show's nationalist subject is a tricky one. A more tightly focused exhibition on, say, Catalonian architecture might have made a more compelling story, given the region's longstanding and determined struggle to assert its cultural independence from Madrid. And the starting date for the work on view - 1998 - has no particular resonance in Spain's recent architectural history. But if the show feels undercooked, there is much to see. The final exhibition organized by Terence Riley, who steps down next month as the Modern's chief curator of architecture and design, it includes the work of 47 architectural firms, many still largely unknown outside Spain. It's heartening to encounter so many young talents, some still in their 30s. They breathe life into the show just as you begin to despair of finding something to sink your teeth into.
The endurance of Spain's grand experiment is remarkable. It started, you could argue, during the final years of Franco's rule in the early 1970s, as Spain began to awaken from the isolation of a four-decade dictatorship. It began to flower in earnest after 1986, when the country joined the European Union and money began flowing into large-scale public works projects.
Since then, Spanish architects have produced architecture of unusual depth, often with a firm connection to the land, a sense of humility and a way of conveying continuity with the past while embracing the present. As the building boom unfolds, international talents pour into the country to share in the creative foment.
"On Site: New Architecture in Spain," which opened Sunday and runs through May 1 at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, skates rather lightly over this back story. Packed with pretty images and elegant models, the exhibition lacks the scholarly depth you might have hoped for on a subject that has mesmerized architects and planners since the 1980s.
Also missing is the kind of basic information - historical background, a clear sense of a building's context, the architects' ages and nationalities - that would make the show accessible to a broad audience.
What's more, the show's nationalist subject is a tricky one. A more tightly focused exhibition on, say, Catalonian architecture might have made a more compelling story, given the region's longstanding and determined struggle to assert its cultural independence from Madrid.
And the starting date for the work on view - 1998 - has no particular resonance in Spain's recent architectural history.
But if the show feels undercooked, there is much to see. The final exhibition organized by Terence Riley, who steps down next month as the Modern's chief curator of architecture and design, it includes the work of 47 architectural firms, many still largely unknown outside Spain. It's heartening to encounter so many young talents, some still in their 30s. They breathe life into the show just as you begin to despair of finding something to sink your teeth into.
The BBC's Matt Prodger examines the shaky union of Serbia and Montenegro and the gulf that has opened up between them. There can be few places more beautiful than Lake Skadar on a sunny winter's day. From the lakeside in Montenegro you can look across an expanse of blue water to the snow-capped mountains of Albania. It is scenery like this which is rapidly making Montenegro a hit among tourists and Western bargain-hunters snapping up second homes. Milo Dobric, a Montenegrin born and bred, is banking on a prosperous future. He runs pleasure boat cruises on the lake, and has plans to build a resort to cater for British birdwatchers. "Tourism is definitely the future," he says. "During the summer we have many tourists here. This summer we are expecting much more." But before the tourists arrive this summer, Milo and his countrymen expect to make a big decision. Referendum For more than 80 years, this tiny republic of little more than 600,000 people has been in some sort of union with its much bigger neighbour, Serbia.
There can be few places more beautiful than Lake Skadar on a sunny winter's day.
From the lakeside in Montenegro you can look across an expanse of blue water to the snow-capped mountains of Albania.
It is scenery like this which is rapidly making Montenegro a hit among tourists and Western bargain-hunters snapping up second homes.
Milo Dobric, a Montenegrin born and bred, is banking on a prosperous future.
He runs pleasure boat cruises on the lake, and has plans to build a resort to cater for British birdwatchers.
"Tourism is definitely the future," he says. "During the summer we have many tourists here. This summer we are expecting much more."
But before the tourists arrive this summer, Milo and his countrymen expect to make a big decision.
Referendum
For more than 80 years, this tiny republic of little more than 600,000 people has been in some sort of union with its much bigger neighbour, Serbia.
On a trip to the Middle East, Germany's foreign minister said Hamas should be shunned unless it renounces violence and recognizes Israel. He made the remarks after talks on Monday with the acting Israeli prime minister. Frank-Walter Steinmeier's trip to the Middle East is clearly the most difficult mission since he became foreign minister in Germany's new grand coalition government. Following tradition, he starts political talks today with political leaders in Israel before he moves on to the Palestinian territories and later to Turkey "It's a difficult trip to a difficult region," Steinmeier said. There are several delicate issues that the foreign minister will have to maneuver, including the election results in the Palestinian territories, where the militant group Hamas won a majority. The West is still struggling with working out how to respond. Elections in Israel are approaching, although they have been overshadowed by the critical health condition of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. On Monday, after meeting with the Ehud Olmert, Israel's acting prime minister, Steinmeier said Germany backed Israel not be recognized unless it backs away from militancy and acknowledges Israel's right to exist. Hamas openly seeks Israel's destruction and has carried out scores of suicide bombings. "I want to let Israel know that it can count on our solidarity, especially after the Palestinian election," he said.
Frank-Walter Steinmeier's trip to the Middle East is clearly the most difficult mission since he became foreign minister in Germany's new grand coalition government. Following tradition, he starts political talks today with political leaders in Israel before he moves on to the Palestinian territories and later to Turkey
"It's a difficult trip to a difficult region," Steinmeier said.
