Indigo Jo Blogs

I can remember reading in tabloids that Christmas nativity scenes have been banned in some schools "for fear of offending Muslims".

Were Muslims really offended by these (ie they didn't want visual depictions of Prophet 'Isa), or were these bans the work of politically-correct jobsworth bureaucrats?

Or were they a fiction invented by the tabloids themselves?

Perfectly reasonable- you don't offend your readers. Newspapers in muslim countries don't discuss the more....curious, shall we say?... aspects of the prophet's private life either. Actually, there is a long history of cross-cultural humour transfer failure. In the 1970s a joke by Auberon Waugh caused a mob to burn doen the British Council library in Rawalpindi.

Well, if they don't offer an apology now, the Government as well, i think it will get worse with the protests.

That article clearly shows the level of hypocrisy.

There is no shortage of satire about Christ and Christians, but a distinct lack of embassy torching by the latter.

Free speech means just that. Freedom to publish or not publish as one sees fit. For the very rare satirical cartoon or book about Islam there are hundreds about Christianity, but not the same fuss, whingeing and violence.

On CNN (TV, not the website), they reported that JP is unrepentant regarding the publication of the cartoons, which obviously negates any "apology" that they've made.

Personally, I'm hoping that all these businesses and governments that have suffered on JP's behalf will take the American approach and sue the bastards for all of their losses. Bankruptcy would be the best revenge.

JP is unrepentant regarding the publication of the cartoons

Good.

sue the bastards for all of their losses.

Which bastards are we talking about here? You seem to have little idea about how the law works. If Muslims go on the rampage and torch embassies over a few cartoons, it is those Muslims who are responsible, not the normal people exercising free speech in a Western country that has free speech.

Well, it just goes to show you, freedom of speech is contigent on whether or not you own a printing press. If you are part of a marginalized group of people, those in power can say anything that they like and use hateful rhetoric against you. It's just the weak praying on the strong. So while some groups enjoy protection others don't. I guess we Muslims better start building our own strong media in the West to defend ourselves before they start stamping yellow crescents on our clothes. Or at least that way we could draw some funny cartoons ourselves. :-) But not of any religious figures, that's just wrong.

What a shock. No surprise that pRickler the hypocrite is for this. I'm with JD on this. FYI Felmming Rose, the miscreant who authorized the publication of the cartoons, has strong links with neocons, a good friend of someone called Daniel Pipes. Well, well, well.

Free speech means just that. Freedom to publish or not publish as one sees fit.

I have only seen this kind of freedom amongst the lowest primates i.e. the ones that live in the jungle.

OP wrote: "Which bastards are we talking about here?"

I'm glad we agree the Danish are bastards. ;)

If I were the CEO of any of the Danish companies that have been affected by the boycott (e.g., Arla Foods), I'd sue JP for the loss of revenues (estimated at 1 million pounds per day). Companies like Arla would not be suffering if not for the irresponsibility of JP's editorial board. JP is the culprit responsible, not the Muslims.

And I know the law fairly well, thank you very much.

guess we Muslims better start building our own strong media in the West to defend ourselves before they start stamping yellow crescents on our clothes. Or at least that way we could draw some funny cartoons ourselves. :-)

Not "to defend yourself" - that's absurdly melodramatic, but yes, if Muslims had their own free press and made people laugh every now and again, it would be a big improvement.

JD you clearly have no idea about the law. "Remoteness of damage"? It was not inevitable that the Muslims responded in the stupid way that they did. They have minds of their own and are responsible for their own actions. Or perhaps you think they don't?

OP wrote: "JD you clearly have no idea about the law."

Sometimes I think I'm talking to a brick wall. I don't know about British/Danish/EU law, but in the US, suing for loss of revenues is common enough. Here is a completely random example, taken merely to illustrate the concept.

"But after Morgan paid a $40,000 deposit towards the construction of a new boat, Baltimore Shuttle backed out, telling him they wouldn't use his services, the lawsuit claims. Morgan filed suit for the cost of the boat and "loss of revenues" totaling $500,000." -- Seaport Taxi owner hit with $505,000 lawsuit

Now, as I said earlier, if I were CEO of, say, Arla Foods, I would be suing JP for having published the inflammatory cartoons as said cartoons were the ultimate cause of the boycott, which has led to the million-plus pounds losses per day in revenues (last I had heard, several days ago, the cumulative total losses are well over 50 million pounds). Had JP not published those cartoons, Arla Foods and other Danish businesses (and now, businesses of other European countries) would not have suffered those losses. The fault is not that of the Muslims for boycotting the Danish companies, it is JP's fault for having published the cartoons. JP is the irresponsible party.

Comprende'?

Agree with JD. We must always reach to root of the problem.

The two cases are not comparable at all. Baltimore Shuttle, by pulling out was directly responsible for the losses. Even you say

cartoons were the ultimate cause of the boycott,

ie, not their direct cause. But this, in any case is wrong. No other group of people would have reacted this way over a few mild cartoons. No other group of people would have boycotted, let alone torched embassies etc. Muslims have very thin skins. Why should Westerners, with Western, civilised, sensible laws have to take account of that?

No doubt some Muslim will be very offended by women going around with short skirts. If they live in the West, tough.

If there was any chance a lawsuit would succeed, they would do it. But of course there isn't. It's only in Islamic la la land that everyone dances to your tune.