I’m trying to understand what is wrong with Scandinavian cartoonists

Posted on September 20th, 2007 by Richard Catto 3,114 views

Last year in February, cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad published by a Danish newspaper provoked an outraged reaction from Muslims the world over. Violent mobs rioted in the streets and destroyed property to show their displeasure in having their religious icons ridiculed.

Now, just over 18 months later, a Swedish cartoonist, Lars Vilks, has followed suit and added his contribution to inciting worldwide conflagration. He drew the head of the Prophet Mohammad on a dog’s body and he’s calling it art. He has also stated that he’s not against Islam.

For his trouble, he has had a $100 000 bounty slapped on his head by the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi.

Lars, how about I photoshop the head of your wife onto a naked woman’s body involved in copulation with an ostrich, and call it art? Is it still art? Is it? Or is it just something that has been done a million times already and it’s no longer funny?

What’s the point of ridiculing Islam in cartoons? The result is predictable. It’s not art, it’s pure stupidity and a desire to stick it to a religion for the hell of it. Find something else to do for your own personal amusement. Please.

Sources:
Cartoonist Hiding From al-Qaida Threat
Sweden cartoonist gets protection
Sweden ‘regrets’ Prophet cartoon

Tags: Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, Al-Qaeda, blasphemy, fatwa, Islam, Islamic cartoons, Lars Vilks, Swedish cartoonist
Filed under Islamic cartoons, Swedish cartoonist |

64 Responses to “I’m trying to understand what is wrong with Scandinavian cartoonists”

Richard Catto Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 08:29
Does free speech mean that everyone should feel free to be as obnoxious as possible whenever they like, no matter how much strife results?

It just seems to me that the first time it happened, most people would not have been able to predict the strong worldwide reaction that Muslims had (to the Danish cartoons). So why pick another fight with Muslims? Why go and poke them exactly where you know they’re sensitive?

I just don’t see the point. Do you?
jp Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 09:18
free speech means that one CAN be as obnoxious as possibe whenever you feel like it without having to fear for ones life. how often does christ get caricatured? how often does the god of most religions get caricatured? To have to fear for your life because you have drawn an obnoxious cartoon, I believe he is quite brave in showing what is slowly becoming of our ‘free’ world, living in a country that should be completely secular.
Richard Catto Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 09:56
Where does world peace fit into this scenario?
jp Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 10:33
I would rather live in a world where I am not scared to speak what I believe, draw what I like, as long as I don’t harm anybody else, that is not peaceful, than a world that is peaceful, BECAUSE I am NOT ALLOWED to speak my mind, draw what I like, worry about who I insult because of fear of death…

The western world has gone through the dark ages… When the church ruled all, people who spoke against it were heretics and put to the death, and then we fortunately came to an age of enlightenment, where freedom rather than religious doctrine slowly became more and more sacred in our society.

I personally do not want to return to the dark ages.
candy Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 12:23
let’s not forget that there is a difference between free speech and hate speech.

and btw, diplomacy is a sign of evolution, jp.

Richard… I DO have Firefox and I’m using it just for you
Richard Catto Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 14:20
jp, you can draw as many obscene cartoons as you like, so long as you don’t shove them into my face.

I don’t want to be annoyed by a bunch of shit I see published in the media. I’m just seeing this thing from the Muslims’ point of view. I don’t think it’s unreasonable of them to desire that their religion not be made incessant fun of, for no good reason. That’s not art. That’s harassment.

Candy, you’re like Firefox – you both rule.
jp Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 18:21
Why can I not make fun of religion?

Because it upsets people, hurts their sensibilities?

So does that mean that I cannot not make fun of Jacob Zuma, who has one of the bigger support bases in South Africa because I might offend people?

How is it even possible that you are (though I am sure you will come out hurriedly diagreeing with me) pretty much saying that by drawing a cartoon, this guy deserves a death sentence placed upon his head. Because that is what you are saying by pointing out it is his fault.

And of course candy there is a difference between free speach and hate speach. Free Speach allows me to mock a religious concept, such as christ, mohommed, Moses ect, because it is my right to do so, much like I can mock, governements, evolution, or anything else I would like…

Hate speech is when I call for hatred or of violence towards actual people, towards muslims, jews, atheists, evolutionists, abortionists, etc etc.

But to start blurring the lines, to tell me that when I say the religion of islam is stupid, or the mohammed was not a prophet, or christ caused more devision in this world than anything else, and then brand that is hate speech… well then we are heading back towards the middle ages i am afraid.
jp Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 19:51
oh and you could if you wanted to,

“Lars, how about I photoshop the head of your wife onto a naked womanâ€™s body involved in copulation with an ostrich, and call it art? Is it still art? Is it? Or is it just something that has been done a million times already and itâ€™s no longer funny?”

And you could do it with out having to go into hiding afterwards… you might face a court case from his wife for defamation or whatever you sue for doing that to somebody, but none the less you could go through life without fear.

And I am afraid to say, you above suggestion, is far more insulting and in my humble opinion then insulting a religion. Here you are defaming an actual person. Someone who exists, and has to deal with the cconsequences of your actions. Whereas, by drawing a rude cartoon of a religious figure. Well what difference in the big scheme of things does it make. All you are doing is saying terror and fear are what we have to listen to. And that makes the world a horrible and sad place.

Next thing you will be calling for the death of salman rushdie to.
candy Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 23:57
jp, take a pill, dude.
Richard Catto Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 06:41
jp, I feel that a country’s laws should protect its citizens from the indignity of having their religion slandered in public (in a variety of ways).

