Liberty Bell

The Sammenhold Blog has a post: We Stand With the Danes that is well worth reading.

In 1943, right in the thick of World War II, the occupying Nazi-controlled goverment of Denmark resolved to exterminate Denmark’s Jewish population. Owing to the courage of the Danishpeople, who stood in solidarity with their Jewish neighbors, the Danish Jews disappeared overnight, hidden by their neighbors from the Nazis’ view, despite the grave risk to all involved. Once their complicity was uncovered, many of the rescuers paid the ultimate price. Later, Israel would award members of the movement who arranged the rescue the honor Righteous Among the Nations. At their own request, the rescuers are officially recognized, in solidarity, as a collective group. The Danish have a word for it: The word is SAMMENHOLD.

For the complete article, go here.

I would also like to formally apologize to the Sammenhold Blog. Some of you may know I had posted the entire piece in its original form - without permission from those at the Sammenhold Blog. It was wrong for me to do that. I have corrected the post in what I hope is a satisfactory way. Again, I’m sorry.

Denmark has been weighed in the scales of royalty and found wanting. And the whole world knows.

Two main events regarding the Denmark cartoon debate have come up recently. One is that Prince Charles has publically criticized Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad as well as the “ghastly” violence that followed their publication.

The prince toured Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the foremost Islamic institution in the Sunni Muslim world, on the second day of his visit to Egypt. Charles and Camilla were hosted by the grand sheik of Al-Azhar, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, the top Islamic cleric in Egypt, who awarded the prince an honorary doctorate in recognition of his work to promote the understanding of Islam.

I wonder how much he truely is against the Danish people in this debate, or if he is merely trying to protect the relationship with the Muslims to avoid riots from the Muslim population in Britian.

Such thoughts aren’t possible in the other case as UN Special Rapporteur Doudou Diéne Calls Danes Racists, Xenophobes.

On Saturday, March 18th, Jyllands-Posten broke the story about an attack Doudou Diéne made on Denmark. The report was leaked by the UN to press sources in Denmark. Although available in full form, a complete translation is not available in English. Excerpts from the report are below:

III. THE MATTER OF THE CARICATURES OF PROPHET MUHAMMED PUBLISHED BY A DANISH NEWSPAPER

23. The most serious demonstration of the deterioration of the situation of the Arab and Moslem populations in general and of the resurgence of islamophobia in particular is illustrated by the publication of some caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. This newspaper published, September 30, 2005, 12 caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed. Inter alia, three of these caricatures show: the head of the Prophet wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb with a lit wick, the Prophet in the likeness of a devil holding in his hand a grenade, and the Prophet offering virgin girls to committers of suicide bombings. This constitutes an illustration of three significant tendencies at the heart of the recrudescence of islamophobia. The publication of the caricatures is, in its chronology, its initial motivation and with regards to the public concerned, revealing of the vulgarizing of defamation of religions. The caricatures published are the result of a contest launched by the newspaper in answer to allegations according to which the Danish cartoonists were so frightened by fundamentalist Moslems that they wouldn’t illustrate a biographical work on Muhammed. Thus the original motivation of the contest is the expression of a challenge and of an opposition to a group, the fundamentalist Moslems, suspected of causing an atmosphere of self-censorship. The identity of the public aimed at by the biographical work, children, reveals a concern for influencing the perception of a religion by a particularly significant and vulnerable age group. The object of the publication, a biography, showed the intention to present not a fiction but the life of the Prophet. The dominating message of the caricatures was therefore to associate Islam with terrorism. The caricature relating to the sexual gratification of suicide bombers with virgin women suggests the return of a age-old historical islamophobic Western imagery: the association of Islam and its prophet with sexual depravity. The way in which these caricatures defames Islam has now been defined.

24. Finally, the initial reaction of the Danish Government[1], refusing to take an official position on the contents and the publication of the caricatures while referring to respect for the freedom of expression, and the non-reception of the ambassadors of Moslem countries, is revealing not only of the political vulgarizing of islamophobia but also, by its consequences, of the central role of political leaders in the national arena and the international repercussions of the demonstrations and expressions of islamophobia. On the legal level, the government of each State which is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is bound, with regard to the relation between Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Thought and Expression, by three articles: article 18, which protects Freedom of Religion, but whose paragraph 3 poses limitations with regards to, inter alia, the protection of the law and order and safety as well as the rights and fundamental freedoms of others; article 19, which protects the freedom of expression and opinion, but whose paragraph 3 interjects, inter alia restrictions, the “respect for the rights or the reputation of others”; and, finally, article 20, which states the principle of prohibition by law of any call to hatred on the grounds of nationality, race or religion which constitutes an incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The fundamental principle which these articles express is the founding principle of all legal systems: any freedom or right finds its limit in the respect and the right of the other. Therefore, on the legal level, in particular with regard to its international commitments, the Danish Government was under an obligation to give its opinion, always respecting Freedom of Expression, not only on the impact the caricatures had on the liberties and rights of its community of 200,000 Moslems, but also on the impact on protection of law and order.