There are several delicate issues that the foreign minister will have to maneuver, including the election results in the Palestinian territories, where the militant group Hamas won a majority. The West is still struggling with working out how to respond. Elections in Israel are approaching, although they have been overshadowed by the critical health condition of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
On Monday, after meeting with the Ehud Olmert, Israel's acting prime minister, Steinmeier said Germany backed Israel not be recognized unless it backs away from militancy and acknowledges Israel's right to exist. Hamas openly seeks Israel's destruction and has carried out scores of suicide bombings.
"I want to let Israel know that it can count on our solidarity, especially after the Palestinian election," he said.
I say the Israeli government should be shunned unless it renounces violence and recognizes Palestine. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
There is no longer such a thing as a gambit possible between Israel and the Palestinians. My feeling that the resolution is only found if both parties will move simultaneously - as was attempted so many times before.
But I do want to make note that Israel has a point to not sit around the table with the men who still stick to their vow to destroy them. Not a great way to start a conversation.
Hamas denounced the governments of US and Israel for "interference" and "collective punishment" after it was reported that they were discussing ways of using a halt to funding to oust it from power later this year. Both countries denied they had a deliberate plan to force elections in the hope of an early end to Hamas's majority in the newly elected Palestinian Legislative Council, which meets for the first time on Saturday.
Both countries denied they had a deliberate plan to force elections in the hope of an early end to Hamas's majority in the newly elected Palestinian Legislative Council, which meets for the first time on Saturday.
That's not setting preconditions on what grounds you want to talk, there's simply no ground for a talk. You walk away from it. Or at least, I would. So, I don't share your view it's hypocrite - in this case. There's plenty of hypocrisy in Israel.
To me you're comparing pears with apples. If we're starting to pry on the thread of acts, the whole carpet gets unraveled. Since I could counter with Hamas terrorist attacks and the whole tit-for-tat Israel policy that is so extremely self-defeating. We're talking about promises by words, or at least, I was. Your point conveys that acts speak louder than words.
Well, you've to start somewhere. If both parties at least agree by words that they shouldn't eradicate each other, there is the start of a bridge. Acts will have to follow the words. But in a conflict, it has to start with the words, not with the acts. Hamas is lacking those words - so far.
So I hope that also explains why I find your counter point unanswerable.
And yes, Hamas vows for eradicating Israel and the Israeli people. (And they have acted accordingly.)
Anyway. I wonder whether this gets read. Onto the next crisis.
Nope. Israeli colonisation of Palestine is not tit-for-tat for anything, it is land-taking pure and simple. Hamas terrorism vs Israeli wanton bombing and destruction vs. Hamas terrorism vs. Israeli etc. is tit-for-tat. Suicide bombers and AK-47's won't drive a nuclear power into the sea. Any Hamas word about eradicating Israel is only empty rhetoric, it doesn't and won't get the means for that - but Israel's land-taking is not just a real intention but something carried out. And that for a lot longer than the existence of Hamas. (Indeed Hamas only got this strong because Israel in the eighties thought that a strong Hamas would weaken the then uniting force for Palestinians, the PLO.) To illustrate what you and Steinmeier demand in my view, imagine:
Your in-law moves in on your estate. Then he takes over three-quarters of it and brings his aunt and son. Then he builds a fence, but continually relocates it so that the one quarter left to you is further reduced, he drives his car across your lawn, tears down the tent you camp in, his son makes noises about throwing you out, and he ocassionally peppers your ass with a shotgun.
Now, to resolve this situation, is the first prerequisite really that you stop throwing stones across your in-law's fence and stop yelling that you want an eviction order on him?
How so, beyond the rhetoric from Israel and neocon-inspired press? You may want to read this and this. The second is one example how Hamas is often misrepresented in the Western press (which doesn't mean that the original message is something I'd approve of). From the former:
The real stumbling block, of course, lies in the Hamas charter with its promise to eradicate the Israeli state, which the leadership probably cannot abandon. Yet, even Sheikh Abdessalam Yacine, shortly before his death at Israel's hands, had hinted that Hamas could live with and accept political realities so that - in practice - accommodation could be possible. And the yearlong ceasefire suggests that violence is not the only path that Hamas will follow.
Indeed the assassination of Sheikh Yassin (one of the Israeli extrajudicial killings called 'targeted assassination' that wasn't even a retaliation for a prior attack), just after he made those noises, was a clear message from Sharon's government that they don't want peace. And Hamas's unilateral ceasefire is another indication that Hamas is pragmatist enough.
Finally, I recommend that you read this article in full. It was written by a CIA analyst on Hamas. Quote from the conclusion:
In the end the Israeli occupation remains the central problem, from which all other problems--despair, rage, and terrorism--flow. We must start by treating the core of the problem and not its symptoms. If the trajectory of other democratically-based Islamist parties is any indicator, there are reasonable hopes that Hamas, given the chance, will continue its evolution towards hard-headed pragmatism, even while not yielding its bargaining cards for free in advance.