I think individuals should be free to express their personal opinions about religion in web forums, blogs, newsgroups, personal conversation, letters to the editor etc. I think, however, that the mainstream media (newspapers, television, radio) should not be allowed the same leeway because they reach a far wider audience AND because they usually are accorded more authority.

That’s two criteria: 1) Does the publication reach a mass market? (X number of people, to be determined) and 2) Is the publication regarded as having mainstream credibility? Publications meeting those two criteria should be barred from mocking religion. They are free to criticise religion, but they may not MOCK or PARODY religion.

Hustler magazine, for instance, would still be free to mock religion, because 1) only a minority of perverts read that crap and 2) no-one takes anything published in that rag seriously.
Guy McLaren Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 08:50
Richard I fear that I would be guilty of mocking and parody where religion exists. The thing is that Christians and Muslims have the right to condemn me and call me stupid for not partaking of their fairytales. I don’t deny them that basic right. Thus I should be allowed to call them stupid in my own way.

The Muslims have a right to their beliefs as much as I don’t agree with their dogma. I don’t like them Xtians, Jehovas witnesses and Muslims trying to convert me to their way of thinking. They are disrespectful of my viewpoint. When I discuss my viewpoint I get all s of allegations and fear thrown at me. How is that different from this scandinavian jerk’s cartoon?
jp Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 10:00
SO what you are saying is we must censure our secular public media against mocking religion?

Would they be allowed to mock atheism?

Would they be allowed to mock satanism?

Who becomes the judge as to what is sacred or not?

Is it the person who is willing to put the price tag on my head?

Candy… Take a pill? We are talking about a guy who drew a bad picture, who has now had to go into hiding, with a reward offered on his head if he gets ‘slaughtered like a lamb’?

And that is in one of the more secular countries in the world.

If you don’t find that scary… I am not sure what to say.
Richard Catto Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 11:44
sure they can mock atheists, jp. everyone knows that they’re a total joke.
Guy McLaren Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 16:12
Now Richard, that was wrong, We atheists know that religious people are a joke, but we don’t go saying that on public websites, do we?
candy Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 16:42
here is my response to why i recommended that you take a pill, JP:
http://insidecandy.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-to-conduct-argument-without-pissing.html
Richard Catto Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 18:28
You should place a bounty on my head, Guy. For $100 000, I’d kill myself.
jp Says:
September 23rd, 2007 at 22:48
Yeah funny richard… Glad to see you find amusement in the fact that some guy has to fear for his life, and not just fear for his life, but fear that he might be ‘slaughtered like a lamb’, because of a bad drawing.
Richard Catto Says:
September 23rd, 2007 at 23:54
Oh, I’m not at all interested in his problems. These cartoonists are all well aware that Rushdie has lived his entire life in hiding. They went into this with their eyes open. Lars is just a troublemaker, adding his bundle of sticks to the bonfire. Perhaps his own? I will shed no tears for these rabble rousers if they should come to harm.
jp Says:
September 24th, 2007 at 13:25
Well i just suppose that shows the sad state I world is heading towards, where we care more for those who want to hurt, rather than those who want to expose the hurt.
Richard Catto Says:
September 24th, 2007 at 16:45
Lars wanted to hurt. Don’t pretend to yourself otherwise. He was aiming at selling his artwork in Germany, but the galleries refused to display his work because it was so objectionable. So his newspaper crony decided to run his cartoons to help the poor guy out.

Fact is, both the editor and Lars, were doing this for their own sweet benefit, hoping to capitalise on some controversy and make a buck for themselves. If, along the way, they deeply offended a whole bunch of people whose religion they held up to mockery, they weren’t concerned. They reckoned they’d play the “free speech” card and that would get most people in the “Free world” on their side.

And of course, jp, you (and others) immediately bought into their insanity.
Shu'aib Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 10:47
It defies reason that someone, who I assume calls himself an intelligent person, can re to childish pranks to express his frustration with what many, (more than one fifth of the world’s population) perceive as the successful way of life – Islam.
The Prophet of Islam, Mohammed, was the medium by which this dynamic way of life was introduced to the world for the benefit of all in a short period of 23 years. Today 1.4 billion people – and growing still…- prescribe to this way of life. Therefore it does qualify as a success story. All successes are met by percentages of acceptance and rejection. The lars person obviously falls in the latter category. This explains his frustrations. Islam will blossom regardless of the petty frustrations of individuals – this is evident.

So draw as many cartoons as you like all you frustrated people, it will not take away from Islam as much as a finger dipped in the ocean will reduce its volume.
jp Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 15:19
“So draw as many cartoons as you like all you frustrated people, it will not take away from Islam as much as a finger dipped in the ocean will reduce its volume.”

And this is my point exactly. I don’t disagree he wanted to create controversy. I wouldn’t put it past him that he had some of scam, wanted to make money, do whatever he wanted to do. I wouldn’t know if he is a moron, a fool, or whatever, and personally I don’t care.

What I care about, is in our modern world, in one of our most developed and in theory, free countries, he has to fear being slaughtered like a lamb for insulting a religion and you seem ok about it. I don’t particulary care if you don’t like what he drew, or if every single person in this world does not like what he drew. Sue the newspaper, boycott it, complain, sit in the street across the road from it in silent protest, I don’t really care, in fact I might even join in.

