Agora

So far, I have just translated the sections that are important to the case. This was translated into English from the French translation available here (Designation E/CN.4/2006/17, published on February 13th, titled “(Situation des populations musulmanes et arabes dans diverses régions du monde - Rapport soumis par le Rapporteur spécial sur les formes contemporaines de racisme, de discrimination raciale, de xénophobie et de l’intolérance qui y est associée, Doudou Diène)”

Note: Inter alia = among other things
recrudescence = a return of something after a period of abatement
vulgarizing = to make more common/widespread/accepted
(more…)

UPDATE: I have been informed by Nils of regionen that the report is indeed available online, but only in French, Spanish, Arabic and Russian. Its designation is E/CN.4/2006/17, published on February 13th and you can see it for yourself here.
UPDATE: I have now translated parts of the report directly from the French. Available here.

Saturday, March 18th Jyllands-Posten broke the story about an attack by UN special rapporteur Doudou Diéne on Denmark. The report has yet to be released to the public in full, but it was leaked by the UN to press sources in Denmark. The reasons for this are obscure. This blog thinks it is because the Human Rights Committee has been dissolved. This means that the new Human Rights Council won’t be able to meet until sometime this summer. Therefore Mr. Diéne probably leaked the report to the press in Denmark to ensure that it could become part of the debate before it would be seen as old news.

On to the report. The report has yet to be released to the general public, but Politiken and Jyllands-Posten have copies of it and have posted excerpts of it. The best overview is gained by using Politiken’s excerpts, but Jyllands-Posten have included some nice tidbits as well. All of it is heavy reading, done in Diplomatese, a new language which critters of Mr. Diéne’s ilk has made just for themselves.
(more…)

Mohammed al-Asadi gave this interview which was published today, to the Danish newspaper Information’s correspondent in Cairo. He was released on bail February 22, following international pressure. Al-Asadi is still in good health and managed on March 10 to leave Yemen to attend a journalists’ conference. Contrary to some reports he is facing the death penalty as this article makes clear. He intends to return to Yemen to fight the good fight.
See below the article for relevant links to resources on the al-Asadi trial.

It’s not my Prophet

“I don’t regret printing those cartoons. I was defending the Prophet, I was defending Islam against those who wish to use the religion to create conflicts and maintain their grip on power,” says Mohammed al-Asadi - the editor in chief of The Yemen Observer who is now on trial for his life for having printed three of the Danish Mohammed cartoons.

By Rune Lykkeberg

The Friday after he was released from jail, he went to pray at the Mosque. Mohammed al-Asadi had become a known face in Yemen: He had been presented as a criminal on national TV and in government-friendly newspapers. He was also a known face outside of Yemen: Newsweek did a telephone interview with him in prison where they called him a “martyr for the free press” and BBC World has told his story. This Friday Mohammed al-Asadi didn’t wish to be recognised. All he wanted to do was to go to Friday Prayers, so he walked towards a Mosque in a part of Sanaa, the capital of Yemen, where he doesn’t usually go:
(more…)

From Israel Insider:

Is the Muslim Loaded?
By Jacob Raines

The rule is, “every gun should be treated as if it were loaded.” What is the meaning of this rule? An unloaded gun is merely a heavy blunt object and as much a weapon as a baseball bat, table leg or tire iron. An unloaded gun retains the same properties as any heavy, oddly shaped piece of metal, and could be used as a paperweight, doorstop or crude hammer. Yet place a cartridge into the gun and it becomes an all new different object with inherited and unique characteristics.

Where as an unloaded gun is at best a crude weapon, a loaded gun is an effective deadly weapon, lethal with one shot. A loaded weapon can kill a loved one, an innocent, cause damage, or terrify those in its presence. Because a loaded gun is so powerful, and wields such creditable force, all guns should be treated with the same respect as if it were loaded, that is, until cleared. Guns shouldn’t be left around children or any individual unknowledgeable of such an instrument. Guns are prohibited from being around certain people and banned from certain areas and buildings.
(more…)

Have the Norwegians no shame? Notice how the deal was struck as the Iranians were burning Norwegian flags. And how they have no problem supplying the regime in Sudan. Sickening. I know business is “just business” but this is just a disgusting lack of decency. Who’re they gonna sell [out] to next time? North Korea is probably a market ripe for the plucking. If you have the stomache for it, that is…
In my opinion the unnameable one got a good deal with Mr. Fjellhaugen. Faustus sold his soul for supernatural powers and pleasure for 24 years. Fjellhaugen only needed 9 Million NOK to take the deal. But as the article says, [he] “view[s] Norway as a good country to collaborate with”.
Quoting from Dagens Næringsliv (a journal of commerce in Norway):

Dumps Danes - Lands Deal with Iran
Båtservice Verft in Mandal had to cut out Danish supplier to land big contract with the port authority of Iran

Bjørn Fjellhaugen of the Shipyard group Båtservice in Mandal has gained a reputation for getting contracts from fae away. Lately the shipyard has delivered ships to both China, Austria and Iran, Dagens Næringsliv writes.

