cnjournal

In a comprehensive article in the Sunday Washington Post,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html

Editor Flemming Rose gives us a brilliant rendering of the context within which the decision was made to publish the 12 cartoons that appeared in his newspaper, the Jyllands-Posten on 30 Sept 2005.

For any reader of his article, it will now be clear that between the initial act of publishing and today, the entire cartoon event has morphed from its avowed pre-publication intent - to stimulate debate in the Danish community on the issue of self-censorship with respect to Islam and Muslims - as declared by Mr. Rose, to something quite difference.

He assists our understanding of the whole set of events by dividing it into two narratives – one European and one Middle Eastern.

The trail of evidence shows that the Islamic leaders in the Middle East deliberately created the pan-Islamic outrage and riots for particular political purposes. These issues he puts in the Middle East narrative not the European narrative of this story.

Of the Middle East part he says this.

“The narrative in the Middle East is more complex, but that has very little to do with the cartoons.”

As for the European narrative, writing 19 Feb 2006 in the Sunday article with the insight of a critical witness, Mr. Rose observes and comments on the current face of Danish reaction.

“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.”

On the larger issue of freedom of speech as seen through the prism of our western secular democracies, Mr. Rose uses the words of Karl Popper to frame the debate. Popper in his seminal work "The Open Society and Its Enemies," insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant.

For himself and for anyone suffering the intolerance caused by a religious belief, Mr. Rose puts down this red line:

“But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.”

As a good newspaper person should, Rose aims to educate readers with this little reality check.

“Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, and TV and radio stations.”

Bravo Zulu Mr. Rose. 

I’ve book marked the link!

cn

Scott Anderson versus Ezra Levant

Mr. Levant is the publisher of the Western Standard – the newsstand edition has 8 of the original Danish cartoons. His is one of the very few Canadian publications to reprint them

Mr. Anderson is Editor –in-Chief, The Ottawa Citizen. His paper, serving the capital area in Canada, did not publish the cartoons.

The debate was simply - to publish or not to publish – a question as old as journalism itself.

Mr. Levant is a courageous, smart, tough and clear eyed defender of the freedom of speech we enjoy and take as a given.

He made his case on the classic merits of publishing and most importantly, he tried to alert us to the more profound message – that fear is trumping one of the bedrock assumptions that help stabilize the bedrock of democracy – our freedom of speech.

Mr. Levant’s arguments were cogent, lucid and compelling based on the evidence gathered to date, in a word, he swept the field.

On the other hand…

The negative case, defended by Mr. Anderson was so bereft of any credibility it almost crossed over to become perfect satire. If for example it had been said by John Cleese on the Monty Python show we’d be rolling in the aisles.

I was prompted to send this email to Mr. Anderson.

“Sorry Scott, but I have never heard a newspaper person blow his brains out quite as badly as you just did in the debate with Ezra on CBC radio!

Please do me a favour next time by preparing yourself intellectually to defend the position not to publish the Danish cartoons!

Course having done the inexcusable you quickly made it clear that you do not have any idea how to explain why you indulged in this "self-censorship".

I hope you are aware that one of the reasons for the original publication was to explore the current degree of just that, self-censorship.

Guess what, you failed.

Just how is it that you deem yourself able to make a reasoned judgment about the true nature of these cartoons yet decide that we the readers of the Citizen can not have that personal option.

How long have you been practicing journalism?

For all your vague and superiour hints about a bigger story than the cartoons here, you did not even mention that three of the most offensive cartoons shown to the OIC in Mecca Dec 8 9 2005, were frauds, they were bogus!

Nor did you offer any meat to suggest just what the bigger story is.

You could have tried this: “Bogus Cartoons get Results - Muslims Outraged”.

Again Ezra laid it out for you to see but you denied it of course.

It is all about fear and threat and intimidation.

Nothing to do with sensitivity, it is all about in your own words, "not stirring things up"

You published the 'piss Christ' cartoon certain that the worst pain would be a letter to the editor!

