There have been a few comments on the Danish cartoon fiasco.

Here's a thought - how many Middle Eastern people had Danish flags before that? How many Danish flags were available to Middle Easterners? Could one go to the local "BigW" or "K-Mart" and buy a Danish flag?

Yet there were people all over there burning Danish flags in protest. Stage managed?

Actually Jack, you've hit the nail on the head.

The common perception, that the cartoons were published and there was an instant flare up, is false.

What actually occurred, was the cartoons were published in the Denmark newspaper, and at first, nothing occurred.

A muslim organisation, based in Denmark, protested, and demanded the newspaper retract the cartoons and issue an apology.

The newspaper, being devoted to free speech, told them that they had every right to publish the cartoons.

So this muslim organisation went overseas to the middle east, spreading word of these cartoons.

They still didn't get many bites at first, so they actually exaggerated what was in the cartoons.
Among other things, they made up some images of mohammed being depicted as a pig (particularly offensive to muslims given that they see pigs as filthy animals).

This was not one of the original cartoons.

This got the desired response. Once the riots and protests were underway, it didn't matter what the cartoons really were.

I guess it goes to show that while there are undoubtedly extremist elements that do react at the slightest provocation, it's not entirely as bad as people think - it does take some prodding to get this to occur.

On the cartoon issue.

Dunno if you guys have seen a site called MEMRI, but they highlighted the fact that fundi islamist nations CONSISTENTLY publish anti-semitic and anti-western cartoons. Stinks of overly sensitive hypocrasy to me.

Why take the moral high ground with these people when they don't give a flying......duck.....about you and your sensitivities?.

Perilous...I draw your attention to Stg's last post mate.

Forget about 'whack-a-mozzie'... the issue at heart here is indeed freedom of expression.

The case in point highlights this well.

Geert Wilders and his upcoming movie.... well if I'm not mistaken, he is an openly gay politician..and I assure you.. I would defend HIS right to slam into Christianity as much as Islam... even though it might cause me some discomfort at the thought of people lobbying to ban even the Bible.

I can envisage a day when this will be more openly spoken of and aimed for by the Gay Lobby... after all Romans 1 is definitely 'homophobic' in the strongest possible terms.

But I'd rather a society where not just "I" am free to criticize homosexuals or Muslims or Ananda Marga or Unionists, but where they are all free to rip into me or what I say. I think though, that the underlying issue should always be 'truthfullness'. Slander is still slander when lies are involved.

PALIMPEST... you covered it well.. 'fear' is the main reason the western press didn't display the cartoons.. and this is the biggest danger of all.. large numbers of any faith which is infamous for a bigger percentage of ratbags who are prepared to kill with a smile on their face, will discourage publishers who can be traced from doing much to ruffle the wrong feathers.

Boazy,

Freedom of speech is not under threat in this case I can assure you.
So rest easy. It's one side and the other "sh....t stirring" for their own agendas. And only people with further agendas of their own would buy into any of it. Let it RIP - as Vanilla accurately pointed out - it's pointless to do otherwise (unless you've got an agenda!).

Got it? Good!

Foxy,
“Freedom of speech is not under threat in this case I can assure you”
Shull! I was worried there for a while –but now that you have assured us, I guess it should be all Ok …

The reality is ( in the Aust domain) whatever the motives of the critic, it’s ultimately not about "sh....t stirring" & its not about “two wrongs not making a right” or any of the other nice little throw away lines .It’s about an open society: No creed or personage is above examination and (yes) even lampooning .

And, that’s pretty much the way it has been . Until recently, when there has been a trend where some positions have been deemed to be too holy (or, more likely, too threatening ) to be lampooned. If it wasn’t so serious it would be comical to see all the little lemmings rush to appease certain positions under the guise of ‘sensitivity’( In your own case I note, from your other posts, your ‘sensitivity’ doesn’t always extend to white/Anglo/western icons/positions… strange that!)

There has been a lot of talk recently about Australian values.
One of the foremost values – for anyone seeking to adopt Aus citizenship ( &, for those already here) I propose, should be the ability to accept their ‘sacred’ positions being examined & lampooned.