Politiken, by the way, reports today that Flemming Rose of JP and a certain Imam Abu Laban debated the issue on BBC's Hard talk for the first time. There has been a monumental failure of dialogue within Denmark if it takes four months and anti-EU turmoil in the middle east for the protagonists to meet in the BBC.
Wikipedia quotes the test that accompanied the 12 drawings on JP:
The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always equally attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is less important in this context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him.
28 October - The police are notified by a number of muslim organisations, claiming that the intention of the publication of the cartoons has been to "mock and deride" the muslim faith, something the Danish penal code prohibits (§ 140).
Despite informing Danish media that he would try to stop the boycotts, the leader of the organisation [Islamisk Trossamsfund], Imam Ahmad Abu Laban, went on to state during an interview with Al Jazeera that "If the Muslim countries decide to boycott and if the Muslim citizens feel it's their duty to defend the prophet, then it is something we can be happy about".[51]. In a press release dated February 2, 2006, Abu Laban said that during the interview he was referring to Muslim respect for Muhammed, not the boycotts. [52]. Ahmad Abu Laban has previously been declared officially unwelcome in several Arab states.
Well now that's interesting. Wikipedia says he's PNG in UAE and Egypt "because of his Islamist views."
That is truly shocking.
Also, thanks for pointing out the timeline. It's certainly important to note that the Danish penal code forbids "mocking and deriding" a religious faith, and that some Muslim groups tried to pursue the matter through legal avenues before turning to protests. I have not seen either of those facts reported in any of the news coverage on this.
does this seem merely coincidental? just sloppy journalism? or selective reporting? The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