But the moment you condone, in fact from the way you write, applaud, the fact that a man has to go into hiding for fear of his life because of something he drew, well then that I am afraid is when free speech starts to come to an end. I hope you don’t insult someone with what you say and they threaten to kill you because of it, because you are saying that that is ok.
Shu'aib Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 18:14
‘A man shall reap what he sows’. Not everyone in this civilised world of ours reacts the same to insults leveled at their religion. If the lars person has invoked an extreme response from some part of the world he has to take it like a man.
If he considers himself a civilised person he would be educated enough to realise the implications of involving himself in a controvercial issue.
If George Bush can kill almost 2 million Iraqis and displace another 2million in response to the 2850 americans killed in the attack on the twin towers – and he is the chief representative of the ‘civilised world’ – then a simple threat on the life of one irresponsible malicious person who insults 1.4billion people is insignificant to say the least in the light of world events.
Richard Catto Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 19:16
Yeah, what Shu’aib said. Lars has to take it like a man.

It’s not only Muslims who threaten others with death. People all over the world from any number of backgrounds get angry with others and tell them that they’re gonna kill them. Some of them actually do it.

This man, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, is in Iraq fighting Americans who are illegally occupying his country. These so-called civilised Americans paraded captured Iraqi prisoners around naked on leashes for their own private amusement.

So, let’s not pretend that Westerners are civilised whilst Muslims are not.
jp Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 23:18
I am sorry, but what does George Bush, or Iraq have to do with our freedom to express ourselves. Who ever said George Bush is the chief representative of the civilised world? He is a president of america, and is nearly at the end of his term, and being the civilised world when his term comes to an end he leaves office. At least in america, you can agree with him or disagree with him, you can insult him, you can draw offensive cartoons about him, you can call him names, you can be rude, you can in fact say or do anything you like, as long as you don’t try to harm him.

And when did I ever say westerners are civilised and muslims are not?

I said western culture is civilised… unfortunately there are a lot of uncivilised people within the culture, people who call for someones death for what they have written or drawn, is just not civilised. It just isn’t. To be allowed to say what one likes without fear of violent reprisal is civilised.

When did I ever call muslims not civilised? Obviously both of you have some of defensive angst hanging about. I don’t care if it is a muslim, jew, atheist, afrikaaner, zulu, or anyone else. I assume Richard Catto is not muslim, yet by the very fact he condones that one should be condemned to death for a drawing, and from this, maybe believes rushdie should be condemned to death for his writing, he lacks certain basics of civilisation.

I don’t understand why you two have suddenly changed the argument. It seems what people do these days. LETS BLAME AMERICA. Then it means we are right. Even it it has nothing to do with what we are saying.

Lets get it straight… Do you believe Someone should be condemned to death for drawing a cartoon that insults your religion? Because it is scarily sounding like your answer will be yes. It is a yes or no question. For someone who believes a parent should not hit their child, it sounds like quite an absurd contradiction to me.

I don’t care that whats his face in Iraq, who might proclaim to be fighting an american occupation of his country, but none the less seems to do more damage to innocent iraqi civilians, says, I more care about the fact, that in sweden there are people who are willing to take him up on his offer. People who are not living in iraq, nor in malaysia, nor in iran, where yes, it is common practise to stifle freedom of speech and put people to death for saying stuff that the leadership doesn’t agree with, but in a country that prides itself on being a secular country, where religion is not sacred. If you don’t agree with its policies leave, or don’t read its newspapers, or books, or whatever else might insult your sensiblities.

So again… yes or no, do you believe a person should be put to death for a drawing that offends you.
Richard Catto Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 00:17
By taking the side of Muslims and saying that they have a right to their outrage, and a right not to have their religion parodied in ridiculous cartoons, doesn’t say that I condone any fatwa calling for Vilks’ death. Vilks and the newspaper which published his cartoons, deserve censure.

Fact is, Westerners routinely abuse their freedom of speech to be obnoxious and rude without cause.

For instance, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is in the United States at the moment for the General Assembly of the United States. He was invited to speak at the University of Columbia this past Monday (September 24 2007). The president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, introduced Ahmadinejad calling him a “petty, cruel dictator”. That’s rude and disrespectful.

source: http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/irn070925mc
jp Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 09:50
Well he does keep his miority citizens as second class citizens, he has draconian press censoship laws, you can be put to death, for insulting islam, adultery, homosexuality, and arrested for almost anything else that the state does not like, and as a women, beaten for not wearing the right clothes. The ba’hai religion has to hide their religion on fear of arrest, and imprisonment, jews cannot raise there status above a second class citizen.

It is one of the only countries in the world that still practises state executions of children, arrests people for going to music concerts, and has banned google and youtube from the country. Bloggers have to live in a constant fear of not insulting the state or you might just dissappear like certain academics.

To me it sounds like a petty and cruel dictator, for one of the countries that probably has one of the worst human rights records in the entire world.

This is what you are using to back up your point. Perhaps even more scary than the intial point you decided to make.

Though being America, a country that prides itself on free speech, a man who they are pretty much are at war at, who they believes sponsers a huge amount of terrorist activity around the world, and just by his countries human rights actions offends one hell of a lot of people, could stand, and talk at a universtity within the country with absolutely no fear, of violence. Something I doubt very much this could happen in Iran, a country that does what you say, and limits, what you can say about religion (Except of course judiasm in which you will probably find some of antisemitic cartoon in the press every few weeks), and of course let us not forget the ba’hai, whose religion is outlawed.

Yes a very good example of disrespectable use of freedom of speech.
Richard Catto Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 10:09
It sounds like you don’t like Sharia law. It’s an Islamic country, not a secular country.

I wouldn’t say that I accept all aspects of Sharia law myself. I’ve written previously about this. I took issue with Sharia law forbidding people to convert from Islam to Christianity.

