Agora

This just in, stay tuned as the story develops. I think we’ll be seeing people die in the coming days. You know, from "reactions"….

This will be brought in the French weekly Charlie Hebdo tomorrow, Wednesday. Charlie Hebdo has urged other papers to print it, as a show of solidarity. (Via: Jyllands-Posten)

Update: Follow the reactions in the blogosphere at the bottom of this post.

Update: Mainstream media coming onboard. Human Events just posted a story. Frontpage Magazine is now here too. More coming aboard? BBC decided to cover the story.

Update: Translations available: Spanish Dutch German French Danish Italian

Update: Also read this article in the Toronto Star from yesterday: "Don’t be silenced by extremists". I detect a trend.

MANIFESTO:

Together facing the new totalitarianism

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man’s domination of woman, the Islamists’ domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

12 signatures

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq

Presentations:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, from somilian origin, is member of Dutch parliement, member of the liberal party VVD. Writter of the film Submission which caused the assasination of Theo Van Gogh by an islamist in november 2004, she lives under police protection.

Chahla Chafiq
Chahla Chafiq, writer from iranian origin, exiled in France is a novelist and an essayist. She’s the author of "Le nouvel homme islamiste , la prison politique en Iran " (2002). She also wrote novels such as "Chemins et brouillard" (2005).

Caroline Fourest
Essayist, editor in chief of Prochoix (a review who defend liberties against dogmatic and integrist ideologies), author of several reference books on « laicité » and fanatism : Tirs Croisés : la laïcité à l’épreuve des intégrismes juif, chrétien et musulman (with Fiammetta Venner), Frère Tariq : discours, stratégie et méthode de Tariq Ramadan, et la Tentation obscurantiste (Grasset, 2005). She receieved the National prize of laicité in 2005.

Bernard-Henri Lévy
French philosoph, born in Algeria, engaged against all the XXth century « ism » (Fascism, antisemitism, totalitarism, terrorism), he is the author of La Barbarie à visage humain, L’Idéologie française, La Pureté dangereuse, and more recently American Vertigo.

Irshad Manji
Irshad Manji is a Fellow at Yale University and the internationally best-selling author of "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith" (en francais: "Musulmane Mais Libre"). She speaks out for free expression based on the Koran itself. Née en Ouganda, elle a fui ce pays avec sa famille musulmane d’origine indienne à l’âge de quatre ans et vit maintenant au Canada, où ses émissions et ses livres connaissent un énorme succès.

Mehdi Mozaffari
Mehdi Mozaffari, professor from iranian origin and exiled in Denmark, is the author of several articles and books on islam and islamism such as : Authority in Islam: From Muhammad to Khomeini, Fatwa: Violence and Discourtesy and Glaobalization and Civilizations.

Maryam Namazie
Writer, TV International English producer; Director of the Worker-communist Party of Iran’s International Relations; and 2005 winner of the National Secular Society’s Secularist of the Year award.

Taslima Nasreen
Taslima Nasreen is born in Bangladesh. Doctor, her positions defending women and minorities brought her in trouble with a comittee of integrist called « Destroy Taslima » and to be persecuted as « apostate »

Salman Rushdie
Salman Rushdie is the author of nine novels, including Midnight’s Children, The Satanic Verses and, most recently, Shalimar the Clown. He has received many literary awards, including the Booker Prize, the Whitbread Prize for Best Novel, Germany’s Author of the Year Award, the European Union’s Aristeion Prize, the Budapest Grand Prize for Literature, the Premio Mantova, and the Austrian State Prize for European Literature. He is a Commandeur of the Ordre des Arts et Lettres, an Honorary Professor in the Humanities at M.I.T., and the president of PEN American Center. His books have been translated into over 40 languages.

Philippe Val
Director of publication of Charlie Hebdo (Leftwing french newspaper who have republished the cartoons on the prophet Muhammad by solidarity with the danish citizens targeted by islamists).

Ibn Warraq
Ibn Warraq , author notably of Why I am Not a Muslim ; Leaving Islam : Apostates Speak Out ; and The Origins of the Koran , is at present Research Fellow at a New York Institute conducting philological and historical research into the Origins of Islam and its Holy Book.

Antoine Sfeir
Born in Lebanon, christian, Antoine Sfeir choosed french nationality to live in an universalist and « laïc » (real secular) country. He is the director of Les cahiers de l’Orient and has published several reference books on islamism such as Les réseaux d’Allah (2001) et Liberté, égalité, Islam : la République face au communautarisme (2005).

International Media Coverage:

Al Jazeera: "Writers slam Islamic ‘totalitarianism’"

Independent Online, ZA: "Writers take aim at Islamic ‘totalitarianism’"

Mail & Guardian Online, ZA: Rushdie rails against Islamic ‘totalinarianism’

Human Events: "Noted European Intellectuals Make Public Plea to Fight Islamism"

Quote: It will be interesting to watch how many in the European and American press take notice of this declaration, and how many will continue to avoid the debate in the guise of avoiding “Islamophobia.” Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for calling attention to the declaration.

Frontpage Magazine: "A Manifesto Against Totalitarianism"  (It’s story number four from the top)

Quote: And you can add my name to that list.

Middle East Times: "Salman Rushdie, other condemn Islamic ‘totalitarianism’"

BBC: "Writers issue cartoon row warning"

Quote: Almost all of those who have signed the statement have experienced difficulties with Islamic militancy first-hand, says the BBC’s Caroline Wyatt in Paris.

National Journal Blogometer: "JYLLANDS-POSTEN: Rushdie Limbaugh?"

Quote: Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper which ran the controversial Muhammad cartoons last fall, has now published "Manifesto: Together facing the new totalitarianism." Signatories include longstanding fatwa target Salman Rushdie and fellow targets Somali-born Dutch parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali, French "American Vertigo" author Bernard-Henri Levy, Canadian feminist Muslim Irshad Manji and a half-dozen others.

Townhall.com: "Muslim Dissenters Make Public Stand Against Islamism"

The Statesman: "Rushdie, others against Islamic ‘totalitarianism’"

 

Reactions from the Blogosphere:

Atlas Shrugs: "A Manifesto Slams Islamic Totalitarianism"

Pamela adds: Heads are gonna roll………..no pun intended.

My Pet Jawa: "A Manifesto Against Islamofascism"

Jawa adds: Add my name.

Vince Aut Morire: "I’ll Take Your Fatwa And Raise You A Manifesto"

Vince adds: Throw my name on there too.

The Stockholm Spectator: "Rushdie’s Manifesto to Be Printed Tomorrow"

Moynihan adds: Riots to follow, no doubt.

No Pasaran!: "File under: freedom"

Michelle Malkin: "A Manifesto Against Islamism"

Michelle adds: Show Sammenhold. Spread the word far and wide.

Johan Norberg: "Against the New Totalitarians"

Snouck Hurgronje: "Liberal Jihad"

Snouck adds: In order to win the respect of a Muslim, you stand up to him. Death or Victory!"

Queer Conservative: "We Must All Hang Together, Or Assuredly We Shall All Hang Separately"

Captain’s Quarters: "The New Totalitarian Threat"

CQ adds: Salman Rushdie knows firsthand what Islamism has done to free expression. His inclusion in this effort by Charlie Hebdo in France shows a unity that others in the media would do well to emulate.

Small Town Veteran: "Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali et al: Together facing the new totalitarianism"

SMT adds: Add my name too, Rusty. Islamism delenda est! Death before dhimmitude.

PBS Watch: "No Retreat, No Surrender"

PBS adds: These people are putting their lives on the line. They deserve our support. Pass the word, republish this on your blog. If you have influence with print or electronic media, get them to publish the manifesto and the cartoons.

A Tic In The Mind’s Eye: "On Board With This!"

Tic adds: In support and solidiarity for and with my fellow artists and writers I post this manifesto for freedom of speech printed by Læs Jyllands-Postens.

JunkYardBlog: "Militant Islam and Children"

JYB adds: This is about the only response any freedom-loving person can have to an ideology that goes out of its way to abuse and kill children and destroy everything it comes into contact with. Islamism destroys nations, faiths, families, lives, freedom itself. Read the rest. And sign me up.

The Anti-Corn Law League: "MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism"

TACLL adds: Salman Rushdie has more cojones than 10 other men put together.

Slapstick Politics: "A 21st Century Manifesto For Freedom"

House Of The Dog: "A Manifesto Against Islamism"

Little Green Footballs: "A Manifesto Against Islamic Totalitarianism"

LGF adds: And you can add my name to that list.

Tim Blair: "Resistance"

Stop The Aclu: "A Manifesto Against Islamism"

STA adds: What can one say to such a magnificently written, and clear cut message. Wake up America! We are talking about freedom here! Add my name to the list!

FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog: "Muhammad Caricature Watch: Manifesto Against ISLAMISM"

FFDB adds: Spread the Word…… Write and ask these newspapers to print and sign the Manifesto:

New York Times
Washington Post
Los Angeles Times
Oh, and don’t bet the farm on a favorable reply………

The Belmont Club: "Blowback"

Belmont adds: This represents a substantial — but not a total — departure from the strategic idea of treating Islam as a religion of peace and focusing on a narrow group of miscreants within it as the true enemy. The Manifesto shifts the definition of the enemy from a group of people to an ideology. If Jim Geraghty is right the threat to the President’s original strategic focus comes not from a single party or even from the his traditional opponents on the Left, but a kind of populist mood swing engendered by a cumulative disenchantment.

GM’s Corner: "Manifesto Against The New Totalitarianism"

GM adds: Captain Ed and Agora believe that this Manifesto deserves the widest possible circulation. I agree. For those that do not believe that Islamism or Islamofascism is the greatest threat to world peace at the present time, please read this and ponder its message.

Floyd Stuart: "Relegate them to the dustbin of history"

Floyd adds: Salmaan Rushdie and Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali are among twelve signers of a statement making a resounding denunciation of Islamism. Here’s a jarring left hook.

Tipping Points: "Manifesto Against Islamism!"

TP adds: Michelle Malkin is on it. You can add my name any time you want, guys.

Gateway Pundit: "A Manifesto Against Islamic Totalitarianism"

GP adds: Brave World Writers and Intellectuals Make a Stand Against Islamofascism […] Earlier this month, Charlie Hebdo published the Danish cartoons together with one it had commissioned for its cover showing the Prophet Muhammad muttering, "It’s hard to be loved by morons."

A Blog For All: "The Manifesto Against Islamist Totalitarianism"

ABFA adds: This is one posting that deserves very wide distribution. The twelve people who wrote and signed their names to this letter know first hand what totalitarianism and militant Islam can do in the name of their religious views. It will be interesting to see how big media outlets cover this particular story.[…]As Charles said, I sign my name to this letter as well.

The Party Line: "Together facing the new totalitarianism"

Aaron adds: You can add my name as well.

Strong As An Ox And Nearly As Smart: "Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali et al Slam Islamic Totalitarianism"

Michael adds: They can protest all they want. Damn, that’s the American way! But threats mean no respect, and violence means that they are disrepecting their own religion far more than an Infidel like I could. If there is an Allah, He has got to be wondering how His work got so screwed up, especially since nothing is supposed to happen without His OK.

The Asylum: "A Manifesto Against Radical Islam"

Syd & Vaugn adds: And once again I say: Sign us onto this manifesto.

The Stoner Pundit: "Couldn’t have said it better"

Andrés Gentry: "Together facing the new totalitarianism"

Myopic Thoughts: "Resistance To Totalitarianism"

Norton adds: The world has seem a number of ideologies that are forms of totalitarianism. Islamism is the totalitarianism that threatens us today.

Tongues of Angels: "A Manifesto Against Islamism"

LTA adds: Bravo.

Instapundit: "A Manifesto Against The New Islamic Totalitarianism"

Glenn adds: Bravo.

Blue Star Chronicles: "Manifesto Against Islam"

Beth adds: Solidarity. The 12 people who wrote and signed this document know very well the risk they take. We need to send a clear message that they don’t stand alone.

Stuck On Stupid: "Manifesto Against Islamist Totalitarianism"

SOS adds: Never Forget 9.1.1

Elder of Ziyon: "A Manifesto Against Islamic Totalitarianism"

EoZ adds: This manifesto is a proper response to the immature and absurd riots that have broken out, meant to show Muslims are not totally impotent. The West needs to understand the threat posed by political Islam and Islamism. Let us hope that other newspapers have the guts to publish and support this.

Freie Gedanken: "Manifest gegen den neuen Totalitarismus"

FG adds: Mehr gibt es dazu nicht zu sagen. Wahrscheinlich ist die Zeit reif dafür, dass es ein Grossteil der Leute begreift.

The Volokh Conspiracy: "Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bernard-Henri Lévy, and Others"

Steel Deal: "They Should Know"

SD adds: I take them at their word - so should the WORLD.

My Fleeting Thoughts: "MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism"

Maximum Advantage Discussed: "Worthless Whores"

SRL adds: Salman Rushdie would know.

Crossing the Rubicon2: "Spreading Quickly Through Political Blogs…"

CTR2 adds: Brave?  Foolhardy?  We will have to watch the scenario unfold

Protein Wisdom: "A Manifesto Against Islamic Totalitarianism"

PW adds: Yes, I’m thrilled to see others engaging in the same type of argument, which points out the structural problems within the Islamic worldview itself and recognizes the need to counter this structural deficiencies with memetics of western liberalism—namely, the promotion of “universal” individual rights as a counter to pernicious group-based collectivist politicking.

Wizbang!: "Standing up to Islamic Totalitarianism"

Wizbang adds: These 12 brave souls.

Simi Valley Sophist: "Islamism-A Global Threat & the Manifesto"

SVS adds: Many writers, scholars and commentators are on the forefront of recognizing Islamism as the totalitarian challenge of the 21st century. But, it takes a special courage to speak out against Islamism when you come from countries and cultures that are spawning Islamism.

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: "While The American Lamestream Media Are Cowering Under Their Desks…"

Misha adds: …a dozen European writers, journalists and intellectuals, Salman Rushdie among them, have decided to stand up and be counted.

Musings of the Geek with a .45: "They Almost Get It Right…"

MOTGWA45 adds: They plead. They plead to the same dark forces they decry "for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas." That’s not how it works.

Freedom’s Truth & Liberating Iraq: "A Manifesto Against ‘Islamism’"

FT adds: Sign me up as well.

Snarking Dawg: "Twelve Infidels on Twelve Infidelities"

Dawg adds: Jyllands-Posten, the courageous Danish magazine which originally published the infamous cartoons has served another volley in the form of a manifesto signed by twelve intellectuals, each of whom have had their own unique engagements with Islamism.

I Am, Therefore I Think: "Add My Name, Too"

Sum, Ergo Cogito adds: Having already published the Dirty Dozen cartoons, I now add my own assent to the statement signed by Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and ten other prominent figures who find themselves targeted by radical Islamists.

Urbangrounds: "A Manifesto Against Islam"

Urbangrounds adds: I proudly add my own name to this list in full, unwaivering support of this manifesto.

Hyperstition: "The Desert Grows …"

Hyperstition adds: Lights going out in Europe. Update: Manifesto against Islamic Totalitarianism.

The Dread Pundit Bluto: "A Manifesto Against Totalitarianism"

Bluto adds: Add The Dread Pundit Bluto to the list, with one proviso - I don’t "plead" for freedom of expression, I demand it.

Merry Musings: "Manifesto for Two, Please"

MM adds: Please, sign me up. Vinnie, my dear, you need some competition for your fatwa.

California Patriot: "Manifesto against Islamic Totalitarianism"

Patrick adds: Blogs from all over the world are republishing the document as a show of solidarity. It’s Islam Awareness Week on the Berkeley campus. Perhaps this is the perfect time to discuss this issue. Let’s prove the Daily Cal wrong: symbolic gestures can play an important part in this great debate.

JasonColeman: "A Manifesto for the new millennium…"

JC adds: As an atheist, it makes perfect sense for me to agree with this. As an American, it makes even more sense. As a product of Western Civilization, it makes even more. As one human among 6.5 billion others, even more. In fact, I can’t find a single solitary reason to disagree with any of this. So I’ll make it mine and add my name to the list. Mr. Rushdie and others, I’m proud to stand with you.

The Infidelphian Outpost: "Manifesto to the World (sign it, if you dare)"

Jauhara al-Kafirah adds: "This is important. Read the following statement. INTERNALIZE IT ALL!! Republish it on your blog, pass it around. Make everyone aware of it and goldurnit..SIGN IT!"

The Political Pit Bull: "Standing Up To Islamism"

Kim Priestap: "Manifesto Against Islamic Totalitarianism"

Kim adds: These are very brave souls who signed this manifesto.

Hennessy’s View: "Manifesto Against Islamism"

Hennessy adds: Perhaps it’s time for a fight to the finish.

Dr. Sanity: "Manifesto Against Islamism"

Sanity adds: We don’t want your Sharia/To Hell with your opression of women/To Hell with your intolerance and hatred/We will stand for our values/And never surrender to your tyranny.

The End Zone: "Manifesto: a courageous stand against the new totalitarianism"

Greg Cotharn adds: Add my name.