25. On the political level and with regards to the ethics of international relations, the Danish Government has not shown in this question, in the alarming context of the recrudescence of the defamation of religions, in particular of islamophobia as well as anti-semitism and christianophobie, the engagement and vigilance which it usually shows with regards to counter-acting religious intolerance, counter-acting religious hatred and promoting religious harmony. These values are precisely those which give direction, legitimacy and opportunity to the recent launching by the Secretary General of the initiative for an “Alliance of civilizations”.

A. Political and ideological context of the publication of caricatures

26. The special Rapporteur cannot avoid the question of the political and ideological national context in which the publication of the caricatures occured as well as the position of the Danish Government. This context is, first of all, marked by an agreement signed on December 8, 2005 between the Government and the Danish People’s Party, an extreme-right party, to tighten the conditions for access to citizenship in a country considered as having an immigration policy among the most restrictive of Europe, a country where 13% of the seats of the Parliament are occupied by the Danish People’s Party, of which one of the spokesmen, Søren Krarup, described “Moslem immigration as a means to overrun Europe, the same as they’ve been doing the last 1.400 years.” According to the French newspaper L’Monde of December 11, 2005, an imam filed a complaint against a deputy of the Danish People’s Party who, in Parliament, compared Moslem women wearing scarves to the motorcyclists who raise a swastika. The Special Rapporteur has indicated to the Commission and the General Assembly, in all his reports, one of the principal causes of the vulgarizing of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia: the increasing infestation of the political programs of the traditionally democratic parties with the racist and xenophobic platforms of the parties of the extreme right.

27. The special Rapporteur noted with interest, while finalising this report, the evolution of the position of the newspaper and government concerned. The editor in chief Monday January 30 “apologised” not for the publication of the caricatures, which he continues to deem “sober”, but “for having offended” the Moslems. But the nature of the consecutive publication of the caricatures by several European newspapers, in spite of the strong emotions caused by these drawings in the Islamic world, is beyond the legitimate defense of the Freedom of Expression, and tends to affirm Samuel Huntington’s thesis of a “Clash of Cilizations”. By publishing the caricatures of the Danish newspaper at a time when this newspaper had presented its apologies for the offence they caused, these newspapers favored a posture of confrontation and not of dialogue towards the domestic and foreign Moslem communities, which were offended by these caricatures.

28. Their uncompromising defense of a Freedom of Expression without limits or restrictions does not conform with international standards which keep a necessary balance between Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion, in particular non-initiation of religious and racial hatred, agreed upon by all the Member States of the United Nations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This position is indicative of an alarming lack of sensitivity and comprehension of the religious convictions and the significant emotions of the communities concerned. Because of this attitude, these publications consolidate criticisms which have been formulated especially by certain mass media, and in particular since the tragic events of September 11, which associate Islam with terrorism and which is a central explanation for the recrudesence of islamophobia in the world and in particular in their own countries. However, it’s precisely this amalgam which is at the core of the criticisms formulated against the caricatures of the Danish newspaper. The consecutive debate about the publication of the caricatures revealed in a more worrying way the emergence, from certain intellectuals, media and politicians, of a rhetoric of conflict of cultures and civilizations dividing the world between civilized secular democracies characterized by defense of Freedom of Expression and retrograde and backwards closed countries identified by the defense of religious freedom and insisting on their religion’s place in their societies. The debate would be reduced in this spirit to an irreducible conflict between “our values” and “their values”. This kind of dialectics, which is in the same black and white spirit as the Danish newspaper’s caricatures, identifying the West with the first group and the Moslem countries with the second group, thus presenting two opposing worlds, antagonistic cultures and civilizations, obscures not only the diversity of opinions, policies and individuals on this debate in the European countries and the United States, but especially the great multiculturalism of their own societies which is illustrated by the importance of their own national Moslem communities. The critical reaction towards the caricatures expressed by leaders of Jewish and Christian communities is not only the expression of their feeling that these caricatures illustrate the recrudescence of the slandering of all religions and the dominating ideological climate of intolerance as demonstrated by facts and practice. This response also constitutes the most effective defense against the risk of a clash of religions which these caricatures can cause. Their exemplary reaction confirms the fundamental fact that the contemporary islamophobia, like anti-semitism and christianophobia, owes more to politics and ideology than to religion. The Special Rapporteur notes with satisfaction the reactions of the leaders of various religions, illustrated also by the statement made by the European Council of Religious Leaders[2]. This declaration invites all religious leaders to do their utmost to reject and stop the acts of violence and terror which are carried out in the name of God, and condemns the use of the Freedom of Expression for blasphemous ends, which is seen as a violation of this freedom when it is exerted without taking into account the detrimental effects on individuals and groups.