Ba’hais are seen as heretical and are treated poorly. Jews in Iran apparently get treated very well. Ahmadinejad isn’t comfortable with aspects of The Holocaust. That is his right.

I don’t see Ahmadinejad as a petty and cruel dictator. I think he’s rather reasonable actually. I think he deserves to be treated with the respect due a head of state.
jp Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 10:43
I am assuming you aren’t being serious, because it is to scary to think you are.

So you are saying a cartoonist in sweden should live with the fact that by drawing a cartoon in sweden he has to fear for his life, while the president of a country that can put a 14 year old boy, or a 9 year old girl to death is within his rights?

A country that you can be imprisoned for being part of a minority religion, and by the way when people talk about jews being treated well in Iran, it is a bit like talking about coloured people being treated well under apartheid. They do definately have more rights than the ba’hai, not sure if that cn be called treated well.

Of course I have problems with a country being run by religious law. Much like I would have a problem if a country was run by the laws in the old testament, such as the stoning to death of a child for being rude to their parents. Whether it was religious law or any other law it is wrong.

Well you must have enjoyed apartheid South Africa it seems.

I am not sure what more to say. Well done you have left me speechless. Speechless with disgust, but speechless none the less.
jp Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 10:50
In fact next you will tell me that Sudan too is within their rights…

And then go onto explain, how Burma is a beautiful place to live, and how wonderful the egyptian treat the sudanese refugees.

Sick.
Richard Catto Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 11:10
Why don’t you go and research this and read more. Perhaps you will find the answers that you seek?
jp Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 12:40
Research what?

Human rights abuses in Iran? That it sounds like, you might need slightly more research into.

The concepts of free speech and a free press? Well, not much to research further there I believe we should have one, while you believe it should be government censored.

The fact that because it is religious law it has to be respected? I thought we had managed to get past that in the 15th century, but obviously not.

I am not sure what exactly you are asking me to research? If you could let me know I will more than happily do that. Hopefully, the books haven’t been burnt, censured or erased, the ideas still exist, and people who are putting out the research aren’t bound to report what they do due to fear of reprisal, as that seems to be how you believe the world should be run.
Richard Catto Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 12:57
Your ideas about Iran are jaundiced.

I don’t believe that a free press has the right to purposefully incite strife, no.
jp Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 13:13
My views on Iran are jaundiced?

How so?

Are you talking about my problems with child executions?
Are you talking about the fact there is no freedom of expression?
Are you talking the fact that you can be put to death, in live public executions, for being gay?
or for adultery?
Are you talking about the fact that 90% of the media is controlled by the state?
Are you talking about its supplying of arms to terrorist groups?
Are you talking about the fact that women get beaten by the police for not covering their faces properly?
Are you talking about the fact that the ba’hai have to hide their religion (perhaps one of the most peaceful religions in concept and structure in the world) for fear of arrest and imprisonment?
Well perhaps I am jaundiced… but I think their record speaks for itself… they have managed to wonderfully overshadow it with Iraq, nuclear issues, and of cause the way the win any argument, blame america, but none the less, a horrible, scary country.

Though of course I would like to research more into its pleasing nature that you have obviously found, so any starting point you can guide me to I would appreciate.

and then on your comment about the press not having a right to purposely incite strife… What does that mean? Anything can incite strife.
Does that mean if they published a rude cartoon about Jacob Zuma, that led to riots, they therefore should not be allowed to publish anything rude on Jacob Zuma? The problem with that is where does it stop? Who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?
The apartheid regime tried to do exactly that. Iran does exactly that. Sudan does exactly that, zimbabwe is trying to do exactly that, Malaysia and Burma and North Korea are doing that too.

Hmm What do all those countries and governments have in common?
Shu'aib Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 15:17
In response to jp…
A country that votes its leaders into power are by extention subjecting themselves to that party’s interpretation of that country’s law.
That answers all your points on what and how the law is applied in Iran. I believe that no other country has the right to interfere in the soverinity of another country. But it seems that the way the west looks at how Iran is apply its law, without considering its soverinity, is the cause for it to criticise the country. If your neighbour has a bad habit of beating his children for whatever reason – are you going to condemn him?
Your views on international politics seems to quite narrow-minded so say the least. I agree with Cotto you should approach politics with a broader vision and a deeper understanding of the people you want to criticise. It is precisely this arrogant attitude that got america into war with Iraq. Bush had no idea where Afghanistan or Iraq was except that he believed there were ‘so called terrorists’ hiding there. Such arrogance is dispicable disregard for the humanity of others.
The issue of free speech is also debatable if it allows the blatant disrespect for other cultures and religions.
As far as condemning a man to death for showing disrespect to cultures or religions of other people – I say again a man shall reap what he sows. There are many motives for doing this type of thing done by lars – he should then bear the responsibility of his actions. Only he knows what his real motives were. Its no use you arguing on his behalf when u are not 100% sure of his motives. ”A man shall be judged only by his intentions.”
jp Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 16:22
“If your neighbour has a bad habit of beating his children for whatever reason – are you going to condemn him?”

Yes Hopefully I will… I will hopefully call social services and get his children taken away from him, especially if he continues to beat them. I am assuming old Richard Catto would do the same from his other posts, but he does seem highly contradictory in his opinions at times.

The issue of free speech is very much that. It allows one to show disrespect to other cultures and religions for the very fact that those other cultures and religions may be wrong. Sometimes it can be offensive and sometimes it can be used badly and in those instances, in countries which actually allow free speech, you follow the legal routes, and you sue or you boycot or whatever, but as soon as free speech is controlled by a fear of violence as a response, then it becomes a scary and slippery slope down into a draconian society.