Dumped Danish boats
This time around the shipyard has been tasked with building nine pilot vessels for the port authority of Iran. The contract is estimated to be worth 110 Millions NOK.

“Iranian authorities view Norway as a good country to collaborate with,” Bjørn Fjellhaugen opines.

Though the contract was signed as the Norwegian flag was burning in the Middle East, that wasn’t a problem [at the negotations].
(more…)

It’s a dirty job and all that, but need it really be such a dirty job to be a Danish cartoonist?

Cash and a car for the blood of Danish cartoonists
Peshawar, Mar 15
In his office in Peshawar’s historic Mohabat Khan mosque, prayer leader Maulana Yousaf Qureshi smoothes his beard from the white roots to the henna-orange tips.

“There’s no time limit. If someone kills the cartoonist in 50 years he will still get the million dollars,” he says.

In a blazing sermon on February 17, Qureshi promised the money — and a new car — to whoever assassinates any of the 12 Danes whose drawings of the Prophet Mohammed ignited a firestorm of protest across the Muslim world.
(more…)

This piece was published in today’s edition of Jyllands-Posten. It was written by Poul Højlund of Pia Causa. It’s good, conservative reasoning about this thing called Islam. Please notice, by the way, that Muhammed is depicted once again in this infidel newspaper from the North.

Update: Poul has a post about this article. If you want to praise or comment on the article, go here.

Democracy before Religion

By Poul Højlund

Islam is an unbreakable monolith of religion and politics. Islam as traditionally interpreted is not compatible with democracy, the author of today’s feature article writes.

“Freedom of Religion is included in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Danish Constitution. This means that I am free to be a Christian and my neighbor can be a Moslem without this interfering with our basic rights or our recognition by society at large. And our neighbor another door over is allowed to believe in absolutely nothing while remaining a co-equal member of our common society.

Freedom of Religion means that if someone by words or deeds attacks my two non-Christian neighbors on account of their beliefs or lack thereof, I’ll be there to defend their rights. In the same manner, I can count on them - if things get to that.”

That is what I wrote in Jyllands-Posten in November of 2002 in the feature article titled “Freedom of Beliefs and Belief in Freedom”, and I still hold it to be true - indeed I don’t see how I could believe otherwise. But in that article I also wrote of the real and present danger of oppression of Democracy. (more…)

UN: Denmark Violated Convention on Racism

By Jens Grund and Kristoffer Pinholt

The UN criticises that the Danish state didn’t vigorously pursue allegations of racism of racism against the leader of the Danish People’s Party, Pia Kjærsgaard in 2003. Pia Kjærsgaard says UN’s decision is preposterous.

Denmark violated the UN convention on racial discrimination by not vigorously pursuing a charge of racism against the leader of the Danish People’s Party, Pia Kjærsgaard, in 2003.

So says the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in a new decision. The case began in 2003 when Pia Kjærsgaard in a letter to the editor criticised the Minister for Justice for subbmitting a proposed law against circumcision of girls to the Danish-Somalian organisation. The leader of the DPP compared it to asking pedophiles whether they objected to a ban on sex with children.
[…]

This just made me laugh. We are being decided on by a committee who among its members can muster such excellent members of the world community as Argentina, Ecuador, China, Burkina Faso, Guatemala and… wait for it.
(more…)

This is a brilliant article by Samuel Rachlin criticising the 60 Minutes segment about Denmark which I covered here and which Expose the Left has available at this post.

Quoting from Punditokraterne. I have only quoted here, I suggest you all go there and read the full article.

The Correspondent’s New Clothes

By Samuel Rachlin

WASHINGTON The picture of Denmark presented by CBS and its 60 Minutes magazine on American TV as a country of aggrandizing, arrogant bigots, blond models and happy-go-lucky fools out of tune and touch with the real world has nothing in common with the country I call home. Moreover, it is home for immigrants from all over the world of all faiths and cultures who have found happiness and a safe haven for themselves and their families taking full advantage of what Denmark has to offer. They are doing much better than one would think after having watched Bob Simon’s story The State of Denmark on 60 Minutes.