Bobalonius: "12 signatures"

Bobalonius adds: Current Mood: ecstatic

Liberal Catnip: "This Is What it’s Come To: A Manifesto Against Islamism"

Catnip adds: Its word are stunning, extreme and fly in the face of religious tolerance. Its target is Islam - not the extremists who have hijacked the religion - but the religion itself. It’s the equivalent of a western call for a jihad and it’s unacceptable.

Ebenezer: "A Manifesto Against Islamism"

Ebenezer adds: Read the whole thing.  It will be interesting to see if this catches on or is just a passing fancy.

Bill_Millan: "A ‘Clash of Civilizations?’"

Pekin Prattles: "A Manifesto Against Islamism!"

Pekin adds: About time somebody, somewhere, stood up and noticed this….. […] Too long have politically correct idiots manned the bulwarks of decency and common sense while we slowly slide under the thumb of ridiculous ideas from a single-sided ranting of the Islamofascists….joined all too often by near-moderate muslims!

Life Through My Eyes: "A Manifesto against Islamism"

LTME adds: A manifesto against Islamism has been created by some influential names, and is being passed around the internet and the world. I recommend you put it on your blog and promote it around the world!

Free Frank Warner: "This says it: MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism"

Dr. Melissa Clouthier: "Islamism Manifesto: Rushdie May Get Another Death Fatwa"

Melissa adds: It’s about time! I’ve been ranting and raving about Islamism and the cow-towing of Western Democracies. It must stop. Civilization depends on free people fighting the IDEOLOGICAL battle for freedom!

The Squiggler: "A Manifesto Against Islamic Totalitarianism"

Squiggler adds: To put it in the simplest of terms, tolerance of the intolerant is not tolerance. By repeating the mantra that we must be respectful of the Muslim cultural sensibilities, we are effectively denying millions of the universal rights of freedom and equality. We are, for all intents and purposes, making Muslims 2nd class beings whose culture denies them full citizen/person status.

Body Parts: "Manifesto Against Islamist Totalitarianism"

BP adds: We support it. Many conservative bloggers support it. You should support it. And you should keep a list of those who refuse to support it.

Caribpundit: "No to Islamic Totalitarianism"

CP adds: We will never surrender!

E-NOUGH!: "A manifesto against the new totalitarianism, Islamism"

Deep Keel: "The Manifesto Opposing Islamist Totalitarianism"

DK adds: The Free World has three options facing it:  1) establish forcefully with peaceful means like public expression that we will not surrender our freedom, 2) appease until we have no choice left but to fight a war of civilizations, and 3) surrender to Islamist rule.  Stand and be heard while it still can make a difference.

The Reid Report: "Bad headline avoidance 101: Bring back the Cartoon Jihad!!!"

Reid adds: What a bunch of overblown, self-important, pretentious, indulgent rubbish. The people protesting those ridiculous, offensive cartoons aren’t all Islamists, folks — they’re mainly ordinary Muslims who were freaking pissed off that Jyllands Posten published the cartoons.

Fish Taco Stand: "To Face the New Totalitarianism"

Taco adds: The new totalitarianism that the global jihadists would create must be faced with seriousness of purpose, and not only the will to oppose the jihad with warfare, but also the will to do whatever it takes to convince the rest of the world that we (the West) are right and they (Jihadists) are wrong.

Bob The Nominal Pirate: "Finally, Rushdie is heard from."

Bob adds: From the brave newspaper that brought you the Forbidden Mohammed Cartoons,* Jyllands-Posten. A manifesto signed by Salman Rushdie and other familiar names in the struggle against Jihadism. […] Watch out; fatwas will be issued, riots started, assassins dispatched. It will happen.

Jihad I Malmö: "Rushdie m fl: Islamismen globalt hot"

Grabbag: "Islamism, The New Face of Totalitarianism?"

Antibuerokratieteam.de: "Dem neuen Totalitarismus gemeinsam entgegentreten"

Aquarius: "Forfattere i frontalangreb på islamisme"

ExTrEmE_bLoG: "Klar tale.."

Polemiken: "Nu går Salman Rushdie ud og advarer verden direkte mod islam"

Polemiken: "Mere om Salman Rushdie og det manifest, som han og 11 andre kunstnere og intellektuelle har fremsat i dag."

Sneakeasy’s Joint: "Speaking up for a Century of Enlightenment"

Speakeasy adds:  Salman Rushdie, and a few other Intellectuals, have proclaimed a MANIFESTO AGAINST THE NEW ISLAMIC TOTALITARIANISM…. The piece is a powerful statement of belief, and purpose, that needs the widest audience possible, and the support of Freedom, and Democracy, Loving people everywhere….

The Other Club: "If the West can just match their courage"

TOC adds: Fatwas calling for their murder will certainly follow. This is definitely going to inflame the Islamofascist protesters, so can the Western press justify printing it? Let us see how much coverage these courageous Muslims receive for putting their lives on the line in defense of liberty.

Dansk-Svensk: "Rushdie advarer mod militant islam"

Confederate Yankee: "Some will not go Quietly"

CY adds: In a Europe seemingly paralyzed by fear, a dozen brave souls speak out in this translation in Jyllands-Posten. […] All freedoms worth having must be fought for to be cherished. Dine-and-dash pacifists who risk nothing, deserve nothing, and very often get exactly that. I will not go quietly into submission.

Infidel Bloggers’ Alliance: "Manifesto: ‘Together We Are facing the new totalitarianism’"

Filtrat.dk: "Together We Are facing the new totalitarianism"

The Missing Link: "A Manifesto for Freedom"

Commoner Sense: "Recognizing dissent"

CS adds: I’m not hopeful that this manifesto with catch on. Most likely the mainstream media will stuff it down the memory hole, preferring to devote yet more coverage to bearded troglodytes hurling stones at embassies. I’ve written before pointing out the dangerous tendency in the west to ignore dissent in the Muslim world. Reuters and other major news outlets regularly print statements such as this: "Muslims consider any images of Mohammad to be blasphemous."

Six Days: "Manifesto"

Six Days adds: "This just in from some of the biggest names in anti-dhimmitude. Lets see if the cowardly media that failed to print those cartoons will also shy away from printing this manifesto. If this courage can be found, I do not expect a generous reception from the ROP. Just as with the pictures, it falls to every blogger out there to reprint it and I am doing my humble bit."

The Astute Blogger: "The Much Bally-Hooed Manifesto Against Islamic Totalitarianism!"

TAB adds: "It’s swell that these famous Left-leaning intellectuals have taken a universalist/non-relativist stand on human rights, but the REAL issue is: What are they willing to do about it?! Are they willing to support a proactive, bold, aggressive counter-attack - including sanctions, blockades and even preemptive military strikes? Will they urge their own nations to do more to help the USA and the UK and the other coalition members assist the emerging Iraqi democracy?"

James D Hudnall: "Manifesto Against Islamists"

JDH adds: Right on. I’d add my name to this list if they’d take it.

Harry’s Place: "Writers against Islamism"

Rantburg: "MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism"

Rantburg adds: You can add my name to the list.

Sock Puppet of Doom: "Together facing the new totalitarianism"

SPOD adds: Count me in. Jyllands-Posten is running this. Add my name to the list. When Theo van Gogh was murdered I knew I had to speak up and did then. I will also stand with these people now. Below I have copied the Manifesto. Count me in.

History News Network: "Fighting Back with Constitution and Manifesto"

Judith adds: Now, that is what I call a constructive  idea. Read also the new Manifesto against the new Islamist totalitarianism.

Mensa Barbie: "Totalitarian Global Threat"

Barbie adds: re- Manifesto: I’ve just returned from my trip. I can’t believe how much respect I have for these 12 (below) …I’ll proudly stand beside them. ~MB

Tundra Tabloids…….: "An Anti-Islamism Manifesto…….."

TT adds: Eleven brave intellectuals speak out against the new totalitarian threat……Islamism. KGS

Out on a limb at Mike Lief.com: "Confronting Islamism"

Mike adds: Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that published the cartoons that drove Muslims to murder, has now published a manifesto from prominent writers and intellectuals, avoiding the pusillanimous multi-culti sensitivity of papers like the New York Times, and actually dared to name the enemy at the gates. […] A clarion call to arms. Spread the word.

Jeff Weintraub: "Manifesto: Facing the new totalitarianism"

Republikanisme.nl: "Sammenhold: ‘Together facing the new totalitarianism’"

Villagers With Torches: "We’re your Huckleberries -MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism"

VWT adds: As tiny as we are… SIGN US UP

All Things Beautiful: "The Manifesto Against The New Islamic Totalitarianism"

ATB adds: Freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it or it will die from totalitarian attacks. It is also much needed in the Islamic world. By defending our values, we are teaching the Islamic world a valuable lesson, we are helping them by submitting their cherished traditions to Enlightenment values.

Eurabian News: "Intelectuales independientes firman un manifiesto contra el islamofascismo"

The Brussels Journal: "Anti-Jihad Manifesto Misses the Point"

Paul adds: In our opinion, man is a religious being. Secularism destroyed the Christian roots of Europe and, in doing so, created the religious vacuum that is now being filled by Islam.

Rantings of a Sandmonkey: "Anti-Islamist Manifesto"

Sandmonkey adds: It’s a courageous step, but one that is long overdue, given that most of those people had Fatwas on their heads for quite a while now. This was bound to happen sooner or later, and it’s a necessary evil so to speak, because it will draw the line and force people to be in one camp or the other, instead of the usual indifference exhibited by the silent muslim majority. It’s very definitive in stating you are either with the extreemists with their fatwas and culture of death, or you are against it. […] Ok, where do I sign up?

Silent Running: "Death before dhimmitude"

SR adds: I call heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live.

Dennis Hollingsworth: "Manifesto"

The Canadian Sentinel: "Manifesto Against Islam: The Consequence of Fascism, Terrorism and Warmongering"

Sentinel adds: It’s about time. Free human beings everywhere must now proceed to boldly, loudly and openly repeat these declarations. I unequivocally endorse the Manifesto! I invite all who belive in freedom, democracy, the rule of law and the equality of all human beings to join in this historically critical endorsement of the Manifesto!

Scipio the Metalcon: "MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism"

Scipio adds: Justice can also exist in the market forces of the media. I urge all to cancel their subscriptions and stop buying the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, LA Times, Time magazine, and Newsweek magazine. The people that own and run these newspapers and periodicals need to be punished for their hypocritical cowardice in not showing the cartoons and the fakes, and do this by driving them out of business. They no longer take their role of being members of the press seriously.

Reason: Hit’n'Run: "Manifesto: Facing the new totalitarianism"

Marvin’s Word: "A Manifesto Against Islamism"

Marvin adds: Show Sammenhold! Spread the word far and wide.

Nihil Obstat: "Plantant cara al nou totalitarisme"

The C-Square: "Manifesto Slam Against Islamic Totalitarianism"

NormBlog: "I am a secular human being"

Secundum Christum: "The left enters the war games"

SC adds: The entry will redefine terms, since the term "War on Terror" was meant to explain the right’s action to the left in politically correct terms were at least argueable. The issue appears to have demolished by the Cartoon jihad leaving the left to identify an ideological enemy.

Super Flumina: "Manifesto contra o novo totalitarismo"

Jihad Watch: "Writers protest the new totalitarianism"

JW adds: Although I don’t agree with every detail of this statement, my hat is off to them.

Jugoblog: "Together, facing the new totalitarianism"

Daimnation!: "Add my name"

Mick Hartley: "The Universality of Freedom of Expression"

Cryptic Subterranean: "Declaration"

CS adds: Add me to that list too.

I Lampoon: "Manifesto against Islamic Totalitarianism"

The Last Amazon: "The Manifesto"

Amazon adds: Add me to the list not only because we can but we must.

Itai: "Manifesto"

Toman Bay: "This Is Gonna Be BIG!"

Toman adds: Is it permissible to issue another fatwa against Rushdie? I read somewhere that two death fatwas can invalidate each other!

Dancingguy: "A rejection of totalitarianism"

Maryam Namazie: "Manifesto: Together facing the new totalitarianism"

Islamophobic: "Manifesto: ‘Together We Are Facing the new totalitarianism’"

Familienyt: "Salman Rushdie og venner"

Agam’s Gecko: "Anti-Totalitarian Manifesto"

Agam adds: And a reminder to Muslims who may be reading, and for whom "secularism" is taught to be a dirty word: "My religion for me, your religion for you," is the essence of secularism. No compulsion in religion, and it’s all right there in the Qur’an.

bRight & Early: "Speaking Out, Standing Up, Hanging Together"

B&E adds: We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

Dumb Looks Still Free: "The Manifesto Against Islamic Totalitarianism"

AJ adds: I sign up to the Manifesto Against Islamic Totalitarianism and for the Rights of Man so that individuals can pursue life, liberty and happiness in the security that others respect those rights.

Das politisch inkorrekte Weblog in Deutschland: "Aufruf gegen islamischen Totalitarismus" (HAS GERMAN TRANSLATION)

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum: "Together, facing the new totalitarianism"

Yourish.com: "Against Islamic totalitarianism"

Meryl adds: Count me in.

eXtrême-centre: "Un appel pour la liberté" (HAS FRENCH TRANSLATION)

The Editors Weblog: "Jyllands Posten reprints manifesto fighting "the new totalitarianism"

QandO: "Manifesto against ‘Islamism’"

QandO adds: Key points: It’s time to call it what it is and quit dancing around the problem. Islamism is a totalitarian ideology to be resisted by all freedom loving people. Islamism does not equal Islam, but is, instead, a totalitarian movement which improperly uses Islam as a basis of its legitimacy (something which must be rejected). Islamism is a reactionary ideology bent on world domination. The end-state would be a totalitarian theocratic regime. And most important, a rejection of a fairly pernicious western disease called ‘moral relativism’, which equates all cultures and ideologices as morally neutral.

Sisu: "An unholy comparison"

Sisu adds: We agree and have posted before about the good works of several of the signers — including two dauntless woman word warriors, former Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali and current Muslim Irshad Manji — but are persuaded by Belien’s argument that the anti-jihad manifesto misses an important point

Classical Values: "I can’t relate to tyranny, because it isn’t a relative thing"

CV adds: Those who believe in identity politics would do well to remember that feminism once condemned Islamist oppression of women in no uncertain terms. No more. Feminism has been forced into submission. A former feminist told me that she expects that gay rights will be next. (Actually, it’s already happening. More here; related story here.) I guess multiculturalist relativism means hanging together separately.

GOP Bloggers: "Moderate Muslims Making a Stand"

GOPB adds: These people need our support and that of the West, which should stop appeasing and excusing the radicals.

Secular Blasphemy: "MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism"

SB adds: I’d sign it, too.

Newsbeat1: "A manifesto against the new totalitarianism…….."

Tatterhead: "Manifesto"

Capt. Craig adds: At last! The outspoken have called a spade exactly what it is. Enough of the PC olagenous and saponatious doublespeak. The reign of terror that dare not be named has now been screamed from the minarets of freedom and identified for what it is. Let us see how the so called bastions of freedom in the form of the MSM will handle it. I will do my part.

Pub Philosopher: "Rushdie warns against a ‘new totalitarian threat’"

PP adds: It is great to see a British writer among the signatories,  after the disgraceful cringing of this country’s media and elected representatives in recent weeks.

Ocean Guy: "Spreading the Word"

Thoughts By Seawitch: "A Stand"

Seawitch adds: I add my name to this manifesto. Ayaan Ali and Salmon Rushdie are two well known names who have received death threats and had fatwas issued against them because of words they have written or spoken.

Relapsed Catholic: "Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bernard-Henri Levy, and Others"

RC adds: Manifestos are such a bad idea. They normally signal a movement in decline before it’s begun, or one too esoteric to gain any popular traction. I’m also a bit suspicious of repeated appeals to "secularism", of the presence of so many "apostates" and, in one instance, someone from Iran’s "Workers-Communist Party". Maybe "suspicious" is the wrong word but I’m still half asleep. Anyway, this is still a stirring call to "arms", and we need all the help we can get.

Sister Toldjah: "Manifesto against Islamic totalitarianism"

Toldjah adds: Their courage is to be admired and saluted. My hat is off to them.

Dissecting Leftism: "Politics, Happiness and Genes"

Jon Jay adds: I guess the media will try to ignore this but a manifesto against Islamofascism has just been signed by some notable campaigners — Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bernard-Henri Levy etc.

Conservative Culture: "Anti-Jihad Manifesto - Flaws?"

CC adds: Certainly it is a bold document and elements with which I would agree on. However, I appreciate Paul Belien’s (Brussels Journal) approach to the document and what he sees as flaws in the manifesto. Whether you agree or not, bear with the discussion.

Joel Rosenberg: "MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism"

Jeff the Baptist: "Islamist Totalitarianism"

Jeff adds: I pray that speech will be all that is necessary. But in my heart I fear that stronger and dirtier means may be necessary.