As they say “a society that burns books are just a step away from burning people.”

Secondly because someone is elected into office does not make anything they do good or just. Mugabe was elected into office, Mussolini was elected into office, Hitler was elected into office.

It is very easy for you to say the majority elected the iranian government into office, so who are we to complain, but the majority is not always right. In many circumstances they are far from right. It is one of the beautiful things about South Africa, we have protections from our constitution of our minorities.

Sadly a country like Iran does not.

Maybe I guess my political views are narrow minded, I don’t believe in all those things I listed in my above comment, you know, the repression of minorities, death sentences for menial offences, the beating of women because of how they dress, the killing of children… I don’t believe that that should take place in a decent society. If that makes me narrow minded, well then narrow minded I am. Better that than open minded, and saying we should not criticise the horrible things that are happening around the world for fear of insulting someones culture.

So someone like you, sitting here in South Africa or where ever you sit, can make statements like we should not comment on Iran because they just have a different system to us… well when 16 year old teenagers are hung in a public hanging for being homosexual, it is wrong.

When a women, mother of three, is buried chest deep in the ground, and publicly stoned to death, for adultery, (the man receives no punishment), it is wrong. It is scary that a South African, who has come from our history, because of not wanting to insult another culture cannot say that is wrong.

We in this country should have learned to speak up against atrocities to human rights, speak up against people are being treated unfairly by the society that they live in, whether it is Sudan (Or do you believe those in Darfur should just be left to their fate?) In Burma, in Iran, in where ever.

“As far as condemning a man to death for showing disrespect to cultures or religions of other people – I say again a man shall reap what he sows. There are many motives for doing this type of thing done by lars – he should then bear the responsibility of his actions.”

So you do believe a man should be put to death for a bad drawing. You say it in a much longer blurb but none the less that is what you are saying. Who cares what his motives are. His motives are irrelevant. The fact is he drew something you don’t like and so you think he should die.

I hope I never offend you.

Scary
Shu'aib Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 18:08
All I can say is that you have been indoctrinated by the western media and the way you see things are completely distorted.

Try and free your mind my friend. You have trapped yourself in applying your standards to others.

I f any stranger should try to interfere in the way I run my house – I will be VERY offended.

So it seems that the world is made up of a diverse people after all. The challenge is to find common ground in the end – because when it boils down to basics we are all equal before God and he alone will judge us.
jp Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 18:25
Of course you would be whilst you are standing there beating your child. Maybe beating your wife too… Should I then not interfear?

What if you lock your child in the cupboard for days on end? Should I then interfere?

Oh and if you beat him into inches from death? Should I then also just ignore it and walk on by? Why? Because you have a different way of doing something?

Well glad to see that god will judge us in the end… unfortunately some of us have to live in the present.. Fortunately not us living in a free country, but some have to go through basic struggles just for a moment of equality in front of fellow man, whether god cares or not.

Obviously you are not one of those… You obviously don’t need to hide you beliefs because of fear of death, nor have to be scared about voicing your opinions… maybe if you were, if you had to deal with actual persecution, hatred for who you are for no other reason, than you were born that way, maybe you would then have a different opnion.
Richard Catto Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 18:59
Jp, America and certain other countries seem intent on portraying Iran as a threat. I’m not so sure about that. I see them being threatened. Israel has publicly threatened to attack them and destroy their nuclear facilities.

Btw South Africa is refusing to join the GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Partnership) because our country prefers to reserve the right to enrich uranium itself (in future). Currently we import our nuclear fuel – our enrichment program was shut down during the Apartheid era.

South Africa is also an outspoken critic of Israel (like Iran). Perhaps in the future, given those two things in common, South Africa will also come under pressure to not enrich uranium and face sanctions if we go ahead anyway?

As for Iran’s human rights record, there are certainly concerns. China has a similar record. There’s lots of countries, including the US itself which abuse human rights. The US keeps people illegally detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It’s not legal to run such “detention” camps on the mainland USA – that’s the only reason why they are located on the island of Cuba.

I think Iran needs to be engaged constructively. I think her head of state needs to be shown due courtesies and respect. I think Western newspapers need to reject the publication of cartoons which are blatantly inflammatory to Islam and which have no news value.
jp Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 00:11
Again, in the first line, i hear, BLAME AMERICA.

whether Iran is a world threat is not the question, and comparing their domestic human rights abuses against america is just laughable and we are not talking about their nuclear capabilities, their hosting of a conference in which pretty much denied the holocaust, their public statements of wiping israel off the map, whatever way you want to interpret it, it is none the less a country of 8 million citzens. So they criticise israel? So what. We are talking about what they are doing in their own country to their own civilians.

Well then I am interested in an answer to the round about question posted above. When is one should intervene?
Do we wait till there is a situation like in Zimbabwe, or perhaps like the masacres in rwanda, or maybe the terror that is happening in Sudan, or do we leave it until it becomes holocaust proportions?

At what point should the world intervene, or do we just leave people to their fate. We don’t want to interfere in another’s culture, so we allow things like that to happen. Imagine if the world had done that with South Africa.
Richard Catto Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 13:06
No-one is intervening in Zimbabwe. South Africa has resisted Britain’s pressure to place pressure on Mugabe and I agree with that approach. I know that Tutu has called for action, but I agree with South Africa’s non-interventionist approach. Zimbabwe must ask for help, before we offer it or attempt to coerce them.