This kind of journalism does not have much in common with the tradition of Ed R. Murrow or what his associate, Fred Friendly, taught me at the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University when I took my degree there in the late 70ies. The snide asides and sarcasm that permeated the narrative do not mix with the high quality journalism I have learned to expect from 60 Minutes. What we got was a presentation so biased, distorted and corrupted by so many inaccuracies and innuendos that it was impossible to recognize Denmark. I am sorry to say it, but it is shameful for the profession that both Bob Simon and I belong to.
(more…)

I had a post about this earlier, but that has been deleted. It was only the English excerpt from aftenposten.no. Here I bring the full interview from dagbladet.no. This is a rough translation, but I need some sleep. If there are any errors, they will be corrected tomorrow.

(I would also like to thank sveitserosten for bringing to my attention that this interview had been made.)

Dagbladet.no February 13, 2006

Islam will be Victorious against the West

There can be no lasting peace between the West and Islam before the Islamic Caliphate has been reborn. So says Mullah Krekar. In this interview he shares a peek at Radical Islamists’ thoughts in the aftermath of the Caricature affair.

Carsten Thomassen

Mullah Krekar is wearing a bright white tunic as he welcomes us to his home at Tøyen in Oslo. In a corner sits the computer which Mullah Krekar uses to publish his articles and communicate with co-religionists from all over the world.
(more…)

Pia Causa writes about the demands for the capital penalty for Muhammed Al-Asadi, the brave Yemeni editor who published the Muhammed Cartoons. I’d meant to write about this, but it is just one of those horrible things that makes me go all “fuck them, let’s send in the marines!” - and that isn’t very constructive. I can fully support Pia Causa’s suggestion though:
“CALL ALL PAPERS AND POLITICIANS TO GO AGAINST THIS DEFAMATION OF MANKIND”.
Read more about this in this Newsweek interview with Al-Asadi.
LGF has discussion here.

Hat tip: Pia Causa

Atlas has the goods.

UPDATE: More at Infidel Bloggers’ Alliance

Don’t be silenced by extremists

A plea from 11 Canadian Muslim academics and activists:

Feb. 28, 2006. 10:37 AM

A curtain of fear has descended on the intelligentsia of the West, including Canada. The fear of being misunderstood as Islamophobic has sealed their lips, dried their pens and locked their keyboards.

With hundreds dead around the world in the aftermath of the now infamous Danish cartoons, Canada’s writers, politicians and media have imposed a frightening censorship on themselves, refusing to speak their minds, thus ensuring that the only voices being heard are that of the Muslim extremists and the racist right.

Emboldened by the free rein they have received, Canada’s Muslim extremists and their supporters flexed their muscles at Queen’s Park last week, with speakers promising to drown the Danish people "in their own blood".

A protestor carried the sign "Kurt Westgaard - countdown to justice has begun … it’s just a matter of time."

Elsewhere, in Pakistan, a Muslim woman was pictured carrying a sign, "God Bless Hitler," and a Muslim cleric placed a $1 million reward for the murder of a Danish cartoonist. Embassies were burned, churches ruined and hundreds died in different Muslim countries.

Undoubtedly, Muslims were angered by the insulting cartoons. But the overblown reaction was partly due to their pent-up frustrations, and partly the result of orchestrated mischief by certain Islamist leaders.

Islamic societies, run by variances of autocratic regimes, are in turmoil. Ravaged by rampant corruption, a widening gap between rich and poor, and suppression of dissent, the people in these societies have lost hope in their own futures.

The U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the unending occupation of the Palestinian territories and the quagmire of the Kashmiri dispute, have led many Muslims and non-religious peoples of Islamic origin, to view the West as the source of their countries’ problems.

The growing popularity of the extremists in Muslim societies, the electoral success of the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, Shia radicals in Iraq, and Hamas in the Palestinian territories, rather than signifying the growing religiosity of the peoples of the Middle East, reflect political despair in the region.

In the West, people of Muslim origin, be they religious or secular, are facing growing racism, Islamophobia and discrimination reflected in immigration policies and anti-terrorist legislation.