Deborah Gyapong: "This is the manifesto I can sign onto"

Deborah adds: Many of my favorite bloggers, like Gateway Pundit and Dr. Sanity support this Manifesto against Islamofascism. But another, Relapsed Catholic, shares my reservations. And so does Reliapundit, who comments on Dr. Sanity’s site. If I’m going to stand shoulder to shoulder with Europeans, this is the manifesto I have signed onto: […]

Holy Prick Faggot: "Manifesto Against Islamism"

HPR adds: Perhaps we should be encouraging our local papers to print this manifesto and even call on local college professors to sign on.

Lobal Warming: "Facing Neo-Totalitarianism …"

LaurenceJarvikOnline: "Manifesto: Islamism’s Totalitarian Global Threat"

Laurence adds: How come I didn’t see this manifesto in today’s Washington Post? Censorship or self-censorship?

The Retread Ranger Station: "Facing The New Totalitarianism"

Ranger Bob adds: The good guys in the global village get together: from  Jyllands-Posten in Copenhagen to the shores of Gitchee Gummee.

D.C. Thornton: "Taking A Stand Against Islamism"

D.C. adds: The above signatories have seen and experienced the abhorrent effects of Islamism around the world. Their brave stand sends a message to Islamic extremists that enough is enough. I proudly stand in sammenhold with them.

Maritime Liberal: "Why I Support the ‘Manifesto’"

ML adds: Contrary to what many argue, it is not racist or anti-Islamic. The manifesto it self (attached below) attacks Islamism, not Islam. This is the first weakness of this document: it fails to specifically define Islamism this leaving it up to some interpretation. […] This is a well written document and I fully support it.

And Rightly So: "Manifesto"

NoolaBeulah: "Facing the new totalitarianism"

NB adds: Not much to disagree with here. I do wonder about the line "we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people". If they mean that we must do this in Western countries, that is surely true - it is, in the end, the sine qua non of the defense of our own liberties. But what does it imply for the oppressed of countries whose very regimes are the oppressors? How aggressive must our ‘assurance’ be?

Bloggledygook: "A Manifesto Against Islamism"

BDG adds: Bravo. We shoud all add our names along with these brave defenders of freedom and egalitarianism. Note that his is not a statement against Islam or Muslims, but against the forces that are ammassing against expression and the right of people worldwide to make up their own minds.

Red Hot Cuppa Politics: "Jyllands-Posten Anti-Jihadi Manifesto"

Virtually Shocking: "Anti-Islamist Manifesto"

Middle Earth Journal: "Racheting Up the Holy War"

MEJ adds: If you don’t think that the Right wingnutterati is itching for an open declaration of holy war between the West and Islam, check out Michelle Malkin’s gleeful celebration of "A Manifesto Against Islamism." This short document by a dozen so-called "intellectuals" takes the rhetoric out of the closet and decides to openly declare that the problem isn’t with a number of radical, violent extremists, but with the entire concept of their religion and society.

Spirit of Entebbe: "Together facing the new Totalitarianism"

SoE adds: SoE supports this manifesto, published in today’s edition of Jyllands-Posten (although we do not agree with every single sentence).

Drinking From Home: "Manifesto against totalitarianism"

DFR adds: Damn right. Appeasers, take your "I support freedom of expression BUT…" and shove it.

Tman In Tennessee: "Via Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom: A Manifesto Against Islamic Totalitarianism"

Tman adds: Because you can’t have one without the other…..sign me up for the firing line if the folks on the following list go down….

Bibelen: "Manifesto: Together facing the new totalitarianism"

The Daily Brief: "A Manifesto Against Religious Totalitarianism"

TDB adds: Sign me up. This war truly is creating strange allies. If you had told me last year that Michelle Malkin was promoting a “manifesto” calling for “secular values for all” I would have asked you what you were smoking.

Moonbat Society: "Here here!"

Pushmedia1: "All right then, a manifesto"

Hillbilly White Trash: "Manifesto Against Islamism"

Anna Lyttiger: "Rushdie: Islamismen er en global trussel"

A Newer World: "MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism"

Mr Eugenides: "The Jyllands-Posten cartoons: A manifesto against Islamism"

E-Rooster Blog: "MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism"

SoDamnCool.Com: "Manifesto Against Islamic Totalitarianism"

SDCC adds: Anyone brave enough to be in the shoes of one of those 12 signatories please stand up.

Exit Zero: "A manifesto published by Jyllands Posten"

EZ adds: I’m in too..

Echo-Actu: "Un manifeste contre le "totalitarisme" religieux"

Pia Causa: "MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism"

La Benevolencia del Cervecero: "Manifiesto contra el totalitarismo islámico" (HAS SPANISH TRANSLATION)

Dodgeblogium: "We agree with this Manifesto"

Correspondent in Parijs: "Ayaan Hirsi Ali ondertekent manifest in Charlie Hebdo" (HAS DUTCH TRANSLATION)

The Rule of Reason: "A weak-kneed manifesto against Islam"

ROR adds: This manifesto reads a lot like a liberal attempting to talk tough.

Nadz Online: "About Time, Too"

Nadz adds: This is a great step, but I’m surprised it hasn’t happened sooner. These people are all brave and honest thinkers, but also mostly ones who already have fatwas on them - I just wish that more leaders and prominent thinkers would add their names to the list and make a stand against all forms of tyranny.

Paul From Minneapolis: "“Death before dhimmitude.”"

Paul adds: That’s expressed in a comment below this post, one of hundreds covering the new intellectuals’ Manifesto against Islamism. They’re mostly Muslim intellectuals, or at least semi-Muslim, so that’s good. The Manifesto’s not long yet it’s intellectually complex: there are turns of phrase that could point back at the US, for instance. But essentially, it’s all about declaring where the great enemy of the morally serious is found these days.

Hmmh…: "Answer to Mr. Paul Belien"

Hmmh adds: But, frankly, as far as I can tell, the more religious a society appears - the more violent it is. Maybe this can be proven scientifically? I have no doubt that the creation of secular law has been an essential development in our civilization.

Middle Earth Journal: "The Manifesto Against The New Islamic Christian Totalitarianism"

MEJ adds: I am not a religious person and consider all of the Abramhamic religions to be dangerous nonsense, Islamic, Christian and Jewish. The threat to me here in the United States is not Islam but the wingnuts on the Religious Right. The threat to me here in the United States is not Islamic Mullahs in charge of Iran but five Catholic Mullahs having control of the Supreme court of the United States. Religion, all religion, is by it’s very nature totalitarian when it has political power. That is why the founding fathers, most of whom were Not Christian, insisted upon separation of church and state. They had come to this country to escape the Christian Totalitarianism of Europe. So it’s not Islam that threatens me it’s the equally totalitarian fundamentalist Christians. Keep in mind the source of that totalitarianism is the same in both cases, Abrahamic Law.

Davids Medienkritik: "Together Facing the New Totalitarianism"

David adds: Sign us on!

Daniel in Brookline: "A Muslim Manifesto Against Islamist Extremism"

Daniel adds: Bravo! This sort of thing has been needed for a long time. Let’s hope it gathers speed, momentum, and signatures. […] Now, what will the reaction be from the Muslim world at large?

The Glittering Eye: "The right to be stupid"

TGE adds: My, there’s quite a little flurry of posting about the anti-jihad manifesto published in a French journal and signed by a number of prominent writers, journalists, and intellectuals. It’s not a manifesto I’d sign. Put me down on the same side as The Brussels Journal.

Kipaji: "Manifesto"

Kipaji adds: I’d take slight issue with one or two parts of this, but the gist of the message is dead on. We’re bending over backwards to appease and accomodate Muslims, offering them respect and tolerance when too often they offer none in return, believing themselves to be superior and that all other cultures and societies should kowtow to them. Tolerance of intolerant cultures and people, in the name of political correctness, socialism, multiculturalism or anti-Americanism is no virture; cultural relativism is not enlightment. It’s the sign of a sick society that won’t stand up for itself and assert its *own* values or respect its own rights and freedoms; that exercises double-standards between different faiths or groups, that allows one to (literally) get away with murder while holding another to the most exacting, impossible standards.

The Belmont Club: "Nor knew the force o’ powder"

Belmont adds: The intellectual gauntlet has been flung full in the face of Islamism by an unlikely group which includes Somalian woman, Bangladeshis, exiled Iranians, Lebanese, fugitive British writers of subcontinental origin and an assortment of individuals with a vague left-wing background, none of whom would have been granted admittance to a London gentleman’s club in the 19th century. And their manifesto has been printed, not in the New York Times, Le Monde or the Times of London, but of all places, in a provincial Danish newspaper of no particular fame.

Winds of Change: "Freedom Manifesto"

WoC adds: Orthodoxy is being challenged by a few brave people in Europe — the orthodoxy of political multiculturalism and the orthodoxy of totalitarianism are being challenged. That no government in the West unreservedly supports this simple manifesto of freedom is the sign of our times. I wish these brave men and women — who face death threats for insisting on liberty — the very best success.

Common Folk using Common Sense: "This Needs To Be Read"

CFUCS adds: I, like the Blue Star Chronicles and Stop The ACLU, might have some small differences of opinion with every word of this document. Like Beth I believe that we are in the midst of a clash of civilizations, and that Islamists desire to dominate the world and will destroy the rest of us to do so. But for the most part I stand behind what is said in this document. Islamism is a global threat, akin to Fascism, Nazism, Stalinism, and Communism. The difference here is the absolute joy Islamists derive from killing innocent people - much like the Nazis against the Jews, but this time with a much wider infidel victim pool. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. That said, we must be prepared to use whatever arms are necessary, whenever they are necessary, and without guilt, in order to buy us enough time to work on our ideologies. […] But, fellow bloggers, take these words and put them on your blog. Get this word out. Make the Apologists Media be forced to take notice. And support Denmark.

Cantor: "’SAMMENHOLD’: SOLIDARIETA’ per il MANIFESTO sul JYLLANDS POSTEN" (HAS ITALIAN TRANSLATION)

The Purple Onion: "MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism"

Purple Onion adds: I also want to add my signature to this manifesto by publishing it here!

Age of Treason: "Opposing Islamic Totalitarianism"

Tanstaafl adds: A fine sentiment that I agree with, but the "ism" hairsplitting is weak. "Nazism" is redundant except as a crutch for citing "Stalinism" rather than "Marxism" or at least "socialism". You’re taking a bold public stand here, don’t be mealy mouthed about the roots of totalitarianism. Consult Hayek. The explicit rejection of "cultural relativism" (tee hee another "ism") is sure to drive some of the misguided traitors in our midst even deeper into the arms of their Islamofacist comrades. It’s long past time to pick sides. You can recognize that cultural relativism is dangerous piffle, or you may as well get sized for your burka now. The enemy has always been the ideology of jihad and Sharia. The rest of Islam is perfectly tolerable. Unfortunately Islam cannot be taken ala carte. The Koran is the infallible word of Allah. His Prophet is the perfect example of a man who waged jihad and imposed Sharia. Reject jihad and you are not a Muslim. Civilized people can fantasize all they want about reforming Islam. The best we can do is stand by our values (like freedom of expression) and help as many people stop drinking the Islamist kool-aid as possible. That will be difficult enough because Muslims are serious, deadly serious, about apostasy.

The Left End of the Dial: "So now we’re presented with a manifesto against ‘Islamism’"

James adds: "You can read it in all its glory at Jyllands Posten, under the title of MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism. The big name among the dozen signatories is Salman Rushdie. My initial take is that there is something bass-ackwards about the assumptions made by the manifesto’s authors. I’m probably not alone. Maybe a start would be to come up with a working definition of "Islamism" - though in doing so we’re likely to find it to be a much more diverse paradigm than the manifesto’s signatories would have us believe. It would also be useful to step back and look at the critique of religion from a historical context. One might be interested to find plenty of secular "liberals" in Europe whose views of the Jews were strikingly similar to the view of Muslims promoted in the anti-Islamist manifest."

The Uncooperative Blogger: "Islamism is the New Totalitarianism"

Brian adds: You are darn right it is! This is the danger of Islam, it is designed to force their religious lifestyle on the world. It is oppressive, and has no use for freedoms. We must fight its spread with every tool at our disposal. In this country we can cut it zero slack when it tries to stifle the voices of opposition in this country. We cannot let them infuse our laws with Sharia law under any guise. We have to tolerate their existence, just like every other religion, but that’s all we have to do. Islam creates a culture, and is designed to run a Nation of people, this we must reject at all costs.

Minipundit: "The 1939 Fetish"

MP adds: Secondly, even if al-Qaeda were driven by some profound ideology, it wouldn’t pose 1% of the threat Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union did. Germany’s and Russia’s army ranks numbered in the millions, and they had a large populace backing them, as well as, in Russia’s case, nukes. They were openly aggressive, and committed numerous genocides. al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is a ragtag team of semi-competent European minorities, numbering in the mere thousands. To see an equivalency here is to be blind.

Windmills on the Hill: "Against the new totalitarianism"

WotH tilts this way: When it came to an informed discussion of the cartoons first published in Jyllands-Posten the Western media largely declined to publish or even accurately describe the cartoons. In the words of Globe & Mail publisher Edward Greenspon the cartoons were "gratuitous and unnecessarily provocative", a characterization which was transparently false to anyone who had actually taken the time to view them(some of them may be but not all of them). By characterizing all of the cartoons in such a manner the Globe & Mail and other media outlets have not only prevented an informed debate about the issue of censorship they have contributed to that censorship. For the only people being provoked in this case were those who threatened violence over the cartoons in the first place.

Gypsy Scholar: "Manifesto: Together facing the new totalitarianism"

GS adds: In my view, however, if we agree that we should curtail our free expression to avoid giving ‘offense to Islam,’ then we are rejecting one of our most important traditions and effectively submitting ourselves as dhimmis to Islamic sharia. I consider that submission a grave error. I prefer to stand with Rushdie and the eleven others. I urge others to do so as well.

The Danish site ytringsfrihed.org which leads a campaign to collect signatures in support of Freedom of Speech was hacked yesterday. The site released this statement:

Ytringsfrihed.org hacked

Some may have been surprised if they visited our site February 27 between 12.30 and 13.00.

This site was defaced and a picture of Muhammed - what the hackers named the image - was put in its stead.

It’s now the 4th time (in less than a week) that Ytringsfrihed.org has been under attack and this time the hackers succeded in placing a picture of Muhammed on the site. The picture was not hosted on our server but on a portal called sunniport.com.

We would like to stress that the signatures themselves aren’t hosted on the main site, but are located on another server. Therefore the names of those who have signed have not been compromised. Noone but we have that information.

The hackers - from Turkey - seem to think that Freedom of Speech isn’t something to cherish. Or at least, they do not agree with us. One might be tempted to think that they do not want us to express our thoughts and beliefs - but that only they have that right….

We would like to praise the hackers for finding such a beautiful ‘prayer rug’. Very beautiful calligraphy. Unfortunately we don’t understand the writing, so we would be pleased if anyone might help us translate it.

Support this initiative. Sign their petition today.

Read more about this from:

The Washington Times

Michelle Malkin’s post about her attack on February 23 - also Turk hackers.

Michelle Malkin summarizing some of the Cyber Jihadists’ attacks.

And her first post on the subject.

Update: Welcome to the Volokh Conspiracy. Boy, do you know how to spike a graph.

 

Berlingske, February 26, 2006

The World According to Fogh

By Jesper Larsen

To Anders Fogh Rasmusen the last four weeks have been the greatest challenge in foreign politics during his tenure as Prime Minister. Even though the international crisis erupting from the Muhammed cartoons has yet to pass - while the opposition is calling for an investigation of the events - the Prime Minister has already drawn his own lessons from the affair.

The Prime Minister’s index finger is pointing animatedly at the B&O TV in the corner of the office.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen is reclining in the sofa, trying to take stock of events in the Muhammed cartoons crisis, especially the questions of principle that have been left behind in this crisis between the West and the Moslem World.

The question of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. Of the global confusion, about the interplay of liberties and the position of faith in Denmark of tomorrow. The questions that are not bounded by petty rivalry and matters of protocol, or by the governemnt’s responsibility in the quite extraordinary international position Denmark has found itself in this past month.

The index finger is pointing at the TV.

"People die during violent demonstrations in Pakistan, and places rarely heard of. And with typical self-centered narcissicism, in Denmark it is interpreted as a matter of Danish immigration policy and Danish integration policy. Noone even knows about these things in the streets of Pakistan - to be frank, I think this kind of criticism is beyond the pale," says Anders Fogh Rasmussen of the domestic debate.

The Prime Minister makes a gesture of resignation. Anders Fogh Rasmussen is well-versed in the politics of one-liners, but during this crisis his sentences have been atypically long.

