I have yet to hear anyone say:
"would you please consider taking these cartoons down, I find them offensive, and so do many other people, and here is why? And would you kindly give me an opportunity to write in your newspaper why I think this was only a stunt, and a tasteless one at that, and all you are doing is alienating muslims around the world."
That might actually have shamed the paper - first to print the other point of view, and maybe, after, to acknowledge that it was not such a smart thing to publish these cartoons. Their readers would have learnt something, and seen the muslims in a pretty god light.
No, it was immediately "this is a scandal". Boycott. Threats. Violence. Political blackmail. They did not see any need to explain or to justify their actions. Backing down to such behavior pisses off more people, and the whole thing snowballs. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
But we should maybe ask BobFunk about what exactly happened 3-4 months ago. We have this:
The cartoons appear in print September 30 2006. They are immediately met with outrage from Muslims in Denmark and even gets noticed outside Denmark. On the 19th of October ambassadors from 11 Muslim countries requests a meeting with the Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, hoping to get an official condemnation of the newspapers publication of the drawings. Rather than meeting with the ambassadors to explain the principles of a free press and free speech, the prime minister refuses to meet with the ambassadors at all. Throughout November and December a delegation of Muslims from Denmark travels all around the Middle East, to raise protests against Denmark and Jyllandsposten.
On the 19th of October ambassadors from 11 Muslim countries requests a meeting with the Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, hoping to get an official condemnation of the newspapers publication of the drawings. Rather than meeting with the ambassadors to explain the principles of a free press and free speech, the prime minister refuses to meet with the ambassadors at all.
Throughout November and December a delegation of Muslims from Denmark travels all around the Middle East, to raise protests against Denmark and Jyllandsposten.
Tolerance: 1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
TOLÉRANCE, subst. fém. A. [À propos de pers.] 1. Fait de tolérer quelque chose, d'admettre avec une certaine passivité, avec condescendance parfois, ce que l'on aurait le pouvoir d'interdire, le droit d'empêcher. [...] 2. a) État d'esprit de quelqu'un ouvert à autrui et admettant des manières de penser et d'agir différentes des siennes. Synon. libéralisme. [...] b) [À propos des opinions philos., pol., relig., des engagements soc., etc. d'une pers.] Respect de la liberté d'autrui en matière d'opinions et de croyances. [...]
TOLÉRANCE, name, female. A. [About persons.] 1. Action of tolerating something, of accepting with some degree of passivity, or even condescendence, what one would have the power to prohibit, or the right to preclude. [...] 2. a) State of mind of someone open to others and amenable to other ways of thinking and doing than one's own. [...] b) [About philosophical, political, religious opinions and social stances of a person ] Respect of the freedom of others in the matter of opinions and beliefs. [...]
tolerance 2. The action of allowing; licence, permission granted by an authority. 3. The action or practice of tolerating; toleration; the disposition to be patient with or indulgent to the opinions or practices of others; freedom from bigotry or undue severity in judging the conduct of others; forbearance; catholicity of spirit.
All I have to say is that if Jyllands-posten ended up issuing their apology (not a retractation, though) within the last week, they might have issued the same apology back in October. The fact is that it took an international boycott to get Danish agribusiness to put political pressure on JP and the PM, and then they apologized. Fredom of speech? I don't think so. It's all about power.
I acknowledge that our personal attitudes to power are very different, so let's agree to disagree on this one as well. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
According to the biggest newspaper in Norway, Aftenposten (in English), The umbrella organization for Islamic groups in Norway, The Islamic Council, has agreed to help the Norwegian government calm down a diplomatic crisis over offensive cartoons by contacting Muslim leaders and scholars and Arab media. In Denmark it has been a split between the militants and the moderates over this issue to. As someone said in a thread here once, this is not a clash of civilisations at all, but rather a clash of extremist views. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1890164,00.html
The leader of Germany's Turkish community on criticized Islamic extremists who have urged retaliation against Europeans after newspapers published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.
This ties in with my little exchage with Jerome on who if anyone speaks for the nation or homeland? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