The cartoon crisis was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

The Muslim extremists seized the opportunity and added fuel to fire. The calculated role played by the two Danish Muslim extremists, backed by Islamic fundamentalist regimes, is a case in point. They not only aggravated an already inflammatory situation, but added their own infuriating images, never published in the West, as they took their case to clerics in the Middle East.

Both, Imam Abu Laban and Ahmad Akkari have escaped the attention and scrutiny their acts deserved. These two men, who now sit in the comfort of their homes in Denmark, should be held accountable for their criminal actions.

For too long the media have created an image that portrays communities from the Muslim world as a monolith entity, best represented by extremists.

The media have created a false dichotomy that pits these Muslim extremists against the West. The fact is that in all Muslim countries, progressive citizens are trying to break loose from the tyranny of the autocrats and clerics and wish to develop a civil society where citizenship is based not on inherited race or religion, but the equality of all, irrespective of faith, race, sexuality or gender.

In Tehran today, the city’s bus drivers are on strike. Thousands have been arrested; entire families have disappeared. Yet, this has not made a blip in the western media.

If the same bus drivers were burning books or embassies, this would certainly be on the evening news. This is an appalling example that only outrageous, violent expressions of faith by Muslim extremists are taken as the aspirations of people from Islamic societies.

It is time for Canadians to stand up for the hard-won democratic values that the Muslim extremists oppose.

By rejecting the agenda of the extremists, Canada’s intelligentsia would be standing shoulder to shoulder with the Muslims and secular individuals from the region who reject both Islamophobia and Islamism. Islamism is not the new revolutionary movement against global forces of oppression, as a section of the left in this country erroneously perceives.

Today, the religious right and autocracies in the so-called Islamic world are united in their call for passing legislation to make any discussion on religion a criminal offence.

This, at a time when many writers in Jordan, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan are rotting in jails, facing charges of apostasy and blasphemy.

We call on Canadian politicians and intellectuals to stand up for freedom of expression.

Our democratic values, including free speech, should not be compromised under the garb of fighting hate.

To fight Islamophobia and racism, we do not need to sacrifice free speech and debate.

The authors

Jehad Aliweiwi, former executive director of the Canadian Arab Federation.

Taj Hashmi, sessional professor, Simon Fraser University.

Amir Hassanpour, associate professor, University of Toronto.

Tarek Fatah, host, The Muslim Chronicle, CTS-TV.

Tareq Y. Ismael, professor, University of Calgary.

Jacqueline S. Ismael, professor, University of Calgary.

El-Farouk Khaki, secretary general, Muslim Canadian Congress.

Shahrzad Mojab, associate professor, University of Toronto.

Haideh Moghissi, professor, York University.

 

Munir Pervaiz, secretary, Pakistan-Canadian Writers Forum.

 

Saeed Rahnema, professor, York University.

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.

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

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.

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.

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"?

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

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?

This post just to inform everyone that the rumour started by Reuters is false. No new apology has been issued in the Saudi Media. Jyllands-Posten does not know who published it.

Their nominal apology (aka "we’re sorry you’re whining crybabies) still stands though.

More at LGF

Link to haaretz where J-P denies having published the ads in the Saudi Media.

Links to blogs that have spread this rumour with comments disabled (let’s hope they watch their logs or technorati):

http://yournewreality.blogspot.com/2006/02/danish-newspaper-that-started-mohammed.html

http://japanesefurniture.bloggaway.com/?p=49

http://orvstuff.messagemonster.com/sorry.htm

http://sierra.bloggers4ever.com/?p=269

http://www.kitchencabinetreviews.com/toddler/2006/02/saudi_papers_publish_danish_pa.html

http://kramer1854.livejournal.com/1564.html

http://www.kitchencabinetreviews.com/business_plan/2006/02/saudi_papers_publish_danish_pa.html

Translator’s note: This is the next in the series of columns that Per Nyholm is doing for Jyllands-Posten, the last of which was entitled "We are being pissed upon" which is available here. The column before that one is here.

Jyllands-Posten, Friday, February 17, 2006

My Day in Florence

By Per Nyholm

(Florence) The days are growing longer and milder. The first smells of spring are in the air. Soon the delights of Summer will be here.

Of course there are problems, even serious ones, but sometimes even they need to be put aside for a spell. Maybe then, one returns and finds that they have grown smaller by the absence. Maybe one achieves greater clarity by thinking in another direction.