"What we are facing is a matter of grave principle, though not all of the reactions can be taken quite seriously. What we are facing - what is shown on TV daily is - to pick a good one, a demand from the Arab Street that I must punish Carsten Juste [ED: Editor of Jyllands-Posten] - the details vary, either decapitation or the gallows," the Prime Minister says and continues:

"The cartoonists are to be extradited and tried under Sharia. The worst possible threats have been issued against Danes and our embassies have been torched. The list goes on. That’s what we are facing daily. Do 12 cartoons justify that kind of reaction? I think that is rather doubtful. But what I have seen the Danish media, some of them at least, concentrate on lately are matters of detail - the correct translation for a line in a letter, questions of whether a meeting should have been accepted or not and the matter of whether the Committee on Foreign Affairs ought to have been informed a bit sooner - what I am saying is that those are pinpricks, if proven to be a problem, in comparison to what we are facing. Those facing us have no doubts about religious matters and other matters as well. But we are focusing on matters of whether we handle things by the protocol - matters, I should add, which aren’t about protocol at all, but about politics and principles."

Politics and principles are the things the Prime Minister keeps stressing and they are also the reason why the Prime Minister thinks that no investigation of the events are needed. He categorically denies that he or the government underestimated the dangers of the Muhammed-issue or failed in any other way.

"No, I would say not. I don’t consider myself infallible, no it’s not that, mistakes happen all the time." Says the Prime Minister "When I revisit events in my head and scrutinise the steps we’ve taken on this issue, I see no place where this administration could or should have acted differently. And regarding the matter of the proposed meeting with the ambassadors, I still think it was the right choice to not meet them."

The by now infamous meeting that was never held, was proposed last fall. The Prime Minister rejected out of hand the very notion of such a meeting, because there was nothing to discuss. The government will not interfere with the press.

What did you learn from this experience?

"We have been facing forces - I have called them uncontrollable, but apart from that they are forces we are not used to handle politically. This was very much orchestrated by religious forces. In our society, politics and religion are kept separate. In the kinds of societies we are dealing with, religion is what gives direction to all thoughts and to the societies as a whole. That has made this a task of special difficulty. The immediate lesson we have learned is that foreign politics is no longer only about government-level negotiations. We have had to try to communicate with the people of the Moslem countries because the governments of those countries no longer were in a position to exercise control. That proved to be a very demanding task, because their knowledge of how our society works is non-existant, making our explanations seem hollow. The obvious example is that the Arab Street doesn’t understand that a head of state doesn’t have the power to shut down a newspaper, because they are used to it being otherwise."

The Limits to Freedom of Speech

According to the Prime Minister, what Denmark has witnessed on the level of principles is a meeting of the Danish principles of Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech with the principles in the Moslem World regarding religion.

"I would like to stress that Freedom of Speech stands second to none for me of all our liberties. I see it as the guarantor of all our other liberties. And I see Freedom of Speech - the right to speak truth to power - as the basic locomotive of all Western societies. It’s what makes progress possible, that norms aren’t accepted on face value. That’s why it is so essential to guard it. All our liberties are answerable to the courts, of course. I too think that there are limits to what one may lawfully say. For instance, I don’t think it’s right if you have the liberty to encourage violence and terror. And apart from that, we also have a restriction on racist or blasphemous speech, and if you feel that you’ve been so spoken to, you may take your complaint to a court of law. So it is a liberty that is limited by the courts - but - here’s the point - the limits are enforced by the courts, not the government. That’s a lesson we have to be mindful of."

But isn’t the lesson also that we should be more mindful of the last part - that there are limits. Looking at the messages we have received from other countries, many stress that one shouldn’t insult other religions?

"Yes, that is true, but that is a matter of degree. We haven’t been lacking in support from partners and allies, I would like to point out. The support has been clear and unaninmous for the government’s handling of this matter and for Freedom of Speech," the Prime Minister answers.

Writers have Failed

Following months of refusals to let the government take a position on the matter of the 12 cartoons, the end of January saw Anders Fogh Rasmussen express that he personally would not have made those cartoons. This happened following the the first mass demonstrations, burnings of the Danish flag and the torching of Danish embassies. The Prime Minister recalls his statement to the letter:

"Personally my respect for the religious feelings of others is so profound that I would never depict either the prophet Muhammed or Jesus or any other religious figure in a way offensive to others. It’s very important for me to lay out what I have said and especially what I have not said. What I have said is an expression of my personal opinion, my personal preference. But I wouldn’t want my personal preference to become the law of the land. I have not said that I want to forbid the 12 cartoonists or anybody else to draw whatever they like. And I have expressly not said that I want to prevent Jyllands-Posten or any other newspaper from printing it."

But that’s not how your statements has been interpreted. They’ve been interpreted as you distancing yourself from the cartoons.

"That’s right, but what I said was only that I wouldn’t draw those cartoons, and for that I have various personal reasons. But it is very important here to underline precisely what that statement covers, because some have apparently interpreted it as me saying that I would forbid others to do so. And that is precisely not what I meant, and that distinction is very, very important. Everybody in the debate says with great gravity that we must guard Freedom of Speech and that everybody has the right to print whatever they like. "But…" they then say - and that means that they don’t really mean that. That is where they lose their grip, in my opinion."

When you mention the debate, are you referring to anyone in particular?

"I am not out on a vendetta against anyone. But there have been some statements in this debate that indicated to me that they wanted to make a law of their preferences. That’s a dangerous thing to say."

Are you referring to politicians or to a part of the media?

"I don’t want to go there, because I think that would derail the debate about the principles of this matter," says the Prime Minister. "There is something much more basic, a thing that is very common in all of Western culture. It’s what I would call our ceaseless urge not only to criticise but to criticise ourselves. That may be healthy sometimes, I don’t deny that - that is also generative of progress, that we don’t just accept the way things are. But I think that during this crisis we have seen it erupt into what I would call a double standard from certain parts of the intellectual world. Let’s compare two cases. The Rushdie-case and the case of the 12 cartoons. It is crystal clear to me that the intellectual ‘climbers of the parnassus’ have defined a double standard. We have seen a lot of people jumping on one leg and then the other, unsure of which to choose. In the Rushdie-case which was very offensive to the Moslem world, there wasn’t any doubt. Everybody was saying that of course Rushdie should be allowed to write his book, of course he should be granted protection by the West, that’s what Free Speech is all about. But in this case another standard has been seen, where we have seen writers of, and associated with, the PEN society be completely bewildered. Writers and other people living off free speech have been a disappointment. And I think I know why - it’s because they are seeing it as something it is not, in a way that has completely blurred their vision. They don’t like the Danish People’s Party, they don’t like Jyllands-Posten and they don’t like this government. Possibly in that order. Due to a relation bordering on the hateful to those three factors, they can’t bring themselves to defend Freedom of Speech today. So there’s a double standard.

When you say ‘others’, are you referring to Politiken and Berlingske Tidende?

"I don’t think it serves any purpose to speak of that," says the Prime Minister, even if the editorials of Politiken on this issue brings to Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s mind "vestiges of April 1940", where "one ought to just lie down."

"I must say that I think that what we have seen has been a total lack of principle painted with a broad brush across the board - none mentioned, none forgotten. But it is something we saw from parts of the private sector to a large part of the cultural and media world."

Jyllands-Posten has felt that other media outlets have left them high and dry, especially Politiken and Berlingske Tidende. Do you think that other media outlets ought to have been more assertive of free speech?

"Being the Prime Minister does not entail that I get to edit the newspapers of this country. But I think it is safe to say that we have seen a situation that have seperated the sheep from the goats."

Which are the sheep and which the goats?

"Speaking only for myself, I have surveyed the field and I have seen sheep and I have seen goats. That’s what I have seen. But life must go on, so that’s that. Now that I’ve said it, I think some may feel that it is directed at them, others will be able to say that it isn’t. It’s out of my hands now."

You’ve previously criticised the politicians who cooperated with the Germans during WWII in harsh terms - has this case changed your view on whether one should judge others’ actions?

"No. And I think it’s a bit far fetched that some try to make that comparison - it’s two different situations, and I don’t think that this government has in any way compromised our principles."

But some compared you to Scavenius [ED: Danish PM and FM during WWII] when you distanced yourself from the cartoons?

"I categorically reject that. I only expressed my personal preference. I wouldn’t ever think of making that preference the law of the land. That’s an absolutely crucial difference. I have not been talking about whether it was right or wrong. Jyllands-Posten has stated that they apologize for any insult they have caused. I have said that I am sorry to hear that many Moslems see the cartoons as an insult to the prophet Muhammed. And I have further added that neither the government or the people of Denmark intend to insult Moslems or people of other faiths."

The Strength of the Danish Church

With Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press come Freedom of Religion and after the cartoons issue the Prime Minister warned against letting religion be central to the public debate.

"It’s clear that with our liberties comes also the respect for other people having other religious views. All the people of Denmark are free to exercise their religion in any way they wish. With that comes also that we must show respect for the religious views of the individual. But here there is another fine distinction to be made. In Denmark we usually differentiate quite clearly between religion and politics. We don’t make laws from the precepts of religions. We’ll respect the religious persuasion of the individual - the faith that is his. But that doesn’t mean that religious laws are above the laws of the Danish parliament. It might seem rather obvious to say that, but following the debate we’ve had, it has not seemed as obvious. It’s suddenly become an important principle we need to reaffirm."

But will that entail any direct action or is it just something it’s important to know?

"I think it’s important to know - and I would like to add something about which no law can be made, something that is my opinion and which I will say repeatedly: That religion for me is a matter between the individual and his god. And that there must be equal freedom to say that one has no faith. That is why I warn against letting religion take up too much of the public debate. It ought to be self-evident, but after what we’ve been through we must accept that it is something that needs pointing out. I’m concerned that if we let religion take up too much space, we will see the polity of Denmark, which is its strength, splinter. This is where some will ask whether we oughtn’t to separate the State from the Church…."

Wouldn’t that be a good way to promote what you’re talking about?

"No, it would be the worst of scenarios. What would happen if the Danish church is separated from the state, is that it would no longer be a church of the people - it would become more and more controlled by what I will call the High Church community. The church would become exclusive and the breadth of it would diminish. I have, over the years, become more and more convinced of the strength of the organisation of our established church. And that is that no one person has the authority to speak on behalf of the church. The Danish church is controlled by the laity and the priests in common - there is no arch bishop, no synod which is empowered ot speak on behalf of the church and that’s an immense advantage, because fundamentalism is kept confined. That’s what I am warning against, fundamentalism of all stripes."

Keep the Right Perspective

And what of the interplay between - and the clash of - Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. The coexistence of these, to use a long word, what are the terms for that?

"Coexistence must be based on mutual understanding. But I have seen a tendency for it to be based on the premises of whoever can scream the loudest and is most inclined to violence. It can’t be allowed that because some organise burnings of the flag and arson against embassies and threats against people and boycots of goods then it must be their premises that are the terms of coexistence. It must not be like that. Of course, we need to consider the religious feelings of the religious communities - but religious communities must also understand the basic principles our society is built on. And among those principles is a far-reaching Freedom of both Speech and Press. That must - after all - be the premise."

Has the basic view been skewed in favor of the religious communities?

"I think that’s very clear. If it bleeds, it leads and flag burnings and the burning of effigies and arson and violent protests in general are easier to are depict than the insubstantial values of Freedom of Speech and Press. There is also a tendency, out of fear or weariness, to just feel ‘let’s move on already’ and that the response then is ‘okay, you win’ and to just give in. But that will do noone any good. Peaceful coexistence must be the goal and the means."

How is that attained?

"Well, that can only be attained by accepting that Freedom of Speech means that everything can be scrutinised and is up for debate. I will, to take an example, never accept that Sharia can’t be examined critically. It mustn’t be so that just because someone says it’s sacred, it’s not to be the object of discussion. There’s been a lot of talk about people being offended, but you’ve got to ask yourself what is most offending - a few cartoons or two boys that have been hung in Iran or women that are stoned to death or have their hands chopped off. It’s important to keep the right perspective."

What would you say?

"I know what my personal preference is. I get most offended by seeing two teenagers hanging from the gallows in Iran, and I want the freedom to say that," says the Prime Minister. "By any means available, we must ensure that no man is persecuted or discriminated against solely because of his religion. That means that we must reject anti-semitism, islamophobia, anti-christianity and ensure that all men have protection for their right to believe whatever they want. That is an essential part of the answer. And that, I think, can be done in good manners, to say that we must be allowed be allowed to question everything and be critical, while protecting all people of all faiths against discrimination and persecution. I would even say that if that was something that could be agreed on universally, it would be a beautiful thing. That would also mean that Christians were guaranteed equal opportunities in Moslem countries."

But what you’re saying, what would that mean for the 12 cartoons. Should they or should they not have been published?

"This case is way past the point of having anything to with the 12 cartoons. I haven’t heard anybody in Denmark questioning the right of the newspaper to print the cartoons. What you’re doing is asking me as Prime Minister, but that is basically a flawed line of questioning, because over such things the government holds no power, we leave that to the courts. We do have laws about speech in Denmark. Laws that go further than the laws of certain other countries in restricting Freedom of Speech."

Several people have been saying that this is also linked to the harsh immigration debate. In parts of the world the Danish People’s Party is seen as interchangeable with the government. Is it true that a problem exists here?

"I addressed that point in my New Year’s Speech, where I made crystal clear that the government condemns any action or utterance which aims to demonise groups of people due to their religion or ethnicity as a matter of course. I have repeatedly urged that while we keep an open debate about immigration, it should be proper and respectful. And looking at a map of Europe, the debate in Denmark isn’t that much different from the debate in other countries."

What price has Denmark paid for this?

"Our image has been broad-sided in the short term. But looking at the longer term, I see no hindrance to Denmark restoring its image. Denmark’s role as an extrovert nation with a strong international commitment - including the per capita second highest assistance to developing countries in the world - is after all so basic to our image that in the long run we’ll have no problems there," the Prime Minister says. "This is one of those incidents that will be part of the political history of Denmark. It’s the greatest challenge in the foreign arena Denmark has faced since we were occupied. It’s a crisis between Denmark and the Moslem World."

This is too funny. I mean, this is almost as good as when a post-reality university professor tries to make Little Red Ridinghood out to be all about sex and incest. Or when the leftist Politiken tries to conjure up a new reason for us being in Iraq (All about oil;cultural imperialism; intolerance; et cetera).

From Memri, the buttheads in Iran think that the cartoons with Tom and Jerry are about…. JEWS:

Hasan Bolkhari: There is a cartoon that children like. They like it very much, and so do adults - Tom and Jerry.

[…]

Some say that this creation by Walt Disney will be remembered forever. The Jewish Walt Disney Company gained international fame with this cartoon. It is still shown throughout the world. This cartoon maintains its status because of the cute antics of the cat and mouse – especially the mouse.

Some say that the main reason for making this very appealing cartoon was to erase a certain derogatory term that was prevalent in Europe.

[…]

If you study European history, you will see who was the main power to hoard money and wealth, in the 19th century. In most cases, it is the Jews. Perhaps that was one of the reasons which caused Hitler to begin the anti-Semitic trend, and then the extensive propaganda about the crematoria began… Some of this is true. We do not deny all of it.

Watch Schindler’s List. Every Jew was forced to wear a yellow star on his clothing. The Jews were degraded and termed "dirty mice." Tom and Jerry was made in order to change the Europeans’ perception of mice. One of terms used was "dirty mice."

I mean, when our enemies are as stupid as that why do we fear them at all? It seems to me all we have to do is send them a stack of cartoons - it will keep them occupied for years trying to think up new conspiracy theories about the JEWS. I wonder who would be the MANEATING ZIONIST JOOOOO in Little Red Ridinghood.

Hat tip: Document.no

*PHEEW*

It seems we can officially breathe a sigh of relief. The Religious Policeman reports that The Muslim Offense Level has been downgraded from condition RED - HIGH to condition YELLOW - ELEVATED. Definition of MOL YELLOW:

ELEVATED

Meaning - We are definitely cross, because people keep blaming us for 9/11, Parisian cars getting torched, Saudi women getting stoned

Non-Muslim response - Pretend that these things have nothing to do with Islam or Muslims, tell everyone how we brought algebra to 9th Century Spain

Consequence of non-compliance - We will cause even more mayhem. Did you leave your car out in the street?

As bad as that may sound, it’s a lot bether than MOL RED:

HIGH

Meaning - We are extremely offended by a particular individual or country

Non-Muslim response - That individual or country must apologize

Consequence of non-compliance - Individual; Fatwa, assassination, or both. Country; Boycott (unless you export things the Saudi Royal Family are consumers of), and Saudi newspapers write a long string of boring and repetitive articles that you will never read but will drive Saudi readers to distraction.

Go there and read the full report. Also read the report announcing the elevated MOL from January 29.

Thomas Koppel, Danish composer and musician, has passed away at the age of 61. During his too long life, Mr. Koppel was known in Denmark for his life-long support of all things foreign, except, that is, if they were American. When younger, Mr. Koppel took his band on tours of the communist world and Albania was often their destination. There they declared their solidarity with Enver Hoxha and his romantic revolution, which cost numerous human lives and untold human suffering. The people of Albania are no longer very sympathetic to Mr. Koppel though he supported them for all those years; ingrates I suppose.