As one of the leading Saudi Imams said, "If the Salman Rushdie fatwa had been carried out they would not have dared to do this".

Are you aware of anything of the strategies and tactics that are at play?

Are you aware of the role of the Organization of Islamic Conferences (OIC) in this affair or how the OIC links to the Arab League and the grand mufti?

Any idea how and why the timing of this "Outrage" was determined?

Any idea of the links of OIC with Hamas?

You are right about one thing: there is a big story here - too bad you do not get it.

You should resign.

Sincerely

The Betrayal of Denmark by Paul Belien

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/810#new

This is the best synopsis of the real story of the Cartoon Outrage that I have found on the blogs so far.

By good fortune, the story contains a link to a this Dec 7 2005 story on the joint role of the 57 Muslim nations who are members of the Organization of Islamic Conferences (OIC) and that of the UN Human Rights Committee, under the leadership of Mme L. Arbour.

These two international entities acted together to provide enough cover for the key Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia to officially, as both a State position and in its role as the Muslim religious authority through Mecca, to make a serious international issue out of it and use it to test the “Call to Arms” command and control operating system.

They clearly thought they had pushed us in the infidel Western nations to a point where we would not resist the charge of “Blasphemy” nor would many resist their demands for adjustments to our definitions of “freedom”.

They were pretty well on the money on this pre-war assessment.

Seen that way, this cartoon shuffle is no comedy.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/546

Many critical questions that I asked in my cnjournal post of Feb 9 2006 are answered here: it is clear that written information was available to the Committee from the OIC.

http://cnjournal.squarespace.com/

For example, Arbour told the OIC by letter before its meeting on 8 Wed and 9 Thurs Dec in Mecca that she had ordered the appropriate bureaucrats (- “Arbour had appointed to UN experts in the areas of religious freedom and racism -) to investigate the matter here

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/92663.html

Here is the point.

If Mme Arbour or the Committee saw any of the three bogus cartoons prior to the moment the decision was made, then according to my understanding she would have to recall the letter to the Danish paper. We still need to know who made the decision.

The imperative to retreat gracefully from her previous letter will be instantly understood, given how the judgment was made to request some answers from the publisher of the paper; to apologize for the ‘hurt feelings’ caused by the cartoons.

We know the Committee received an application for some action against this outrage against Islam from the OIC prior to 7 Dec 2005.

What will be the reaction if it turns out that Mme Arbour and probably others on the Committee saw the glossy brochure produced by Imam Laban – including the three fakes?

If that is the case, it is of course impossible for her to claim that the basis of the letter was the offense of only the original 12.

Surely she must have known that an Egyptian paper carried the original cartoons on its front page in Oct with little reaction. We must ask what had changed to cause a senior UN Committee to assert action on the side of the complainant, when the local government and population left on its own had decided otherwise?

Could it possible be something related to appearance of the bogus three?

Case closed.

Now, check the evidence – the original 12 and the bogus 3.

Do this test with your friends!

With the most perfunctory viewings of the 12 and the 3, (no matter in what combinations) results will show that virtually all viewers will easily select the bogus 3 as the most offensive ones.

Results from only viewing the original 12 will likewise show little outrage will be registered. In context and on their own, these cartoons are clearly not the offenders.

It will also show the appropriateness of the Danish response following 30 Sept 2005.

Remember, the initial public outcry did not really get very far, even with a major effort by ultra-activist Saudi sponsored Imam Laban doing his ‘jihad best’ to force a confrontation.

He even created his own bait and switch.

Right after 30 Sept, he and other Islamists formed a New Committee and then in the name of the committee, demanded a meeting with the Prime Minister.

He quite rightly said, No to the meeting and in what I think was an attempt to cut off the issue from ever crossing his desk again, let it be known that he held no authority in any way with respect to Danish publications or their owners and that he supported that wisdom.

The Danes were not buying.