It’s true that the crisis in Zimbabwe has had an impact on South Africa. We have to deal with their refugees, for instance.

I don’t think any intervention is indicated in Iran’s case. I actually think they have a full right to develop a nuclear program, even if it includes producing nuclear weapons. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. Many countries do. France, for instance, was criticised for testing a hydrogen bomb a few years ago when an international moratorium had been placed on above ground testing.

I don’t know how, morally speaking, the United States, which possesses most of the nuclear weapons in the world can demand that Iran forsake its nuclear program. How can they ask of Iran something that they are not prepared to do themselves?

Iran is not a rogue nation. The United States is. The US is the entire problem in the world, and that is why they got bombed on 9.11.
jp Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 17:19
BLAME AMERICA BLAME AMERICA BLAME AMERICA… thats all I hear…

How the hell do you use future events to explain past.

Before 9/11 America had very little to do with the world, yes economically they tried to advance themselves but no more than anyone else… No more than Russia, china, anyone who had the money to play. Admittedly they weren’t stoning to death their citizens for adultery, or converting to another religion, or being a woman driving their car alone and maybe that lack of moral structure led to the hatred. After 9/11 America became an interventionist country and became highly involved in world affairs, and perhaps rightly so seeing as half the world was baying for their blood over the fact that they support israel, did not follow religious law, and I suppose allowed complete freedom of speech.

Iran is one of the few countries that actively arms and sponsors terrorism, calls for the destruction of a sovereign nation recognised by the UN, has one of the world’s worst human rights statistics against its own citizens, follows fundamental religious law, oh but I forgot you probably believe that is all a conspiracy spread be “the zionist controlled press”.

Though you did not answer my question above. When should the world intervene. Fortunately in the one example you gave above there has yet to be a massacring of people in Zimbabwe… But what if there is? What if Mugabe orders his troops in and they kill 10 000 people. Then do we still not do anything? Everyone is up in arms about Iraq… But has anyone spoken to the Iraqi Kurds… tens of thousands of them were masacred by Saddam Husseins forces, today they have a blossoming society in the North of Iraq. They have a growing economy and are finally finding out what it is like to live free of persecution, death and arrest purely based on the fact they are kurdish.

I must agree that I believed the American invasion of Iraq was wrong, the way they did it and the reasons behind it, but to blame America about what is happening in Iraq now is starting to laughable. Iraqis are killing Iraqis and blaming america.

If America left now, packed up, turned around and left do you think the violence would come to an end and everybody would live happily together? Surely you are not that deluded.
Richard Catto Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 05:09
Please reference these urls:
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/psinger/20070917.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207Blackwater.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7012889.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7008610.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7015347.stm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1651789,00.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Triple_Canopy_Inc.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bowen1.html

You’ve raised the topic of intervention and mentioned Zimbabwe (and Iran and Iraq, and perhaps you have other countries too where you feel intervention is warranted for various reasons). You’ve asked what conditions merit intervention.

Earlier you talked about a neighbour abusing his family and asked what I think ought to be done about that. Shu’aib felt that what happened under his roof was his business alone. In this particular scenario, I think people would be well advised to summon the police rather than become involved themselves.

In the case of various countries, this is currently the subject of much debate in the world. France, for instance, feels that Iran represents a real threat to world peace, should they obtain nuclear weapons. And not just France, of course.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7011938.stm

Thing is, jp, there is much difference of opinion in the world on whether a problem exists and what action, if any, should be taken. I happen to take the view that Iran does not represent the problem. I feel that the aggressive diplomatic stance being adopted towards Iran is the whole problem.
jp Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 12:58
oh and a concilatory and appeasement approach you believe would work better?

Yet you still haven’t answered my question… When does one take a stand. How many people have to die?
jp Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 13:28
Oh and secondly none of the links gave me a better insight into the pleasing nature you have found in Iran… in fact most of those links were about a private security company that sounds like it is about to get into a lot of trouble for what they have done which, unfortunately, something that isn’t happening to the iranian government for the public stoning to death of women, and a few articles about the horror of war. Because it is war. War is not nice. War is horrible, whether it is this one, the vietnam war, the korean war, the world wars, none of them are nice. Horrible things happen in war.

With Iran and many of the other regimes it is not war. When they put two children to death for homosexuality, in many ways it is far more horrific than a war. As horrible as wars are they end. When your government is the one doing the persectution, killing and so on in a time of peace… well then when does it end?
Richard Catto Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 16:39
You tell me, JP. George Bush’s wars have cost literally millions of people their lives. The Iraqi death toll is estimated at between 1 and 2 million – that’s more than Saddam Hussein killed during his entire rule.

The links I provided PROVE that American citizens in Iraq, murder Iraqis and are given immunity from prosecution. That’s what Americans are doing to Iraqis – murdering them. They’re not there to help the Iraqis. The Americans are an illegal, brutal, savage occupying force who need to be driven out by force of arms. I support the insurgents – they are fighting for their freedom from the tyranny of American occupation. If Iran is aiding the Iraqi freedom fighters, then they are doing a good thing.

America has gone bad. It’s a wicked country filled with wicked people. Only 25% of Americans agree with me and support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Your comments about Iran executing people are fair enough. I oppose the death penalty. However, what is wild is that you only direct criticism against Iran for executing people. The United States also executes people. So does China. So do many other countries which are not branded rogue nations like Iran is.

You say Iran persecutes homosexuals. So does the United States.