Recently, he and his wife declared themselves against free speech, a move puzzling to observers since they seemed to use their right to free speech quite extensively. A quote from the late Mr. Koppel:

Neither the newspaper nor Anders Fogh have ever worried about freedom of speech before, and have done all they could to take it away. We don’t have freedom of speech in Denmark anymore, unless we’re prepared to take the risk to get treated like a "terrorist". The Danish "terror Law" is a constitution-breaking hoax, that hasn’t brought any terrorists out into the light, but has instead been used against freedom of speech (remember Greenpeace and "Foreningen oprør").

The case of Greenpeace being a case where Greenpeace as an organisation was fined 50000 DKK for breaking and entering in order to protest the manufacture of Gene Modified crops and the case of "Forening Oprør" (The Rebel Association) being a case of a website being ordered off-line because it was soliciting funds for terrorists organisations, such as FARC in Colombia and Hamas in the Palestinian areas.

This, of course, was all it took for Mr. Koppel to think that "all is fair in love and war" and to ordinary Danes it became increasingly clear that he was not on their side.

Though Mr. Koppel was often accused of oichophobia, he is quoted to have said: "I don’t have a problem with Denmark, I just don’t like Danes…."

Though he had a problem with the United States, he resided there for the last years of his life, enjoying the God-given constitutional rights of that country over the oppression of Red China, with whose politics he was infinitely more attuned. He did reside in California, though.

Rest in pieces and don’t come back, Mr. Koppel.

Piss be upon you.

In lieu of totally abandoning the one-worlders’ idea of the UN and demoting it to a forum for the has-been politicians to draw their checks from, this statement from John Bolton makes me want to embrace the man and appoint him Secretary General:

Envoy blasts U.N. ’sex and corruption’

NEW YORK — The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Saturday the world body is hobbled "by bad management, by sex and corruption" and a lack of confidence in its ability to carry out missions. John Bolton also criticized the U.N.’s budget, noting that two-thirds of members pay only 20 percent of the cost, in a speech at a symposium held by the Federalist Society, a conservative law organization. Bolton, a longtime critic of the U.N., has been leading U.S. efforts to reform it after the oil-for-food scandal and sex scandals involving U.N. peacekeepers.

Compare, please, with this statement from the current Secretary General who, while his troops are committing murder and rapine in several African nations, has discovered a sudden interest in cartoons:

In truth, the present conflicts and misunderstandings probably have more to do with proximity than with distance. The offensive caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad were first published in a European country which has recently acquired a significant Muslim population, and is not yet sure how to adjust to it. And some of the strongest reactions – perhaps especially the more violent ones – have been seen in Muslim countries where many people feel themselves the victims of excessive Western influence or interference.

The prick. Not only does the man have no sense of shame:

And I think the other thing that has hurt the organization, myself and the staff, is the distraction that has been caused by these politically-motivated campaigns against the UN and against instances of corruption by staff members blown completely out of proportion. In fact when you look at the records and the facts, up to $36 million of investigation, and the kind of scrubbing the UN was given, only one staff member was found to have, maybe have taken $150,000 out of a $64 billion programme. If there was a scandal, it was with the companies and not so much with UN individuals. There may have been instances of mismanagement, yes, maybe we didn’t manage it effectively, but not corruption. Accusations which have really hurt quite a lot.

He also has a son who has no sense of shame:

Wednesday’s report said the panel found no evidence that Kofi Annan had interceded on behalf of Cotecna and no conclusive proof that he knew of his son’s activities. But it provided fresh details suggesting that Kojo Annan, 31, may have obtained privileged information about U.N. business deals from his father’s personal assistant and from contacts in the U.N. procurement office. It also asserted that Kojo Annan abused his father’s diplomatic status to secure more than $20,000 in breaks on taxes and customs fees for a Mercedes-Benz he bought in Geneva in 1998.

I find the accused guilty of crimes against humanity and sentence him to ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. I know you US types have a problem with this sort of thing, so why not offer him an inspection tour of the facilities in Guantanamo?

Hell, if the Sudanese government were a bit less islamo-fascist, I might even sympathize with them for not wanting UN troops in their country. OK, I do sympathize with them on that count, but not for their reasons. When bureaucracy creates alienation of responsibility, who would really want soldiers controlled by bureaucrats in their country?

Hat tip: Filtrat

Michelle Malkin has covered this subject rather extensively, so here’s a few links to her stories:

UN rapes Haiti

UN rapes Bosnia

UN rapes Congo, UN prostitutes Congo, French UN official rapes Congo children

UN rapes Africa

UN rapes the UN

So, to revisit events, what happened was that Information on the Morning of Friday February 24 published an article containing among other quotes, these:

"The Danish government ought quickly to announce that Denmark does not accept denigration of the Prophet Muhammed such as the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten gives voice to. Denmark should apologize for what’s happened and make it clear that the Danish government wants nothing to do with the cartoons." So says Namik Tan, official spokesman of Abdullah Gül, foreign minister of Turkey.
[…]
"This issue is not about Freedom of Speech. This is no different than if these cartoons had anti-semitic content. If Denmark persists in insisting that this is about Freedom of Speech, it will be very difficult to proceed," Tan is quoted as saying.

The Danish government responds harshly in parliament while frantically trying to get some sort of clarification or verification of these.

Jens Rohde, spokesman for the PM:

"The Danish government can under no circumstances apologize for the actions of a private newspaper," Jens Rohde is quoted as saying to Ritzau.

"This doesn’t exactly make them more qualified to be mediators - nor does it help them qualify to be members of the EU, to be frank," Jens Rohde says of the Turkish statement.

The Turkish government backpedals big time, the spokesman quoted in Information saying he was "misquoted":

The spokesman Tan, however, negated the quote referred to him:

"I said nothing of the kind in my written statements. In fact, anyone would be sure to know that Turkey would not adopt such an attitude towards the issue at hand."

Notice the weaseling going on here. How about his oral statements? Is this man going to claim that oral sex isn’t really sex like Clinton did? That would be funny.

Later in the day, Abdullah Gül, FM of Turkey says this to a DR reporter:

He could say that: "Definitely there is a freedom press in my country. But at the same time we are not happy with these cartoons. We are not happy to see that these cartoons are insulting to others. So the freedom of press doesn’t mean that insulting to others’ identity or religion."

So this man is supposed to mediate for us? That might be fine if he was the pope and anti-Danish statements weren’t leaking from his Ministry like spunk from a freshly fucked goat (no relation, I’m sure).

On with the story, the Ambassador to Denmark of Turkey on Deadline, a Danish news program, says of the Turkish position on a Danish apology:

The Turkish government does not wish to revisit this aspect of the question. And we think that we should be looking into the future, we should be trying to find ways and means to defuse the crisis and should exert all our efforts in that direction.

[…]

We think that we… I think that my answer is clear. We think we should just look at the ways to defuse this crisis right now and move on in that direction. I think it is quite obvious.

Pressed by the host, the Ambassador says this:

No, I am saying that we have never made such a request. We did not make a request.

No you didn’t, the government would have known about such a request immediately. But a ‘high-ranking official’ of yours - in fact as high ranking as they get below the level of ministers - leaked that you think Denmark should apologize. And when you were confronted with this, you didn’t deny it. You did the weasel-dance. Evaded responsibility. Watching that ambassador evade the question may be the most lying show I have seen since the Clinton tapes.

In conclusion, since Information has yet to accept that they ‘misquoted’ Tan the Spokesman, I am going to assume that they quoted the spokesman correctly. I think there is only one possible conclusion to this; that Turkey really does consider a Danish apology to be something they owe to Moslem countries around the world; that Turkey is playing this issue low-key because they do not want to get caught like a rock between a rock and a hard place; and that a considerable group in the Turkish Foreign Ministry has no sense of what to say and what not to say. The SPOKESMAN of the Turkish Foreign Minister ought to be able to know what it is proper to say to the press.

This whole affair has been handled horribly by the Turkish Foreign Ministry. Apart from the fact that this should never have been leaked, for Abullah Gül to go on the air and give fatherly advice to Anders Fogh Rasmussen is a reversal of roles the like of which I have not seen for some time. And it only acts to spread uncertainty about the true position of Turkey - and that just after uncertainty has already been spread.

Turkey claims to be a secular democracy and yet they persecute the brave Kurds and imprison people who say that the Young Turks committed a genocide against the Armenians, when in fact they did. For us to ask them to ‘mediate’ for us would be folly in the extreme. They can mediate for us when a Turkish journalist shouldn’t worry about imprisonment with no chance of habeas corpus if they even mention the atrocities committed in the name of Turkey. Sure, the Turks are probably better than the Iraqis at upholding basic human rights, but that isn’t exactly saying a lot. We should stop treating these people like equal partners when the only place they are the equals of us is on the Soccer field. And we should send them a note asking them to please shut up.

And when Turkey applies for membership of the EU, we ought to show them off the premises in a brisk and efficient manner. These are not the kind of people we want completely open borders with. These are Slick Willies by the boatload.

I think that the fact that the Turks have so far vacillated speaks volumes of the importance of being firm with the Islamists. The Turkish Ambassador was after all one of the people who started the cartoon protests. Turkey was the only country we might expect any vacillating from, and when we stood firm, they broke. Now that we are having fits of ‘initiatives’ and such things, the Turks are yet again trying to play us.

This is a transcript of a segment by the Danish Deadline news program on DR. Link to Deadline homepage. This link will go dead after a week. To get to the segment I am transcribing, choose "fredag 24. feb. 2006"  in the drop-down menu on the right, then 22:30 in the box on the left. Then press the first link from the top to view the program and go to the timestamp indicated below.

It is indicated by DK when I translate from Danish

[02:45 into Deadline]

HOST[DK]: Turkey offers to help settle the conflict between Denmark and the Islamic World. But what is the position of Turkey on the prophet crisis? Is an apology from Anders Fogh Rasmussen needed? What is the position of the Turkish government? I have asked the recently appointed Turkish Ambassador to Denmark following a day of conflicting signals from Ankara.

VOICE[DK]: First a spokesman for the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs said to the newspaper Information today that Denmark must apologize for the insult to the prophet Muhammed by Jyllands-Posten.

TEXT ON SCREEN[DK]: Denmark should apologize for what has happened and make it clear that the Danish government distances itself from the cartoons.

VOICE[DK]: The statement in the newspaper caused the Danish government to contact Turkey in order to get a clarification.

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN[DK]: I have been informed that the Turkish government has denied making public any statement calling for the Danish government to apologize.

VOICE: Later today the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested that the Danish PM might say this:

ABDULLAH GÜL: He could say that: "Definitely there is a freedom press in my country. But at the same time we are not happy with these cartoons. We are not happy to see that these cartoons are insulting to others. So the freedom of press doesn’t mean that insulting to others’ identity or religion."

HOST: Welcome Mr. Akat. You are the Turkish ambassador to Denmark. Now there were a story in the Danish papers today that your Foreign Ministry wants an apology from the Danish government. Then there were new statements from Ankara. Now, can you explain to me: Does the Turkish government want a apology from the Danish government?

AKAT: Well, I also saw that news in the press this morning. And in the afternoon our spokesman from the Foreign Ministry made an announcement saying that he was misquoted and that we did not make such a demand.

HOST: But I am not asking you what the spokesperson said. I’m asking you: Does the Turkish government want an apology from the Danish government?

AKAT: The Turkish government does not wish to revisit this aspect of the question. And we think that we should be looking into the future, we should be trying to find ways and means to defuse the crisis and should exert all our efforts in that direction.

HOST: But you say you want to move beyond this question. That’s not really answering. Does the government of Turkey think that it would be constructive if the Danish government issued an apology?

AKAT: We think that we… I think that my answer is clear. We think we should just look at the ways to defuse this crisis right now and move on in that direction. I think it is quite obvious.

HOST: Mr. Ambassador, I think you understand that this is important to me. The question is… You don’t want tonight to say whether or not the Turkish government says that an apology would be in its place? Is that correct? You don’t want to answer that tonight?

AKAT: No, I am saying that we have never made such a request. We did not make a request.

HOST: Now, in the future, how would the Turkish government react to other governments demanding an apology from the Danish government - say, the Syrian government, the Saudi-Arabian government… How would the Turkish government comment on such a request?

AKAT: Well, I think we have made our position quite clear on this matter. We’ve had our Prime Minister, our Foreign Minister make statements. We’ve all talked many times that - yes - the caricatures have.. has offended the Moslem world. But on the other hand we have, we do not also condone the violence that has erupted in protestations against these. So, it is now in the interests of all to.. to find ways and mean to.. to defuse the crisis… and also trying to find strategies and educational approaches in the prevention of the recurrence of such incidents.

HOST: But, but, Turkey is also saying it would like to help, as you’re saying here, would like to find ways and means to go forward. One of those of course would have to be to address the governments who are asking the Danish government for a formal apology, for instance in the OIC, where, the all-Arab organization, Moslem organization, where Turkey has a seat. Now, how would you react to other governments who would still like an apology from the Danish government?

AKAT: Well, I can only talk, of course, for my own government. And I think that we, we have to dwell on, now as to how we.. what we must do, what kind of measures we must adopt for the prevention of these incidents happening again. Because it’s very important that we take the right lessons from this incident and go on from there.

HOST: And there is of course the suggestion that Turkey assumes some sort of role as a mediator. What exactly does that entail in your mind?

AKAT: Well, our Foreign Minister has been invited to a meeting of.. an inof.. an unofficial meeting of the European Union Foreign Ministers on the 11th and 2nd.. 11th and 12th of March where he will be able to discuss with his colleagues what we can do; perhaps our views on this matter. And only after that, I think, our role can be defined. First of all, there has to be a.. a.. willingness on the part of the European Union and the related parties for us to do something about this issue [HOST tries to interrupt] We have to discuss it with them and it is too early at this stage to what kind of a role we can play, but it is sure that we would like to play a constructive role if that role is given to us.

HOST: The Danish government has not been exactly jubilant about this, they haven’t really welcomed this in open arms, they’ve been rather reluctant. How do you read that?

AKAT: We have to see what happens on the meeting on the 12th and 3rd of March, because maybe the European Union countries will come to a decision all together in asking - or not asking - Turkey what to do. But I think that we.. I think that most people think that we have a constructive role to play, because we are the co-sponsor of the Alliance of Civilizations, an initiative that was last year initiated by the United Nations’ Secretary General and we co-chair it with the Spanish Prime Minister, and also there is a high-level group.. there of wise men which also a Turkish Minister of State co-chairs and there is a meeting tomorrow in Doha of this high-level group. Now, it will be.. we will be able to see what kind of… let’s say.. thinking comes out of that meeting as well. So we’ll be able to see what’s going around in that context as well.

HOST: Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much for coming.

AKAT: You’re welcome.

[10:17]

I’ve just watched an interview with the Turkish ambassador to Denmark on Danish TV. I’ll try to get a transcript up and provide some commentary. So far, main points: Information, the Danish newspaper that first printed the story has yet to say that the Turkish spokesman didn’t say what he was quoted for. Zaman quotes the spokesman as saying:

The spokesman Tan, however, negated the quote referred to him:

 

"I said nothing of the kind in my written statements. In fact, anyone would be sure to know that Turkey would not adopt such an attitude towards the issue at hand."

You’ll forgive me for not interpreting that as he didn’t say it. You’ll see, when I get the transcript online that something similar is going on with the ambassador. So what have we got? A government in Turkey that explicitly does not deny that any such thing was said and which does not punish those who say such things, even though they are spokesmen of the Turkish government. Fishy. Anyway, update to come.

Translater’s note: It’s a bit ironic that in a debate where we Danes have been accused of being Neo-nazis, the one man we can all agree on loving is… brown. It says something about the powers of observation of our enemies that they have failed to notice this pertinent little fact.

Update: This post was originally titled "A Prize Sandnigger", since that was the most direct translation I could think of from the Danish "En Præmiperker", but I understand that Sandnigger is in fact a bit more offensive in English than Perker is in Danish, so I have retitled it "A Prize Immigrant" and changed the references in the story accordingly.

Jyllands-Posten, February 19, 2006

A Prize Immigrant

By Orla Borg

Naser Khader has a vision: Islam must be reformed. His network of Democratic Moslems is going to help him make Islam make a leap of centuries in just a few years. The backing the network has received so far has been overwhelming. In just a few weeks Naser Khader has come to personify all Danish hopes of a better future with peaceful coexistence and integration. But who is he, what makes him tick, and what does he want?

It meant a lot for Tattoo-Liz in Fiolstræde in Copenhagen to make the tattoo perfect that Wednesday in August of last year.

She had spent hours finding the perfect arabic fonts on the library and she intended to use the finest calligraphy could offer.

Now the word was there, shiny and clear on the biceps and the customer was overjoyed.

Because now his body had on it the word that was also engraved on his soul: DEMOCRACY.

Some of his colleagues on Christiansborg were slightly amused when they heard. Wasn’t it a bit emotional to have that word tattooed to his biceps?

He didn’t care. They were lucky, they were born with it - democracy.

He wasn’t.

He was born in Syria.

Naser Khader still clearly remembers his father instructing the children not to repeat the words that were spoken at home.

Everybody knew that some of the 25 pupils in his class had parents working for one of that country’s seven security services, all directly controlled by the dictatorial president, Hafez Assad.

