Display:
But what do the ambassadors have to do in this? Did any muslim write to the paper only to be rebuffed? That would be more relevant information.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 10:44:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, Rasmussen refused to meet them over the issue even to explain what you are saying now. That was a diplomatic blunder on his part and may go a long way towards explaining what's going on now.

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.

Obviously whoever decided they needed to send a delegation of Danish muslims to denounce Denmark to their muslim brethren did not think they were getting anywhere in Denmark. The question you are raising is did they try hard enough? and I can't answer that. BobFunk's diary says nothing about the details of the "immediate outrage" in early October.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 10:54:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then an other question.

Why should they expect to be listened to ?
by Francois in Paris on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 07:23:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's called diplomacy.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 07:55:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
OK, Mr Smartpants, "Diplomacy" if you wish, or, within a same contry, you would say "Public Relations".

But no, I'm serious. I tolerate religions but I don't feel compelled to express any form of respect for them.

So, why should I listen to those imams?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS: By the way, I believe the Frenchies (aka Jerome) are hitting a serious translation issue. Tolerance does not the same thing in English and in French.

In English, tolerance implies respect. For instance, in the American Heritage Dictionary, the first entry is ...
Tolerance:

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
Go to respect, just in case, and you will find deference, etc.

In French, well, it's a bit, err, different. From the TLF:
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.
[...]

My translation (and inevitable ambiguities):
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.
[...]

So, as the readers won't fail to notice, the French meaning of tolerance has a much, much harder edge than its American counterpart. Tolerance is a right and a given. But, respect, well ... that one, you have to earn it the hard way.
by Francois in Paris on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 12:24:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW, I'm still looking for an English word to carry the French meaning of tolerance.

Allowance?
Toleration?

Any suggestion is welcome (and no, Frenchitude won't cut it).
by Francois in Paris on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 12:28:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's try the Oxford English Dictionary:
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.
The first meaning is basically endurance (the OED does not sort its meanings by how common they are by by chronological criteria, apparently). I think the Oxford meaning is closer to the French than the American meaning.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 05:42:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, see. Transatlantic rift again. Interesting.
by Francois in Paris on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 02:54:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree that my "it's called diplomacy" was a crossover from our discussion on a separate subthread involving the PM and the ambassadors...

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 05:48:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series