Iran operates under Sharia law. Sharia law, no doubt seems harsh to you, even offensive. However, it is a system that Iranian citizens have chosen to adopt and we must respect their right to choose their system of government and justice. Of course I do not support the stoning to death of women and men, and I hope that Iran will move to a more moderate form of justice. That they continue to do it, is still not grounds for making war against Iran. Diplomacy is the only option to be pursued.

You talk also of appeasement. That word is usually associated with Neville Chamberlain’s failed diplomatic approach to Adolf Hitler. Failed because Hitler negotiated in bad faith and continued to invade and annex countries, until he finally did it to Poland and appeasement ended and WWII began. In respect of Iran, Iran has not invaded any other country, so I don’t see how that word applies. Iran has had sanctions placed on it because of its decision to go ahead with its nuclear fuel enrichment program. No one is appeasing Iran. Iran is being opposed and dogged every step of the way.

I don’t have to answer your question of when to take a stand. That is up to each individual to answer for themselves. I have already stated that I see no grounds for intervention in either Iran or Zimbabwe.

The stand I took, when I wrote this article, is against the cartoonists who insult, vilify and offend Islam. I see no reason for it, no percentage to be gained, only something to be lost. I have also stated that I believe they are abusing their freedom of speech.
jp Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 17:36
Well yes you did change the topic somewhere in the middle and I do believe I mentioned that.

Glad you support the insurgents… problem is they are not really targeting american forces all that much… typically it is a lot of innocent iraqis killed in a bomb placed in a market, or close to a school, or perhaps a mosque. Yes that does a lot of damage to the american forces.

Though you point out exactly the damage… statistics… it allows people to say 1-2 million people have been killed in iraq, of course the have been killed by iraqis fighting iraqis in the majority of cases but none the less glad you are supporting them. So guess you not all in there with peaceful protest I guess.

why do you keep bringing up america… you are definately filled with angst towards them, because of the statitics you have been fed it seems. War again is horrible. It is more horrible when you are targeted specifically as a civilian rather than an enemy combatant. Of course america has the death penalty, and I am too against it, but to compare the public stoning to death of a woman for sleeping with a man who she is not married to, to the death sentence of a serial killer is throwing in some weird moral equivalence.

But ok I understand now, you support terrorism, the denial of free speech, and the rule of a dictatorship regime.
Richard Catto Says:
October 1st, 2007 at 03:41
Well then, jp, you have understood nothing.
jp Says:
October 1st, 2007 at 11:20
Well you have so far told me, that you support an iranian government that has been elected by the majority, no matter how much they persecute their minorities, that government should censor our media when it has to do with religion, and that you support the insurgency in Iraq that spends far more time setting bombs in market places, schools, and mosques targeting innocent iraqis than attacking american forces, and you do all of this because you don’t like america’s involvement in the world. Sounds to me like I understood.

Oh ok…. So should the world intervene with what is happening in Burma?
Richard Catto Says:
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:43
No.
jp Says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 07:22
Rwanda?
Richard Catto Says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 07:30
I do not support intervention. I believe that you let a sovereign country things out for themselves. I do not support the presence of foreign troops in any country.

Election monitoring by foreigners, I consider to be an absurdity. No foreigner has any legitimate interest in how any particular country conducts its internal politics. Even their form of government is no one else’s business.
jp Says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 13:17
so the holocaust? You believe that was something for germany to have worked out internally?
the Sudanese crisis? Something that should be worked out internally…
There is something mildly sickening about that approach…
Richard Catto Says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 17:27
I don’t believe in making war. Have you picked that up yet?

I’m a pacifist.
jp Says:
October 4th, 2007 at 13:15
Yes but though you don’t believe in making war you do believe that people who can’t protect themselves should be left to to killed, murdered, masacred, etc etc… So while you pat yourself on the back for your liberal pacifist thinking, smiling at yourself for your high minded morality, you turn your eyes away from the millions who are left to die purely because no-one is willing to help. Why? Because making war is wrong.
Richard Catto Says:
October 4th, 2007 at 17:31
JP, I cannot invade another country (killing people in the process) in order to try and stop some people from killing other people.

Yes, it is possible that a bad country could turn on its own citizens (or a grouping of them) and start genociding them. Yes, it has happened. Yes, it is unfortunate and regrettable that people are still bloodthirsty, but if I make war against them, I will only be dipping my own hands in their blood.

I cannot go into another country against their will. I will never be accepted. My help will never be wanted. I can only go in if I am invited.

And that is why the United States (and all other uninvited foreign nationals) should immediately leave Iraq and Afghanistan.

The results of the Iraq Campaign, the so-called War on Terror, has produced much more tragedy, misery, suffering and deaths, than had the United States elected to do nothing in response to 9.11. The United States could have secured its own borders, and paid attention to who in their own country were threats to their security.

In the short four years since the United States invaded Iraq in early 2003, Americans have managed the feat of eclipsing the number of people Saddam Hussein killed. They allege that Hussein tortured people. Americans have committed MORE torture. They say that Hussein killed many. Americans have killed MORE. Americans have murdered Iraqi civilians in COLD BLOOD. And not faced justice.

The British officers involved in the Iraq campaign have called the former US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, incompetent. He had no viable plan for Iraq after the war had been won.

Americans (and others) savagely criticised Saddam Hussein for his alleged injustices, yet they cheered when he was hung after a ridiculous farce that they call a “trial”. Hussein was not tried. Hussein was murdered. He received no justice. There are no “good guys” in this – all have become BAD.

You can’t fight for peace, JP. Force is simply not an option.