So even if his father called the President a "fool" and worse at home, he knew that it was never to be spoken elsewhere. Because there was no democracy and no freedom of speech.

Naser, the oldest of five siblings, proved himself a gifted scholar. He did well in school and impressed people in the mosque.

The boy often went to the mosque with his grandfather, who was the second-most important man in the mosque outside Damascus, after the Imam.

It impressed the men at the mosque that Naser rapidly learned whole sections of the Quran by heart. He attended the Friday prayers, went to the Quran-school, prayed five times a day and fasted all through the month of Ramadan.

The Great Upheaval

Naser thrived with Islam. He was therefore also overwhelmed by sorrow when he was told at only 11 years of age the family would uproot and be transplanted to a strange country in Europe.

The father, who was a Palestinian with roots in Nablus in the West Bank, felt watched by the Syrian authorities and went to Denmark where the family was granted asylum.

Suddenly the 11 year old Naser found himself living in Istedgade in the Vesterbro quarter of Copenhagen in an apartment in a public housing project, wedged between porn shops and prostitutes.

The family survived the transplant. A few years after immigrating to Denmark, the father had started his own business, a grocery store on Nørrebrogade and the children were doing well at The Oehlenschlägergade School.

Naser was again primed for life. He quickly advanced to become one of the brightest pupils of his class, a success achived through many hours of studying. Almost too many hours, his friend Ahmed from Egypt thought. The boys learned to use the public playgrounds of Nørrebrogade where they played football till dusk.

The spiritual base for the family was still Friday prayers at the mosque of The Islamic Community.

The New Imam

One day the father told Naser that a new Imam had come to the mosque. Some of the fathers’ friends had fetched him to Denmark from Nigeria, a place he had come to after being expelled from Kuwait.

The name of that Imam was Abu Laban.

Naser went to Friday prayers and listened to the Imam who preached with such intensity that not a man in the abandoned warehouse wasn’t moved.

But as Naser entered his teenage years, a change came over his way of perceiving at the world. He would sit for hours reading Danish litterature, learning how Danish society had evolved through the ages to finally reach the stage of modern democracy. He came to look at the equal rights between the sexes with a growing admiration, although it was very different from what he knew from his childhood.

And when the teachers at his school recommended his parents that he be allowed to go to community college, it lead to his own personal battle of cultures.

Especially when he was introduced to the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche who said: "God is Dead", and the Danish Kierkegaard with his "Either, Or" of the the duty of each single man to choose his own way in life, Naser decided: He would no longer practice Islam.

For him the religion was no longer compatable with the values he now held the dearest: first and foremost the will to democracy and the independent relation of each man to his duties and his responsibilities.

He moved away from home when he was still in college.

The family had moved to the Noth-Western quarter of Copenhagen and Naser found an apartment nearby. That also gave him the space to be with his Danish girlfriend.

A Passion for Democracy

His parent weren’t pleased when he moved. And they didn’t become elated when he didn’t follow their wish for him to become either a doctor or an engineer after he graduated.

Instead he chose to study his passion; the rules of democracy. He was accepted to the polit-education at Copenhagen University.

His feeling of being Danish and belonging in the Danish frame of mind was constantly strengthened by reading great Danish authors and philosophers such as Hal Koch, N.F.S. Grundtvig and Georg Brandes.

And while his passion for Danish democracy grew stronger, Naser was constantly reminded that he was from a part of the world where democracy did not exist.

For many years he was an interpreter at a number of treatment centres for victims of torture, where he listened to one horror story after the other of the way dictatorial regimes will persecute people who don’t agree.

After interviews, he more than once experienced the need to go to the toilet and vomit.

He also began to function as an interpreter in situations where it became clear to him that the Danish case workers, social advisors, teachers, pedagogues, policemen, to name a few, where talking to immigrants of whose situation they knew nothing. He was especially struck by the fact that most Danes’ knowledge of Islam was almost non-existant.

Therefore Khader published the book "Honour and Shame" in 1996. Here he tried to give an introduction to the central tenets of Mid-Eastern culture which were based partially on ancient culture and partially on Islam.

The book became a bestseller in Denmark. Here was finally an immigrant able to explain the way things were, the people working with immigrants were saying.

Shamed at Friday prayers

But in The Islamic Community, Imam Abu Laban railed against this Naser Khader who was daring enough to write a book about Islam without consulting an Imam!

The wrath of Abu Laban was so great the Naser Khader’s father was devastated. He faithfully came to prayer every Friday and he was hurt to hear his son reviled in front of all the member of the community.

He therefore decided to arrange a meeting to reconciliate Khader and Laban.

Accounts of the meeting differ, but it was clear that Abu Laban did not accept Khader’s book.

That proved not to be the last confrontation the two had.

Now, having put aside Islam, Naser Khader began to call himself a "Cultural Moslem". He acknowledged his cultural heritage, but only practiced it to the degree that he would participate in prayers at funerals.

At the same time his political career began. He was elected to the Citizens’ Council of Copenhagen for the Radical Party. But he knew that his goal was to enter the legislature of the democracy to which he had turned when religion failed him. He wanted to be elected to Folketinget.

Nasra and Nidal

A special night - a week before the election of 2001 - Naser Khader did something that removed any doubt as to whether he would be elected.

He appeared on prime time in the TV-Avisen news program, clad in a light blue denim shirt, his face covered in sweat from running to a studio in Amman in Jordan to appear on live TV to tell the story that was on everybody’s lips those days. The story of the two immigrant children Nasra and Nidal, who had first been removed from their Jordanian parents’ home in Denmark, the parents being charged with willfull neglect, only to - due to a colossal screwup by the local administration - be sent home to their parents who had sent the children on to Jordan where they lived in squalor.

All of Denmark was incensed by the matter and many were moved by the young, dark-haired politician from the Radicals who intervened on behalf of the children.

Naser Khader was the first immigrant ever to be directly elected to Folketinget.

A small step for Denmark, a huge leap for Naser Khader.

It was considered right up his alley to appoint him spokesman on immigration, but he didn’t want to branded an immigrant politician, so he has been spokesman for the Radicals on health, culture, equal rights, ethics and development.

Though he couldn’t keep away from - or be kept away from, for that matter - immigration policy.

Soon he was both revered and reviled.

To many Danes, he was the essence of the form of integration the majority of Danes would like to see - close to assimilation - since he closely resembled us. He wasn’t against having a pint now and then, either. One of his friends considers him a man of good intentions: He has become "A Prize Immigrant".

Traditions Must Be Challenged

Some Moslems consider Naser Khader an apostate - a person who has left the faith of Islam and who has even criticised it in public. That has led to several threats on his life.

Those were the lines on the battlefield when the (in)famous Muhammed cartoons were published in Jyllands-Posten September 30, last year.

At first Khader didn’t react at all.

He found a few of the cartoons to be rather distasteful, though most were funny. Apart from the first, he saw the cartoons as an act of necessary cultural radicalism - necessary to challenge the dogmas of religion.

But then things took a turn. 3000 Moslems demonstrated in the streets of Copenhagen. Khader knew many of them. A delegation of Imams went to the Middle East to plead for help from Moslem leaders and heads of state. He knew most of them too. The first place the Danish flag was put on fire was in Nablus in the West Bank - his father’s place of birth.

The first place they torched a Danish embassy was in Damascus in Syria - the city he left for Denmark when he was a child.

And the first to issue death threats were Palestinians - the People of his family.

The violent reactions abroad led to suspicions against a certain group in Denmark - the Moslems.

They were apparently the ones who wouldn’t have any freedom of speech in Denmark and rallied the masses and the governments of the Middle East against Denmark.

And the obvious symbol of the Moslems was easy to find - it was clearly the Imams, the ones who acted as the only conduit for Moslems to the general society in Denmark.

Khader faces Laban

It was then Naser Khader decided. He had to stand up to the Imams.

In his view, the Imams don’t represent the Moslems of Denmark at all. They may speak for a few thousand, but there are 200000 Moslems in Denmark.

He decided to form the Democratic Moslems to show that the majority of Moslems in Denmark want democracy. Inevitably this would have to lead to a showdown, a showdown with his Arch Enemy.

Khader versus Laban.

This has so far lead to Laban calling Khader "a rat" at Friday prayers.

Khader believes so much in his initiative that he has decided it would be beneath him to respond.

After two weeks 800 Moslems have joined and 5000 ethnic Danes have joined a financial support group. A bank has donated 100000 DKK for rooms and entrepeneurs and businessmen are lining up to support the Democratic Moslems. Last week they were warmly welcomed by PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen in his official residence at Marienborg.

Countless letters to the editors mention one word over and over again when they speak of him and his initiative: HOPE.

After weeks of nothing but negative news of Denmark and the Danes, Khader has lit the flame of hope. As he did for a 72-year old pensioner from Silkeborg who pledged 500 DKK to the Democratic Moslems because it has relit in him the fire of hope.

A Life of Threats

Privately, Khader pays daily. He has received several death threats, mostly from people he consider Islamists.

His wife, Bente Dalsbæk, who used to work as the top judicial advisor to the Chairman of Folketinget, says that she will be there for him always and urges him to go on in spite of the threats.

The pair met at Culture Night 2003 on Christiansborg. "Multicultural Night" is what they jokingly have named it. They each had a child of five and six respectively and have a son of a year and a half together.

Naser Khader is followed by two Security Agents when he arrives in a dark blue Peugeot 605 on loan from the Intelligence Service of the Police for our meeting in central Copenhagen.

He has just spent an hour in a fitness-center but grabs an apple and a cup of tea and sits, relaxed as ever.

Why form this network? You’re risking your life, after all…

"For me it’s about identity and existence and life and death. I see the fundamentalist ‘cerebral haemorrhage’ close in around me. I have people I know who sympathize with Bin Laden, people who start sending their children to Quran-schools, who sympathize with the regime in Iran - and that is my reason for intervening. I think that what is going on at present is the most important battle for values Denmark has ever fought. To stay on the sidelines would mean giving up my identity."

Publicans and Imams

What is your vision for the future?

"My modest hopes are to create the determining factors needed to create a reformation and enlightenment for Islam. That may sound ambitious. But the people who are needed to create the conditions needed for that are us - the Moslems of the West. My ambitions are - apart from making integration less painful - to show that Islam and democracy can be made to be compatable. If the Moslems of the West can not reform Islam, nobody can.

And I have contacted Moslem democrats in Great Britain and th United States, so I think we are getting there."

Whose fight are you fighting?

"I think I am fighting my mother’s fight. She’s a Moslem, religious, who prays five times a day and wears a scarf. But she believes in Danish democracy. In that way she is a lot like many of my friends - Moslems with their hearts, but not Islamists or Extremists. I feel I am fighting a fight for the majority of Moslems. Islam was once a religion which was about the personal relationship of man to Allah. But some Imams have intervened, like the publicans of the Bible and have taken for themselves the power of Allah."

The words are part of a torrent, filled with self-confidence and energy.

Right now, the wind is at his back.

But his friend Ahmed, who he has known since school, warns:

"He must be careful not to create a rift between Moslems. I would like it if he and Abu Laban could reconcile."

Nothing in Naser’s manner suggests that is something he is willing to do.

On the contrary.

The rift has been made.

Moslems in Denmark now have two spokesmen.

The question will be whether the reformists or the traditionalists prove to be stronger.

I would like to suggest to all my Danish readers that they sign the petition at www.ytringsfrihed.org to demonstrate that although we may have a lot of bootlicking crypto-islamists in Denmark, we have more honest citizens who won’t give up a little liberty for a little security.

BTW

The organizer of that horrifying site has his blog here - is it just me or does he look pitiful? I mean, is that acne or did he take that photograph just after a good hand-humping session? Gross.

I only just read this piece. ???WWW.WHATTHEFUCK.COM???

‘Weed out textbooks offensive to Muslims’
By David Rennie in Brussels
(Filed: 16/02/2006)

School textbooks should be reviewed for intolerant depictions of Islam and other faiths by experts overseen by the European Union and Islamic leaders, the European Parliament was told yesterday.

The call for a special committee to examine religious education in schools came from Hans-Gert Pöttering, the German Christian Democrat, who heads the largest group of MEPs. But the proposal was immediately condemned as "appeasement" by Charles Tannock, a British Conservative MEP.

Mr Pöttering, the head of the centre-Right, but largely federalist European People’s Party, said the work of building bridges between Islam and the West had to "begin with young people".

During a debate intended to show Europe’s unity in the face of the row over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, he said textbooks should be checked to ensure they promoted European values without propagating religious stereotypes or prejudice.

He also called for similar tolerance in the Islamic world, holding up examples of anti-Semitic cartoons taken from the Middle East and suggesting a parallel review should be made of Islamic school books.

He also suggested that the EU could co-operate with the 56-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has its headquarters in Saudi Arabia, to create a textbook review committee.

"They could help to choose the experts to sit on this committee," he said.

But Dr Tannock, the Conservatives’ foreign affairs spokesman at the European Parliament, said: "This sounds like an exercise in political correctness and appeasement. I don’t see why we should be bringing children into this debate."

Hat tip: Frit Aalborg

UPDATE: Recap and analysis of the latest events in this story here.

Translators note: The Danish text uses the weasel word "dementeret" which I have translated as withdrawn. It might also mean deny, but if that is what they mean, why didn’t they say it? We’ll have to wait for an English newssource to see which word is used; Did Turkey initially demand an apology and then withdraw it, did the reporter from Information get it wrong or was this a probe to see how the Danish government would respond? It’s also interesting to note that the Danish government wants nothing to do with Turkey as a mediator now. Maybe they didn’t like their kind of mediation?

Jyllands-Posten, February 24, 2006

No Turkish demand for apology

Turkey has not joined the countries demanding an apology for the Muhammed cartoons, PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen is quoted as saying. The Danish newspaper Information quoted a spokesman from the Turkish Foreign Ministry as saying there would be no progress unless an apology was given insted of insisting that they are a matter of Freedom of Speech.

"According to my information the Turkish government has withdrawn the request for an apology," says the PM.

Following this statement, Per Stig Møller insisted that Turkey would have no special position as a mediator in the conflict, as proposed by some.

"Turkey will, as an applicant country, be present at the informal meeting of Foreign Ministers on March 11 and 12. In connection with that I have proposed to the Turkish Foreign Minister that he raise the matter there," Per Stig Møller says as he notes the special relationship Turkey has with both the European and Arab world.

About the Muhammed cartoons; I realised suddenly that this whole issue has an uncanny parallel: Do you remember the shooting of Mohammed al-Dura? I’ll try to recap for you then: A man is shielding himself and his son behind a concrete block. Apparently they’re in some sort of crossfire with people all around them firing. The son is seen first as alive, then moments later he has fallen into the lap of his father.

The Palestinians used this to create an uproar in the Arab world but the film, recorded by a Palestinian cameraman, was later proved to be misleading. In fact, Muhammed al-Dura had been killed by friendly fire.

It seems to me that we have a somewhat parallel situation here…..

Report on incident from FOX news (Video).

Worldnetdaily report.

Wikipedia entry.

A biased view, but with good maps and footage.

LATEST UPDATE: Recap and analysis of the latest events in this story here.

UPDATE: Turkey does the weaseldance - the quoted article below is no more accurate

Politiken, February 24, 2006

Turkey Demands Danish Apology

Turkey demands official Danish apology for the Muhammed cartoons. Jens Rohde, the political spokesman for the ruling Liberal Party thinks the demand hurts Turkey’s chances of EU membership.

The Danish government must distance itself from the Muhammed cartoons published in Jyllands-Posten and make an apology.

Otherwise, no bridge-building with the Islamic world is possible, says the official spokesman of the Turkish Foreign Ministry following the European Unions’ request for Turkey to act as a mediator.

"The Danish government ought quickly to announce that Denmark does not accept denigration of the Prophet Muhammed such as the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten gives voice to. Denmark should apologize for what’s happened and make it clear that the Danish government wants nothing to do with the cartoons." So says Namik Tan, official spokesman of Abdullah Gül, foreign minister of Turkey.

Not about Freedom of Speech

He underlines that in the opinion of the Turkish government the cartoons have nothing to do with Freedom of Speech.

"This issue is not about Freedom of Speech. This is no different than if these cartoons had anti-semitic content. If Denmark persists in insisting that this is about Freedom of Speech, it will be very difficult to proceed," Tan is quoted as saying.

Long way to the EU

The spokesman of the Liberal ruling party, Jens Rohde, condemns the statement, saying that this will only make it more difficult for Turkey to act as a mediator and it will not be helpful if they want to be accepted into the EU.

"The Danish government can under no circumstances apologize for the actions of a private newspaper," Jens Rohde is quoted as saying to Ritzau.

"This doesn’t exactly make them more qualified to be mediators - nor does it help them qualify to be members of the EU, to be frank," Jens Rohde says of the Turkish statement.

Jyllands-Posten, February 3, 2006

Remember This

By Per Nyholm

It may get very interesting indeed in case the boycot orchestrated by various Moslem countries takes hold. We will then know who are the guardians of Democracy and who are the guardians of profits.

