• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Something rotten in the state of ...

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Something rotten in the state of ...

    Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.


    The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

    In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

    Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

    The illustrator told the Norwegian daily Dagbladet, which saw the email: "I see the cartoons as an innocent joke, of the type that my Christian grandfather would enjoy."

    "I showed them to a few pastors and they thought they were funny."

    He said that he felt Jyllands-Posten rated the feelings of its Christian readers higher than that of its Muslim readers.

    But the Jyllands-Posten editor in question, Mr Kaiser, told MediaGuardian.co.uk that the case was "ridiculous to bring forward now. It has nothing to do with the Muhammad cartoons.

    "In the Muhammad drawings case, we asked the illustrators to do it. I did not ask for these cartoons. That's the difference," he said.

    "The illustrator thought his cartoons were funny. I did not think so. It would offend some readers, not much but some."

    The decision smacks of "double-standards", said Ahmed Akkari, spokesman for the Danish-based European Committee for Prophet Honouring, the umbrella group that represents 27 Muslim organisations that are campaigning for a full apology from Jyllands-Posten.

    #2
    So , a wee bit of double standards here, my this one will really have them fuming ... but who are the ones who cant take a joke ???


    Christ, the ways things are going, theyre gonna crucify me ....


    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by AlfredJPruffock
      ...spokesman for the Danish-based European Committee for Prophet Honouring...
      WTF?!?! And I thought it was just the "new" labour drones that made up ridiculously named quangos...
      If you think my attitude stinks, you should smell my fingers.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by hyperD
        WTF?!?! And I thought it was just the "new" labour drones that made up ridiculously named quangos...
        Yet he has a very valid point.

        As Mr Straw emphasised today


        "If people looked at these cartoons and were to replace the images of the Holy Prophet with images of Jesus Christ or the Virgin Mary, they can see that, even in our culture, if they were directed at the Judeo-Christian traditions, there would be similar outrage," he said.

        Which no doubt explains the double standards of not publishing the cartoons of Christ by the same newspaper.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by AlfredJPruffock
          Yet he has a very valid point.

          As Mr Straw emphasised today

          "If people looked at these cartoons and were to replace the images of the Holy Prophet with images of Jesus Christ or the Virgin Mary, they can see that, even in our culture, if they were directed at the Judeo-Christian traditions, there would be similar outrage," he said.

          Which no doubt explains the double standards of not publishing the cartoons of Christ by the same newspaper.
          Hang on a mo, Alf, how many embassies were burned, people killed, and calls for non-Christians to be beheaded made after "Life of Brian" was released?

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Lucifer Box
            Hang on a mo, Alf, how many embassies were burned, people killed, and calls for non-Christians to be beheaded made after "Life of Brian" was released?
            Well they banned it in Scotland.

            But the point here is that the very same journal which published pictures of Mohammed, given any representation of the Prophet is blamphemous to the Muslim mind,of course would have provoked outrage, this same journal refused to publish cartoons of Christ for fear of upsetting people.

            For myself, that really does put the whole issue into a rather different light.

            Comment


              #7
              Alf, me old mate, two wrongs don't make a right. The editor of a privately owned newpaper can choose to publish or not publish whatever he pleases. That's free speech. Maybe he's a christian fundamentalist raving loony anti-Islamic nutcase, with the most appalling double standards, but what difference does that make? He did nothing illegal and as a result the real loonies are burning embassises and calling for the death of non-believers.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Lucifer Box
                Alf, me old mate, two wrongs don't make a right. The editor of a privately owned newpaper can choose to publish or not publish whatever he pleases. That's free speech. Maybe he's a christian fundamentalist raving loony anti-Islamic nutcase, with the most appalling double standards, but what difference does that make? He did nothing illegal and as a result the real loonies are burning embassises and calling for the death of non-believers.
                I think thats a wee bit of an exagerration, rather like assuming that when a minorty of extermist Engish football fans riot, then that means the whole country is violent.

                I think there is a rather sinister manipulation of public opnion going on in tandem with the talk of war with Iran.

                In the old days we called it inflaming public opinion and propaganda.

                Time will Tell

                Comment


                  #9
                  Alf, anyone would think you're paranoid...

                  Originally posted by AlfredJPruffock
                  I think thats a wee bit of an exagerration, rather like assuming that when a minorty of extermist Engish football fans riot, then that means the whole country is violent.

                  I think there is a rather sinister manipulation of public opnion going on in tandem with the talk of war with Iran.

                  In the old days we called it inflaming public opinion and propaganda.

                  Time will Tell
                  Except that you could well be right......
                  In any case, I would suggest that at some point Islam will declare war on the civilised countries of the world, and I would rather it was forced now, while we've got more nukes than them, to be frank.
                  I really don't know why we're ******* about. Nuke the middle east into glass now and I guarantee you that Islam will STFU (to use Alexei's quaint little acronym).
                  Why not?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Alf, where is the exaggeration? The real loonies are burning embassies and calling for infidels to be beheaded, or are you saying they are CIA stooges being paid in a conspiracy to whip up anti-Islamic feeling? Nowhere did I say they represented the majority of anybody.

                    The fact that the editor of a Danish newspaper might have some double standards when it comes to editorial policy in no way excuses the behaviour we have seen.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X