"The French paper said it had decided to reprint them "not from an appetite for gratuitous provocation, but because they constitute the subject of a controversy on a global scale which has done nothing to maintain balance and mutual limits in democracy, respect of religious beliefs and freedom of expression". "
And they are right too. It's because of the whole upheavel that these cartoons get so much attention.
And yes, it's still freedom of speech. Maybe the definition of that needs to be ran by some of you again. So here goes (taken from Wikipedia, which gave a decent short rundown of what it really means):
"
In
democratic countries,
freedom of speech is taken for granted, though the exact degree of freedom varies between countries and jurisdictions. This freedom generally includes:
- the right to criticize the political system and political leaders, including those in power;
- the right to criticize public and corporate policies;
- the right to criticize religious and political ideas.
Still, in no country is freedom of speech absolute. Limits include, for instance, the prohibition of
libel and
slander (or
defamation) – that is, publishing or saying things that are detrimental to one person in an "unfair" way, though, again, the exact limits of what is prosecutable vary. Some democratic countries prohibit so-called "
hate speech" – speech that is intended to stir up aggression against certain groups for religious, racial, etc. reasons."
There you go. Basically, the right to speak your clout on the matters. Not posting pictures of people's mothers, which has jack all to do with freedom of speech. And the caricatures that stirred this commotion still being political cartoons, it makes them freedom of speech, because the creators have
"the right to criticize religious and politicals ideas" .
Oh, and before anyone feels smart. No, political cartoons are not "hate speech". Just because they criticize something you stand for does not warrant that.
You don't like it? Feel offended?
Tough
Fucking
Luck
I bet millions of women all over the world feel pretty damn offended by Islamic ideals that requires them to stay home and feed children. But guess what? Since there is freedom of religious expression the old muslim men are allowed to think all that they want. And you too. And you. And you.
Some Islamic ideals offend me, or my father. But we don't attack whole nations over it. We don't judge the entire people of Iran by the acts of 1 retarded leader. No, we do not.
Yet because of two political cartoons the whole Muslim world is in uproar like there never has been such a heinous blasphemy in the history of the world.
Why do the muslims on here think these kind of caricatures are made? Surely, it should have nothing to do with the fair and balanced way the muslim world reacts to political cartoons? Why do people think the Jyllands Posten decided to test whether "fear of retribution" would limit the things that their cartoonists wanted or dared to make?
Because "they fucking feel like it"?
Because they were bored?
Because they are all such huge muslim haters?
No. Why? Exactly because of this. They could probably feel this uproar coming, fruitless as it may seem.
Things have changed in Europe. 9/11, the attacks in Madrid, the Iraq war. All have ties to politics, religion. Europe in general has developed a overall "unwillingness" to criticize or overall "political correctness" towards the Muslim faith since then, alongside a growing feel of distrust and perhaps even hate towards Islam, although the "haters" are falling far short of the amount of people that see that Islam in itself has little to do with terrorism. Moreso than to other faith through the last decennium. People are afraid to be seen as hating on the muslim faith. People are afraid to criticize for a number of reasons.
And that's why Jyllands Posten ran this. And what do they get? The exact reason why people are afraid to criticize are further re-affirmed by death threats, political crises, trade boycotts and international tremors.
Can you not see how retarded this is?