We’ve been here before. During both world wars, Danish businesses made a killing supplying the Germans with goods. Then as now the argument was that they were acting in accordance with the nations’ best interests. We were only half joking in 1945 when we said that even if the Germans had won we would be counted among the victors.

Thus we enter the new century which has already made long long tracks in the sand.

On the face of it, the Arab threats against Denmark resemble a repeat of the oil embargo of 1973-1974, a spurious phenomenon doing more harm to those who initiated it than to those in the West, for whom a result was increased spending on alternative energy research.

Now one feels that behind the headlines, Big Business is marching in tight ranks under the pretense that Denmark is poised to lose millions. The Prime Minister is being pressured and so is Jyllands-Posten. I have no doubt that the editor-in-chief in Viby will stand firm. It is to be regretted that fundamentalist Moslems regard the publication of the Muhammed Cartoons as insulting, but I dare guarentee that no apology will be forthcoming from this newspaper for the act of publication, since there is nothing to be sorry about. It is in Denmark perfectly lawful to to depict anyone - even the prophet of Islam. If certain - but definitely not all - Moslems find this offending, that is their problem.

Readers of this Column will know that I frequently protest racist and more or less fascist statements offered by Moslem as well as Danish participants in the public debate. This newspaper recently gave voice to a number number of ordinary Moslems who - oh, the surprise -turned out to be excellently integrated and who possessed a highly evolved understanding of the Democratic values of this country.

I would be delightful if this initiative gave food for thought and preferably a bit of humility to said participants in the public debate who for years have been displaying their hate and lack of reason. Perhaps it is time to let them chill for a bit, these shrill Imams and equally shrill wingbat priests, including their followers, the mentally crippled intellectuals and self-promoting politicians. They are few, I count at most a dosen of the first order. They should not be allowed to monopolise the formation of opinion in this basically tolerant Kingdom.

It may be that the hysteric circles of the Arab world can pressure the administration in Copenhagen into releasing some form of statement which can be considered a victory in the Arab Street.

It may be - but I don’t think so! Not with the current Prime Minister who has shown himself to be very staunch and not with a domestic public who to a larger degree than the special interest group Danish Industry seem to understand the principles implicated in this issue.

Denmark does not wish for a confrontation with the Arab countries but Denmark has even less of a desire to write off its democracy. This, then, is settled: The issue of the Muhammed cartoons will, because it is a domestic Danish quarrel, be settled on Danish terms. Discussions can (and will) go on forever, drifting or determined, deluded or with clarity, but the cartoons are in the past. They cannot be undone, they will not be apologised, they are settled.

Interestingly enough, the Moslem nations of South East Asia seem to show complete disregard for the furore in the Arab world. So the problem is not with the Moslems as some Danish fanatics preach. It’s an Arab thing, undoubtably a minority which has suffered continued defeats for 200 years and feel humiliated by the West to such a degree that they no longer know how to get a handle on things and therefore choose to attack the legal business of a Danish newspaper.

As if more important matters were not available for them to get to work on.

The great projects of the opening phase of the 21st century are to unite Europe, including letting Turkey into the EU and to construct a Arabian-European-Jewish commonwealth with a view to reconstructing civilization in the Arab countries and to securing the state of Israel. The vision of the United States; that intervention by force is necessary to Mideastern peace and democracy is getting to look more and more like a tale of sisyphean misjudgement. The immediate aftermath is the chaos of blood in Iraq, the rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the coming into power of the fascist Ahamdinejad in Iran and the Hamas victory in the palestinian territories. All this calls for consideration, especially that Hamas won a democratic election and therefore cannot be ignored. This is a time for action, including the action of setting up an independent palestinian state, which may improve the self esteem of the Arabs.

The fundamentalists, Moslems and Christians alike, will howl and sneer if one claims that their use of the cartoons has shown to the world their true face: The face of the political arsonist. But they are. When business interests with poorly hidden criticisms advance on the same tangent, it is less theatrical and more depressing.

Does that make them fools? Hardly. It is not a requirement that one must stand behind the Prime Minister or Jyllands-Posten with one’s heart and soul. It is, though, a requirement to stand behind democracy with one’s heart and soul. Right? Heart and soul. Remember this.

Real story from Denmark.

The Social Democrats  have gotten their panties in a bunch over the Political spokesmen of the reigning Liberal party, Jens Rohde. Because the PM is quity busy at the moment, Jens Rohde has taken over a number of jobs from the PM. Including heckling the opposition parties. The opposition parties are at the present not very pleased with this because Jens Rhode is… Rather polemic in the way he talks of the opposition.

There’s been declared a political truce in Denmark because we don’t want to give the MFs in the Middle East more to nag on about. The problem is that the Social Democrats have decided: "Truce, shmooze, we will not lose madates because of this, we will natter on about the ifs and buts of every move made by the PM." To noone’s great surprise, stabbing the PM in the back lost them voters. Rohde, thinking fair is only fair, decided to have some fun of his own. Since the leaders of the Social Democrats are all women, young and rather fragile looking, Rohde decided to give it to her good:

Seriously, can anyone here imagine a future Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt handling this crisis? With Lotte Bundsgaard as her Foreign Minister and Mette Frederiksen as the Political Spokeswoman?

Now, this might seem a rather innocous statement if it, you know, weren’t true. So Helle Thorning-Schmidt, a woman scorned, replies:

I think this truce has been rather difficult to keep because of Jens Rohde. His criticisms have been harsh, harsher than is usual in Danish Politics. This man is a low-hanging missile on the loose. I don’t think he has been very fair, and I think the PM ought to reprimand Rohde.

The problem Thorning-Schmidt has here is that a) she is lying b) she practically told the PM to reprimand Rohde, an action not unlike a situation we have seen in international politics lately. So the PM decided to let go of the leash. Quoth Rohde:

With a twinkle in my eyes I can sincerely say that she has yet to examine my low-hanging missile, so I will take this criticism with the utmost calm.

Thorning-Schmidt goes ballistic (see the irony?):

I would seriously mind to have as the Political spokesman of my party a man who treats people shabbily.

Jens Rohde responds:

This interpretation the Social Democrats have that I was being obscene, must remain their own interpretation.

After all, it wasn’t I who initially brought into this debate my missile.

 

 

 

Seen in Ekstra-Bladet:

Today’s Algebra problem 

If 12 cartoons of Mohammed can make 6 Moslem Ambassadors disappear, how many cartoons would it take to make the lot of them bugger off?

Translator’s note: This is a a rather explosive subject which has been covered at length elsewhere. I point you to these blogs for more coverage of the events leading up to this:

Little Green Footballs - "LGF in Danish" and "The Wages of Appeasement"

(I think LGF can claim a *first* on this one, BTW)

The Brussels Journal - "Dairy Producer Who Boycotted Israel Gets Boycotted by Muslims"

Jimmy’s Corner - "Requests to come if the boycott is to end!"

Hodja’s Blog - "Buy Danish - but not…."

Egyptian Sand Monkey - "What does Israel have to do with it?" and "Arla foods denies boycotting Israel"

This is Arla’s response to the allegations that they boycot Israel (I personally don’t trust them farther than I can throw them):

Update: February 20. Arla says, that they have never boycotted Israel, and that they have not signed any contracts about this. They also say that they sell dried milk, butter and cheese to Israel for about 30,8 Million US$. Furthermore they say, that Arla’s trade with Israel is increasing. Arla admits, that when they trade with arab nations, they never use Israeli rawmaterials, and never do any transport via Israeli territorium.

But just because they don’t boycot Israel, doesn’t mean they aren’t pandering to thugs and assassins.

Jyllands-Posten, Tuesday, February 21, 2006

EDITORIAL: No "support", Please

FOOD FAIR in Dubai: A man with a tight smile announces that Arla in no way "supports" any cartoons in Jyllands-Posten.

What cartoons in Jyllands-Posten have to do with a food fair in Dubai can only be explained by the gallopping lunacy of the times, but for now that is not our focus.

A different kind of weird is: what does the man mean by "support"? The statement, coming as it does from Arla, can only be about money. The matter at hand, we must deduce, is that Arla was thinking of sending us a check made out to some amount, but has now decided not to.

Thank you. To be blunt, it would be deeply insulting for us to receive any such "support" from Arla. We still have to consider our dignity.

And that is not for sale. We do not crawl for oriental dictators and we wouldn’t dream of boycotting the democratic state of Israel in order to please some bloodthirsty dictatorship out of medieval times.

But Arla has no such scruples. It is more profitable to kowtow to dictatorships than to stand up for democracy.

Danish history has seen other examples of grubbing merchants who haven’t let democratic principles or even ordinary decency stand in the way of profits.

While the man from Arla is in Dubai talking about his lack of "support" for the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten, the thugs of the dictators are busy desecrating national symbols and burning down embassies.

Arla doesn’t seem to mind.

Known madmen invade our TV sets, shrilly promising slavery to Danes, demanding that the Danish cartoonists be handed over to suffer torture and eventual death.

Arla becomes silent.

Moslems act as madmen over a cartoonist who - to their astonishment - portrayed the prophet with a bomb in his turban. Certainly not the most unnatural thought, considering the deeds that have been done in his name.

Arla is silent.

Plundering hordes scream that Islam is the Religion of Peace. Some of us say they have a funny way of showing it.

Arla stays silent.

We wouldn’t be as primitive as to suggest that Arla be boycotted.

But we are astonished.

That is the question asked by The Jawa Report who is linking to a Story at LGF:

The delegation headed by Bishop of Viborg Karsten Nissen met with Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohammad Sayed Tantawi, Egyptian Mufti Ali Gomaa and Minister of charitable funds Hamdi Zakzouk. Al-Azhar Sheikh Tantavi explained that the offending cartoons aroused indignation in the Muslim world; however they disapproved some of the demonstrations in various areas.

Steen Skovsgaard, a bishop in the delegation, told Zaman that the cartoons are entirely for provocation. Skovsgard, stressing Muslims and Christians live together in peace, said Danes separated after the events and the majority disapproved the cartoons. He said the freedom of speech did not include humiliation and insult and Muslims can seek remedy through the courts as Denmark is a state of law. Skovsgard, underlining that the crisis is the beginning of a new dialogue rather than a partition, said their tickets were bought by the Danish Foreign Ministry though it was not an official visit.

Jawa Comments:

Are Danish Lutherans Christian?

Reasonable enough to ask that, I guess. First things first, this is a part of a visit that was "not" arranged by the Foreign Ministry to further good relations with Egypt:

J-P, February 15, 2006

Danish delegation on its way to Cairo

A Danish delegation of clerics leaves for Egypt this Thursday bringing statements from Ministries and the published apology from Jyllands-Posten. The Delegation will meet the Great Mufti Muhammed Sayed Tantawi. […]

The article goes on to state that they allegedly come there on the invitation of Danmission, a Danish mission in Egypt .This is not probable. They are lambs thrown before the wolves. In statement, some of the clergy in Denmark have been most unpleased with this whole affair, so the government sent them as a way to feed the crocodile without putting their own leg in its jaw.

As to whether the Danish clergy is really Christian or not, I would say that the average American would probably say not. To be a priest you have to go through University and learn how to criticise the Bible, resulting in most of the Danish clergy being functional atheists. But they’ve been to University too so they are for the most part flaming cultural radicals. Relativism is the big thing with these guys who are supposed to teach Christian values. No Pat Robertson would ever become a priest in Denmark, that’s for sure.

I could even imagine Anders Fogh Rasmussen deriving a perverted sort of pleasure from sending them. Here’s why:

From Jyllands-Posten, October 9, 2005 in an article entitled "Christian understanding for Moslem Anger", Bishop Karsten Nissen:

"There is a limit. When comedians make jokes about Jesus engaging in sexual behaviour, the line has been crossed. On the other hand we have freedom of speech, but we must accept that some people are prone to be offended, and we shouldn’t do that."

And:

From Jyllands-Posten, September 11, 2003 in a letter to the editor, Karsten Nissen admits to having supported a statement against the Iraq war published by an interdenominational meeting of Minister February 2, 2003 which says:

"As European church leaders, in consultation with councils of churches in the USA and the Middle East, we remain extremely concerned with the continued calls for military action against Iraq by the US and some European Governments."

I hope he changed his mind on "blue finger day"….

Also see this article where Anders Fogh Rasmussen has this to say to the likes of Nissen:

Does that mean that those in the Danish debate who argue for limiting the freedom of the speech are doing the terrorists’ bidding?

"No, there are many reasons for people to hold those views. But I must stress that the objective of the terrorists is to make us cower and abandon our principles. No matter their motive, if someone proposes limiting our freedom of speech, I shall be their opponent," Anders Fogh Rasmussen says, directing his remarks at Eva Smith and Bishop Karsten Nissen, both of whom think that limits should be imposed on how offensive one may be.

From an article in Jyllands-Posten September 4, 2005 titled "A Christian among Moslems" we learn that Steen Skovsgaard was a Priest in a predominantly Moslem part of Århus before he was elected Bishop on Lolland-Falster. Nothing else out of the ordinary.

The Brussels Journal has a good piece on the remarkable double standards of the French police:

“We think there is anti-Semitism in this affair,” Rafi, Ilan’s brother-in-law, told the European Jewish Press. “First because the killers tried to kidnap at least two other Jews, and secondly because of what they said on the phone. When we said we didn’t have Euro 500,000 to give them, they answered we should go to the synagogue and get it,” Rafi stressed. “They also recited verses from the Koran. We didn’t know what they were saying but the police told us,” he said.

No hate crimes here, says the French police.

Over at Dailypundit, there has been a flurry of abolutely marvellous readers’ comments over the last few days. Here is a taste:

They used our foolish nature, our tolerance, our multiculturalism, our determination to believe the best about people and fashioned it into a spear–and rammed it into our heart.

They didn’t merely destroy buildings this time. They took aim–and hit, our very souls.

I would say rise up. I would say, arm yourself, fight for your country

But it’s too late. Our government, our press–our allies are already accepting the scimitar at their necks. They’re already sold us all down the river–just to buy a few more moments to allow themselves to milk the status quo.

As the West collapses I hope we have the sense, in our dying moment, to reduce all the centers of Islam to glass so that the roaches aren’t forced to bow to Mecca.

I wish I’d said that. Per Nyholm says something about being pissed on here.

When we fought a terrible political system, we demanded that the Berlin wall come down. (Well, Ronald Reagan demanded it - I thought he was an idiot, and I learned a big lesson when it turned out he was right.) Now we are menaced by a religious system, we again have to demand that the wall that keeps people in be demolished.

No more penalties for apostates from Islam! Let fatima be a Wiccan or a member of the World Wide Church of God if she wants to be, and let nobody make her afraid!

We should treat apostates as refugees with a well-founded fear of persecution, just as we welcomed refugees from states behind the Iron Curtain.

And again, we should go out of our way to imposes costs - including disrespect - on enemies who threaten those taking shelter at the feet of the Statue of Liberty.

Especially as those taking shelter will often be women.

Will "moderate" Muslims really take great offence at this? I think they will, because it threatens the basis of their religious and social system, including their hold over their women.

We might as well accept that. I do not care if a Muslim supremacist is "moderate" to the extent of issuing a statement in English disapproving of violence. That is no longer the issue. We’ve gone beyond that. The issue is which system will survive and which go under. I want our system, based on freedom, to win. Whoever that offends, let him be offended by it.

If we fight for religious freedom, militantly defend the brave, and shelter those who want to be free from religious oppression (which in Islam is also severe sex-based oppression) we’ll be fine.

And I wish I’d said that even more. Just to recap on Reagan:

In West Germany and here in Berlin, there took place an economic miracle, the Wirtschaftswunder. Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty–that just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom. The German leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes. From 1950 to 1960 alone, the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled.

[…]

 In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind–too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

[…]

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

[…]

And I would like, before I close, to say one word. I have read, and I have been questioned since I’ve been here about certain demonstrations against my coming. And I would like to say just one thing, and to those who demonstrate so. I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they’re doing again.

Translator’s Note: This was brought before the whole ruckus got started, while we still were having our own debate about freedom of speech. I’ll later try to get some of the responses to this online. This piece is rather central to the whole affair - the PM wasn’t out to ‘get’ anyone, he was trying to have a real debate about the values we hold dear. This is a point that is missed by many from the opposing side who comment on this affair.

Jyllands-Posten, October 30, 2005

Fogh: Freedom of speech is above religion

By Anne Mette Svane and Jette Elbæk Maressa

Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Liberals) warns against limiting freedom of speech in response to the heated debate surrounding the satirical cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammed.

It is necessary to provoke and challenge freedom of speech. If we don’t, our society will fossilise.

Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is a proponent of using the full range of freedom of speech - even where it hurts, provokes and offends.

"One of the reasons our society has experienced so enormous progress not just in this century but for centuries, is that people have had the courage to provoke. Some were even called heretics and some even paid with their lives. But it has proven to be liberating that some had the courage to maintain that the Earth is not flat but round. Basically, what this is about, is that enlightened and free societies achieve more than unenlightened and unfree societies, precisely because some dare provoke and criticise authorities, be they political or religious," Anders Fogh Rasmussen says.

