Agora

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"?