The rejection by the Danish PM thus opened the door to the Imam to elevate the issue to the senior Imams/operators, headquartered in the Middle East.

It was only after the Dec 2005 selling trip to the ME that Imam Abu Laban got results.

He decided to prepare himself to petition them by adding for good measure, 3 quite ugly cartoons - that were never published by anybody anywhere! So, the cartoons real and bogus along with the meeting rejection and who knows what other hurts, would serve as his evidence of the outrage against the Prophet and the general lack of respect to Islam.

With his bogus cartoons sharing “pride of place” in the glossy brochure to peddle to his Muslim brothers, he got the success he craved.

He immediately got a big endorsement from the OIC and simultaneously he saw a letter of reproach sent from the UN Human Rights Committee, Mme L. Arbour, chair, to the Danish publishers.

When key Muslim states like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and others as it went along made the decision to give the confrontation some support he must have been overjoyed.

All assets were being mobilized to protest the blasphemy.

It was a command decision that got a good response.

When and from where do you think the next demand will come?

One purpose of a western style political or other editorial type cartoon is to provoke a moment of insight and a gentle laugh.

For the few at whom the cartoon is aimed, it should prompt at least a moment of introspection.

As the ‘target’, we of course disagree with the message the cartoon delivers. But nevertheless as educated adults practicing for example, a value system that includes “freedom of speech…” we try and learn so as to defeat the criticism either by our words or by better, by our deeds.

At a minimum we should see the message in order to defend ourselves against it.

The dialogue can be simple: “What have I done to cause this depiction of my views? “

But, for Muslims world-wide to not see the content of the cartoon and to be so fixated on the forbidden image is the irony of all ironies.

In their rage they have created the very idolatry of Muhammad they are intending to forbid!

This final irony, which gives us proof positive that the cartoon went like a laser to the heart of Islamist terrorism, is watching the outraged Muslims act out the very fear depicted in the “bomb in turban” cartoon.

All the while Muslims everywhere are excoriating us for our blasphemy! Oh, really?

The Muslim idea of free and open debate is to threaten the cartoonists themselves with death.

The English settled this idea of threatening with impunity in the 15th C!

To paraphrase Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, “Who do these guys think they are?”

cn

This just in..., Demands

The Swell Guys (no gals) in the OIC sure are keeping busy!

First someone sells the Cartoon Outrage marketing file to the most senior level in the OIC.

So strong is the hook that the message goes directly into The Final Communiqué that speaks to the need for Outrage Everywhere.

At the same time, Dec 2005, Mecca, the OIC manages to convince the UN Human Rights committee to send an official letter of disapproval to the Danish paper.

We just saw yesterday the hand of the OIC is now trying to lay down the (new Islamic) rules to the new Human Rights Council. The OIC is demanding that the new mandate allow the Council to prohibit and act with respect to any religious depiction written, or images, which are hurtful.

Just as an aside, my question to the UN HR Committee is this: "Did you discuss the issue of freedom of speech before deciding to support the petition of the OIC to admonish and demand an apology from the paper."

Course, sine qua non, what is "hurtful" is a definition or a determination to be made, not by infidels (us), but by the Islamist Imams and the Muslim States who intend to be part of the new Caliphate that is blowing in from the ME.

My guess is that the old Arab League has, a little like Fatah and the PA after 'Arafish', lost the torch to the new generation of killer leaders.

In this case, the Arab League, (Abu Mussa, Sec) is not nearly close enough to the cutting edge. The OIC is now the 'go to' forum for the organization and communication of the Islamist message and for the mobilization orders that link to pan-Islam believers.

Clearly a very senior organization and priority place for the Egyptian voice that has been heard through the Arab League for decades, must be considered overrun.

Does Egypt still call the shots, or, has the Egyptian voice that has been a cornerstone involved in all ME deals closed since A. Sadat, been lost to the Islamists, a sort of replacement for the Muslim Brotherhood?

Unless H. Mubarak is successful acting behind the scenes, we may see a lot of the OIC in the future.

cn