Above Religion

To the Prime Minister it is fundamental to a free democracy that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are above religion.

"I will never accept that respect for people’s religious beliefs should lead to limiting the freedom of press when they criticise, poke jokes at someone or engage in satire."

A month ago, Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammed. The debate in Denmark exploded and spread like a wildfire and became a matter of international interest. During the past week Anders Fogh Rasmussen was implicated when he received a letter of protest from 11 Moslem ambassadors asking the Prime Minister to interfere with the press.

"To be frank, this is due to some countries having a basic lack of understanding of what a democracy is. Had that understanding been present, they would have understood that the media of a true democracy are allowed complete freedom to speak their mind, penalty of law being their only obstacle."

Freedom of the press

The Prime Minister shrugs at the actions of the representative of the Palestinian Authority in Denmark, Maie F.B. Sarraf who, in this Friday’s edition of Jyllands-Posten voiced her view that the satirical cartoons are seen as an attack on Islam and Moslems and that Denmark is seen as a prejudicious and discriminative country.

"This to my mind reveals a chasm of misunderstanding in regards to the principles of a true democracy and it shows a complete lack of understanding of the fact that a government in a free democracy neither can, should nor may interfere in the freedom of the press. Freedom of the press means that Jyllands-Posten and/or any other paper may print articles and cartoons (be they satirical or not)challenging both political and religious authorities. It also means that a government is not responsible for the actions of its press," stresses Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who refused to see the ambassadors.

Sore spot

It doesn’t surprise the Prime Minister that the cartoons have caused such turmoil:

"The sharp reactions and the very emotional debate is caused by the cartoons touching on a very sore spot in the debate over freedom of speech. Islam is the object of strife at the moment but truth be told, there has always been a dilemma as to where to draw the line when it comes to religion. In the past the debate of where to draw the line has been fought with Christianity and it is always a subject that causes heated emotions. This time it has been emphasized by the heated Moslem reaction."

How do you see the relationship between terrorism and freedom of speech in the current debate?

"I think that the greatest risk at the moment is that many ask themselves if what Jyllands-Posten is doing is wise and whether it will lead to Denmark being a more obvious terror target. If that fear is allowed to paralyze our freedom of speech, it will paralyze our democracy, and then the extremists have achieved their goal - to limit our freedom of speech and for us to change our way of life, to make us so fearful that we restrain ourselves and no longer dare live the way we want to and live up to the principles on which we wish to base our society."

Does that mean that those in the Danish debate who argue for limiting the freedom of the speech are doing the terrorists’ bidding?

"No, there are many reasons for people to hold those views. But I must stress that the objective of the terrorists is to make us cower and abandon our principles. No matter their motive, if someone proposes limiting our freedom of speech, I shall be their opponent," Anders Fogh Rasmussen says, directing his remarks at Eva Smith and Bishop Karsten Nissen, both of whom think that limits should be imposed on how offensive one may be.

"One is standing on sloping ground to say such things, because what people find respectful is a very individual thing. It’s difficult to make a clear cut rule in law for what is and what is not respectful and democracy is cheapened if freedom of speech is curtailed. When a Danish Bishop asks the press to only be constructive it is an example that not only Moslems are confused about what freedom of the press is all about," he says.

The Democracy of Dialogue

Many Moslems felt offended and hurt over the cartoons. Some reacted by writing letters to the editor and more than 3000 demonstrated against Jyllands-Posten on Rådhuspladsen in Copenhagen. Others have chosen less peaceful methods, threatening both the paper and its employees. Two of the cartoonists have been adviced by the Security Service to lay low for a while. The Prime Minister thinks the cartoons are lawful. Therefore one must learn to internalise such things if one is offended because that’s the way life is in a democracy:

"The newspapers in Denmark write many things that offend. Not all is to my liking when I open the newspaper every day."

He urges the angry and offended Moslems to use other means if they want to express themselves to Jyllands-Posten:

"The Danish tradition is for a meeting to be called where people sit and talk about the issues. Some times people can’t agree, even at the end of the meeting and some times better understanding of the other party’s reasons is the result. That is the Danish model, what we call the Democracy of Dialogue."

Debate furthers Dialogue

A little less than a year ago Anders Fogh Rasmussen celebrated freedom of speech from the rostrum of the Liberal party conference following the attack on or threatening of a number of people who had used their freedom of speech for concrete or artistic purposes. The most extreme case was the murder of Theo van Gogh.

My question is whether it is wise to repeat provocative points of view in the public debate in order to challenge the boundaries of, and to create greater understanding with those who take recourse in violent action or if that leads to a radicalisation of opinion?

"It is clear that the debate about the cartoons will have two effects. Some will call it a confrontation because Moslems feel hurt and offended. The other effect is that we get a debate and that tends to further dialogue. It may be that the starting point is that people are yelling at each other but yet it is a debate. And we shouldn’t forget that quite a few Moslems have expressed the view that addressing these matters has been a good thing."

The Prime Minister strongly warns of self-censorship because it limits the bounds of free speech. An example of this, says Fogh Rasmussen, is if some fear to inquire critically because it might further a radicalisation of Moslems in society, leading them to conclude that those question ought better not to be asked.

"I think it raises a lot of questions that an author wanted to publish a book but nobody wanted to draw the pictures for him. We might say that some people have achieved their goal there - call them terrorists if you like - when we have reached the point where people won’t put their name on their speech or drawings because they fear the consequenses."

Motive irrelevant

Your fellow Liberal Uffe Ellemann Jensen has criticised that the paper published the cartoons, saying their only purpose was to provoke - he called it a juvenile demonstration of free speech. Agree or disagree?

"To me the motive of Jyllands-Posten is irrelevant in this debate because the press has the freedom to publish whatever it likes. I won’t take a position on what their motive was, because then I would be derailing the debate by accepting the premise that freedom of speech has limits. No matter the motive, Jyllands-Posten has started an essential debate about freedom of speech by publishing these cartoons."

To Anders Fogh Rasmussen there is a linear connection in the debate about freedom of speech - from Danish public schools to international politics - from promoting understanding of what it means to live in a democracy to furthering democratic reforms in the Middle East.

"It starts with the elementary schools but it is a global task we have at hand."

I just saw the 60 minutes "exposé" of the Muhammed affair over at Expose the Left [HAT TIP: Michelle Malkin]. First of all I would like to make it clear that the fat little man who looks like his face was pasted on a balloon, Thøger Seidenfaden, is the editor of Politiken, the largest competitor of Jyllands-Posten. They were once the "cultural radicals’" newspaper, printing witty jabs at Christendom and exposing religious hypocrisy. Then came the… Well, I don’t know what happened, but they are now The Daily Socialist.

The choice for Anders Fogh Rasmussen was not between "the tiny muslim minority" and "the largest daily" as he put it - it was a bloody principled stand. That’s not something I would expect Politiken to understand, but I would at least expect them to be a bit more honest about their actions. Politiken has been very critical of this whole affair and is definitely not "one of their defenders". More like "one of their detractors".

I direct you to Polemiken for some good satire of the little fat goblin.

Furrfu!

The Imam Abu Laban is now a ‘persona non grata’ in Denmark due to his near-treasonous actions in engaging in a bit of deceptive diplomacy. So his view of the situatio is a bit optimistic indeed. He should be grateful if he is not dispatched to a glacier in Greenland. We own that still, you know. And he complains of us educating him in Democracy. Well, he could use it. See Gatewaypundit.

Ealier coverage of Laban here, here and here.

To be fair, ALL the Danish women are as beautiful as the report indicates. One shouldn’t piss off the best nookie in the world.

Uffe Ellemann… Well, more here. He’s and old politician who just can’t live with the lack of publicity. I am a bit disgusted and would really trash him if I didn’t respect his standing up to the Red Hordes in the 80’s so much. Think of him as… Bush the First gone bad.

Also, the reporter should be aware that "the elite troops guarding the royal palace" are not just toy soldiers. They are armed and dangerous. Especially to leftist reporters.

And isn’t it a bit too much Schadenfreude to finish the segment with "The Danes in their picture-perfect world may have thought they were immune – now they know better"?

An angle that has not been covered much in this whole cartoon brouhaha is the question of those in Denmark wishing to go along with the Moslems. Here are some examples:

Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, ex-PM, Social Democrats (An affiliate of Soft Communism International) - about the cartoons:

They were stupid, respectless and arrogant. […] The message of that drawing is that a billion people are potential terrorists. That’s not irony. […] The Danish government ought to have explained about our freedom of speech sooner.

Uffe Ellemann Jensen, ex-Foreign Minister, Liberal Party. Great Cold Warrior, now a bit of a snob:

When one admits to having made so serious a mistake, which has untill now cost the lives of six people, one is not fit for the job. The Board of Directors cannot fire him due to the tense situation, but whoever struck the first spark must be the one to put out the fire. Jyllands-Posten has not been helpful in that area.

And in Berlingske Tidende, February 8, 2006

If we Danes wish to preserve dialogue with other cultures and religions – and even wish that they buy our milk products – then we cannot demand that they accept all our norms, least of all when they are exposed to disdain, mockery and sarcasm. If we insist that they have to tolerate all that, we are all firmly anchored in ‘the Danish village pond’ where everybody is convinced of her/his own infallibility and therefore not able to get on in a globalised world

Well, we only wanted to maintain our right of free speech, exsqueeze me…

Mette Winge, former member of PEN who left because they supported Jyllands-Posten:

Of course Satire is all well and good, but it shouldn’t be engaged in when one knows it is hurtful to some people. I really don’t think that’s proper. You could, of course that’s not very tasteful, compare this to the drawings made in the 30’s in Germany - satirical drawings by the way. It’s somewhat like that. Those shouldn’t have been…[…]

The Satanic Verses was a great wonderful work of art, he doesn’t.. doesn’t do things to be a pest, or for the media attention, he doesn’t, it was a most wonderful work of art. Great Literature. It’s of a different nature than those drawings ordered by Flemming Rose… Quality is the difference.[…]

Rose has been threatened on his life? oohh! [ED: She didn’t know…]

Later in the same interview:

Adam Holm: If these drawings had been published in Information or Politiken[ED: Leftist newspapers], would your reaction be the same?

Mette Winge: I would say, I would have seen them - it took a while before I saw them, I don’t read Jyllands-Posten, and you’ll have to accept my apology for that, but - it took, I didn’t see them till the whole debate had been going on for some time. ‘You need to see what this is all about’ [ED: Speaks to herself] ehrmm.. I could answer, it’s completely fictive - I can’t answer that. How in that situation, if I would have reacted to that, I might have. [ED:stops herself] No, I won’t answer that.

Eva Smith, Professor of Law, about where to draw the line (Jyllands-Posten October 21, 2005):

The line should be drawn at speech that only has as it’s purpose to mock other people or doesn’t have meaningful content - especially when it’s about something so crucial to people as their religion or country.

Then when she had been criticised for imputing upon Jyllands-Posten her characterisation of their motives, she defends herself, here from Jyllands-Posten October 26, 2005:

Jyllands-Posten knew that the drawings were extremely offensive to Moslems, and the only reason they published them was to provoke the Moslems.

And, as you see, she does it again. Doublewhammer. Jyllands-Posten are racist swine. I wonder why she bothers to debate with them then….

Khaled Karroum, literally an uppity immigrant in Jyllands-Posten October 12, 2005:

SAY YOU’RE SORRY

I am one of many protesting the article in JP September 30, 2005 about our Prophet Muhammed (PBUH). We cannot accept what JP has written. I think it is very bad for a person of the lower class to talk of our Prophet in that way. Therefore we Moslems demand an apology from Jyllands-Posten

"Say what?" You’re probably thinking - "lower class" - whatever is he implying? Uriasposten’s author later has a letter to the editor commenting on that:

Possible indictment for racism?

October 12 these pages held a letter to the editor by Khaled Karroum criticizing the Muhammed cartoons thus: "We cannot accept what JP has written. I think it is very bad for a person of the lower class to talk of our Prophet in that way." That Christians in the ideal Moslem community are "second-class citizens" (see Johannes Pedersen, "The Culture of Islam", 1928, p.48) is known, but isn’t Karroum forgetting that Muhammed didn’t culturally degradate non-Moslems till after he had taken over the secularly and religiously? The "lower class" remark by Karroum is sanctioned by the Quran, but nevertheless the most obvious violation of §266 [ED: Provision against racially discriminating remarks] of the penal code I have seen for a long time. JP has a daily circulation of 150000 papers and must then have at least a quarter of a million readers. Would it be acceptable for a (Christian) Dane to say the same of Moslems in Denmark without his being charged with racism?

Drude Dahlerup, former anti-EU agitator, now a Swedish wussie, writes in B.T. [via Expressen in Sweden] February 14:

In Sweden, the humanist [ED:LEFTIST, SHE MEANS BLOOD-RED] forcer are on the offensive. Unfortunately Denmark is in a different situation. There the limits of decency are broken openly.[…]

If the Swedish elite lets go of the humanitarian leash [ED:YES, CAN’T HAVE THE RABBLE RUNNING THE COUNTRY, CAN WE?] , as was done in Denmark, we’ll soon have The Swedish Democrats [Anti-Immigration party] in parliament. It must simply be a democratic duty to maintain that islamophobia is democratically as illegitimate as anti-semitism and other forms of attacks against groups.

And that concludes this review of the whiners.

Also see Michelle Malkin for a letter from a Dane talking about Uffe Elleman Jensen.

Yes, I know, we’ve been here before, but I just think this is something that needs to be stressed. From Politiken today, excerpts from an interview with Carsten Juste, Editor-in-Chief of J-P:

I simply do not know of any ads in Arab papers. This is not something sponsored by Jyllands-Posten

It is not the official text from Jyllands-Posten that’s been used. It sounds more like a butched AFP translation of a text that appeared in the Libyan La Tribune. The text we have authored is available in several languages at our web site.

The Reuters report attributes this to Carsten Juste:

Allow me in the name of Jyllands-Posten to apologize for what happened and declare my strong condemnation of any step that attacks specific religions, ethnic groups and peoples. I hope that with this I have removed the misunderstanding.

The only place the word apologize appears in the official text is here:

In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.

(aka "We’re sorry you can’t take a joke, fuckheads)

Also see LGF, Haaretz

Couple of links to blogs that stille don’t carry the correct version of events:

The Politburo Diktat

The Omniblog

The Tension

The Dinocrat

The Infidel Bloggers’ Alliance

Manny Is Here

Bouquets Of Gray

The Free West

Turning to our daily dose of hypocrisy, this just in:

(About limits to free speech)

The reason I am viewed as provocative is that I show people things they don’t want to see. I think I am a good provocateur - I want to do something positive.

- Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin, speaking to Aftonbladet, May 30, 2002

But then…

There should be limits. We don’t have any prohibition against depicting Christ, but we must respect their limits.

 - Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin (of “Ecce Homo” fame) on P1 Morgon, February 2, 2006

"Hello? Hey, pot! It’s kettle on the phone - yeah, something about you being black."

So Christians don’t have limits when it comes to saying that Jesus was a backdoor-kind-of-man, that he took it up the chute?

The difference here is… The Swedish Embassy still stands. Dhimmi. Backdoor socialist. Hypocrite.

 

 

Hat tip: Stockholm Spectator (THE ressource for Swedish news) [Via: Uriasposten, Dansk-Svensk]

Whine of the day by a professor no less:

By the same token, Muslims should also be deeply concerned because, by their reaction to the events, Islam-bashers (and even some so-called Muslim governments) now see that much of the Islamic world suffers from a huge complex about its role in history; they are craftily using this sensitivity to provoke Muslims to commit senseless acts of violence that do not uphold or further the banner of Islam and the values that the Prophet Muhammad sought to inculcate in all of us. It is indeed frightening that in many ways both sides are acting unthinkingly.

I guess this one is a proponent of the living constitution — you Americans can be sure he will be nominated for the SC when the she-male Clinton gets into power.

Vote Republican, you fools. It’s what Danes would do.

As I posted about earlier here, J-P has not published their "we’re sorry you’re stupid" apology in the Saudi Media. I learn from Pantry Dawg that there was a similar case recently about an alleged change to the Norwegian penal code outlawing blasphemy. This was rebutted here. Somebody ought to keep tabs on these bastards. You know, just to keep the running score. How many lies are they willing to spew to save their hides from the Arab street (uhhh *shudders*)?

Of course, we would have to keep it to the big ones. Smallies don’t count. What’s the number after dingdongdillion?

PS. I seem to remember something about it not actually being true that Clinton wanted to behead the kufr cartoonists. This was reported by the Pakistani Media, I think?

I kid you not. This map shows where the - to quote YAAFM - "harbingers of hate, the sword wielding sand people, the mad lovers of Muhammed, the Moslems" are destroying their own property to protest… Cartoons. Printed in Denmark. Six months ago. How stupid is that? It’s even got fucking body counts. Apparently, when we reach a billion, the fun stops. We’ll be out of Muhammed turbanists.

Tune in for the loony tunes.

As Homer Simpson would say: D’oh!