The only time that force can rightfully be used is when your own country is being invaded or being attacked. In those circumstances, you definitely have the right to repel the invader / attacker. A terrorist attack does not convey the right to invade another country.
jp Says:
October 5th, 2007 at 08:15
and it was people like you that allowed over 7 million to die during the nazi regime. Glad you can clean your hands of it.
Richard Catto Says:
October 5th, 2007 at 08:45
It is only the people who do evil who are responsible for it.

If I stand by and look on and do nothing, I am not to blame. It is my right to do nothing. Even if the person being harmed asks for my help, I am under no obligation to render them any aid whatsoever. I have no duty to them.

I only have a duty to myself, my family, and my country. I have no duties or obligations towards any foreigners in a foreign land. What happens to them is entirely their own problem. If a foreign country falls into a civil war and half the country starts killing the other half, that is something they must out themselves.

Incidentally, your figure of 7 million is way out. During WWII, 20 million Russians alone perished. 5 million Germans died. and many many more.

WWI was equally bloody, yielding over 40 million casualties (just under 20 million deaths). And directly after WWI, Spanish Flu whipped around the world carving out 50 – 100 million dead, eclipsing the death toll of both World Wars in under 24 months.

Wars have killed far less people than any disease has ever done. Black Death wiped out 60% of Europe’s population. Wars aspire to be the threat to life that disease is.

So if you are truly concerned about preventing people from dying prematurely, that is your biggest foe – pandemic diseases.
jp Says:
October 5th, 2007 at 19:07
of course except desease is solved through science.

Social problems are solved by people.

And from your first few passages, you also sound mildly selfish, but I suppose sadly enough thats what most of the world is.
Richard Catto Says:
October 6th, 2007 at 03:15
It’s not about being selfish, it’s about deciding what the best policy is to pursue.

Each country has a responsibility first to its own citizens. It’s not right to ask or require that citizens of your country place their lives at risk for citizens of another country.

Furthermore, South Africa has recently decided that it is unlawful for any South African citizen to join a foreign military force or to undertake armed struggle on behalf of another. I agree with that law.

South African citizens who travelled to Britain to join one of their Royal armed services face prosecution on their return. Britain responded by giving all the affected personnel British citizenship. But they can never return to their homeland except to face trial.

I believe that our government made good laws in this respect.
jp Says:
October 6th, 2007 at 10:18
well i don’t want to live in a place run by you…

You seem to certain of your goodness…
Richard Catto Says:
October 7th, 2007 at 23:53
In the above conversation, it is clear that we have divergent political views. You appear to adopt a policy that favours intervention whereas I adopt a policy of non-intervention. You also seem to support the United States and share their foreign policy view of, for instance, Iran.

I am not a supporter of the United States. I do not believe that their foreign policies are congruent with being members of the Free World anymore. I categorise their aid of Israel as aiding and abetting a bad regime.

Israel practises what the United States would call terrorism, if an Arab nation, such as Iran, did the same things, e.g. deploying cluster munitions in civilian areas in Lebanon a few hours before hostilities ceased [1]. That’s just bad faith! It shows Israel for what it is – a bad nation, willing to stoop really really low. That they are subject to terrorism by others is undisputed, however, their response to that terrorism is bad.

There is an irony and a hypocrisy in the Western world in which no-one can make fun of (or take a stand against) anything related to Judaism or Jews (or even Israel [2]) without inviting an accusation of anti-semitism. However, it has now become fashionable to target Islam, Muslims and Arab nations for parody and when they object, many Westerners pour scorn on them and cite free speech as giving them the right to their boorish and obnoxious expressions.

The United States is vigorously opposed to Iran even acquiring nuclear weapons because they fear that Iran may possibly use them. God forbid that a nation would actually use nuclear weapons in acts of aggression! The United States is the ONLY country ever to have done so, and they have never apologised for their double act of terror either.

The United States wants us to believe that they are exempt from scrutiny and get a free pass to possessing nuclear weapons because they’re the “good guys”. This while their citizens murder Iraqis and escape justice.

You are only one of the “good guys”, if you act accordingly. The United States has demonstrated that it is an aggressive nation willing and eager to make war whenever and wherever it likes. The United States has been involved in unceasing conflict since the end of WWII. Countries should stop following their lead into conflict because if they do not, then the United States will eventually lead the world into another global conflict in which nuclear weapons have a high likelihood of being deployed.

Furthermore, the hostility displayed by ordinary Western people, including yourself, towards Islam, Muslims and Arab nations is irrational and unhelpful. There are an awful lot of Muslim people spread all over the globe who become infuriated and deeply offended when their religious icons are subjected to parody. They have demonstrated that they are not prepared to tolerate that. I do not think their request is unreasonable. I think their threats of death and violence are, though.

[1] http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/24/isrlpa13798.htm
[2] http://articles.citypages.com/2007-10-03/news/banning-desmond-tutu/
jp Says:
October 8th, 2007 at 00:56
yeah my problem comes when we are listening, due to threats of violence and eath, rather than a common sense and civilised approach…
What's This? Says:
October 12th, 2007 at 08:18
The Power of Symbols…

Last year, Denmark became the hot topic around the world when the right-wing newspaper Jyllandsposten published twelve cartoons of the Muslem prophet Muhammed. More recently a Swedish journalist felt the predictable wrath of offended Muslems after publ…

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Cape Town news

I’m trying to understand what is wrong with Scandinavian cartoonists

64 Responses to “I’m trying to understand what is wrong with Scandinavian cartoonists”

Leave a Reply

FaceBook Profile

Subscribe

RSS readers

Meta

Recent Posts

Google Ad planner

Visitor info

Blogroll

Online Tools