This morning, feeling utterly disgusted with the Moslem rebellion (which, praise the Lord, is not a Danish Moslem rebellion), I boarded the train from Rome for Florence. I intended to take a walk, have some brunch and see the newly renovated Statue of David. A day of culture, in other words - no wars, no hysteria, no hatred.

On the train, I read an article by the President of Indonesia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, in which he encourages the values of respect, tolerance and diversity, all very fine values which I am happy to support. And I said to myself: "Fine, mr. President! What are you doing for Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali? What are you doing to hinder the group of madmen who reportedly live in your country and which has pledged to slaughter Danes living there - all because a Danish newspaper printed some cartoons, seen by few Indonesians?"

If you want respect, mr. President, tell your countrymen that these cartoons are protected by Danish law and that there is no case. Tell publicly what you very well know privately, that in a proper democracy one may insult Islam, Christianity, Judaism and every other religion. There is no shall, but you may. Freedom isn’t free, mr. President, just ask the Danes this very moment.

I know, mr. President that neither can you nor will you do this and that is the problem. A problem you share with other rulers from the Phillipines across Central Asia to the Middle East and Africa. The problem - except from a few lying Imams - is not in Denmark, but in the Moslem world where religion isn’t a private matter - where Mullahs are allowed to pester the believers in their homes, in their workplaces and in government. Only this all-encompassing religiousity can explain how 12 rather innocous cartoons can lead us to the present, a place where several have died on account of them.

You complain, mr. President - with no small justification - about the Islamophobia of The West. In connection with that, some have complained of a drawing of Muhammed with a bomblike turban as being the most offensive. Very well, what do you think hurts Islam the most? The cartoon or this: that millions of viewers watch crazed and savage madmen decapitate their victims with knives or slaughter thousands of innocents, Moslems included, from New York to Iraq and Bali?

Respectfully, mr. President, these killings and threats are of little use. If you say we can’t show the likeness, or alleged likeness, of Muhammed in Denmark, I say: our rights are not up for discussion. Moslem repressions will not be accepted as the basis for diminishing the foundations of Western Democracy - a system, I might add, which also many Moslems strive for and which you - as far as I know - in no small degree try to uphold.

Those were my thoughts on the train, travelling north through the mild Italian landscape - and here in Florence I wonder if not we in Denmark should abolish the People’s Church and abolish all official recognition of religion. The State could then take care of our churches - as they do all cultural monuments - but the preaching of the word should be with free clerics, paid by their flocks, who spread the word - be it Christian, Moslem, Jewish or something else - under the protection and abiding by the responsibilities of the normal secular laws.

I fancy that by so seperating politics and religion it would help the plight of the free and critical citizens, among these thousands of well integrated Moslems, used by a faltering priesthood in their, hopefully, doomed attempt to - by leveraging the Muhammed cartoons - keep their failing power over the Moslem Mind.

Having finished brunch I take the long way past San Lorenzo to pay my respects to Niels Steensen of Copenhagen, beatified by the Catholics as Steno. I then visit the Academy to see the newly restored David.

There I am, delighted and breathtaken, in front of a piece of art which in a world of Puritans would be used to pave roads - Michaelangelo’s naked youth, gracefully nonchalant, natural yet glorious, watching the fallen Goliat just smithen by his sling.

David is one of the great pieces of art of Western Civilization, not only because it is technically perfect but because it holds in it a message - that the weak and naked by using his mind and inherent humanity may triumph against the might of boasting brutality, against those whose only language is that of threats, destruction and murder.

Today was a good day in Florence.

PS: I would like to thank seperately everyone who writes to me. This time I cannot. Last week’s column, "We are being pissed upon", has as of this moment resulted in 274 comments of which four were negative, five or six were sceptical and the rest positive. I had reactions from China to Costa Rica, from the United States to Australia and from Sweden to South Africa. So you’ll have to consider this my sincere "thank you".

Flemming Rose has a piece in today’s Washington Post. An excerpt:

In January, Jyllands-Posten ran three full pages of interviews and photos of moderate Muslims saying no to being represented by the imams. They insist that their faith is compatible with a modern secular democracy. A network of moderate Muslims committed to the constitution has been established, and the anti-immigration People’s Party called on its members to differentiate between radical and moderate Muslims, i.e. between Muslims propagating sharia law and Muslims accepting the rule of secular law. The Muslim face of Denmark has changed, and it is becoming clear that this is not a debate between "them" and "us," but between those committed to democracy in Denmark and those who are not.

You gotta love this man.

Hat tip: Dansk-Svensk