29. Lastly, the special Rapporteur deplores the violent reactions which followed the publication of the caricatures in question, and in particular the threats and attacks against people were in no way related to the publication of them and which were targeted only on the basis of their nationality, as well as the attacks against diplomatic representations. The Special Rapporteur deplores also the violence exerted towards places of worship of other religions, such as was done against a catholic church in Beirut. This constitute a lack of respect and an attack towards other religious communities and does not help the fight against defamation of religions, quite the contrary.

[1] With regard to the later evolution of the Danish position, see the section “Position of the Danish and Norwegian Governments”.

[2] Declaration of the Executive Committee of the European Council of Leaders of Religions, Oslo, Februrary 6, 2006.

(The racist part is in section 26.)

Sammenhold!

Agora brought the following information to my attention. (Thanks!)

Death Threat against signers of Manifesto

By Jørgen Ullerup, Correspondent to Jyllands-Posten

Warning against Islamic totalitarianism brings death threats. On a website an Islamic group has made death threats against the 12 intellectuals, including Salman Rushdie, who recently signed a Manifesto against Islamic Totalitarianism.

/Paris/

According to one of the signers, the French writer Caroline Fourest, the threat was made this Saturday on the website ummah.net. It mentions a who’s who guide and a list of targets scheduled for termination.

The group urges its adherents to take their time but says it should happen soon. It adds that it isn’t necessary to first have a Fatwa from a religious leader, such as the one Ayatollah Khomeini issued in 1989 against Salman Rushdie’s life for having offended the religion.

“The threat is simply not acceptable. Our Manifesto urges to resistance by means of ideas. But the Islamists have answered with threats of violence. A proof - if such was necessary - of their rejection of democratic debate and of their totalitarianism,” Caroline Fourest says.

She adds that the Manifesto isn’t against Islam but against Islamism and the Islamists’ using the religion politically to oppress, for example, Freedom of Speech. She emphasises that the signers will not be subdued by threats.

To read the Manifesto: MANIFESTO
To show your support: Petition Spot - MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism There are over 1,300 signatures so far. The goal is 100,000.

Poul Højlund, at PIA CAUSA, has written a great post on the lessons we should learn from the cartoon war. To those unfamiliar to his blog, PIA CAUSA is an excellent source of information on the cartoon war. Keep up the good work!
~*~
Time to sum up a few lessons learned from the cartoon war.

First: Free Speech has no added ‘but …’.

Second: Not everything thing is what it pretends to be.

Third: Establishment sails under the flag of their own convenience.

Fourth: Terror pays off.

Fifth: We must separate the terms ‘Muslim’ and ‘Islamic’.

Sixth: No right of freedom stands without the strong support of you and me.

Seventh: UN does not function.

Eighth: As the press failed, the blogg’ers succeeded.

Ninth: The war aint over till Muslims have been freed from their Islamic oppressors.

Tenth: Only free speech will enable us to move forward.

~*~

First: Free Speech has no added ‘but …’. Danish Prime states it clearly, supported by the new members of Europe, newly escaped from the communist yoke, and by some of the countries from old Europe with the largest number of Islamists.

Danish prime defines free speech in simple words: ‘The right to speak truth to power’. I call it “The incomprehensible simplicity of free speech”. We’re on the same track.

Second: Not everything thing is what it pretends to be. The Cartoon War was not about hurt religious feeling although a taboo was broken and a lot of Muslims hurt deeply.

The Cartoon War on the contrary was carefully orchestrated by OIC leaders in support of their demand of limitations to free speech world wide. Proof came when the world realised that the cartoons were printed in Egypt on October 17 without any outcry at all. Check “What is in the Islamic Pipeline” and “The Master Plan” for proof and documentation.

Third: In grave times sheep are separated from goats, as Danish PM stated it. It has been witnessed around the world with the political Teflon people desperately trying to silence us, with Quislings popping up everywhere, and with US and UK mass media bending knees to the Islamic censorship.

Lesson learned is the sinister one: establishment sails under the flag of their own convenience.

Fourth: Terror pays off. Why else would anyone take the madmen serious and why else would anyone bend knees to the absolute powers of the most oppressing religion of all times?

Fifth: We must separate the terms ‘Muslim’ and ‘Islamic’, the first being ordinary people of faith, the latter being the oppressing system utilising the faith of ordinary people.

Sixth: No right of freedom stands without the strong support of you and me.

Seventh: UN does not function. It was founded by democratic states to end wars and to defend freedom. During the years of the Cold War it took in any dictatorship around the world, leading to a majority of non-free states governing. It has led to massive corruption, intolerable incompetence and hypocrisy beyond limits.

If UN wanted to, it could demand that human rights were respected everywhere, and it could threaten with military force through the Security Counsel those failing to implement and protect these rights.

Eighth: As the press failed, the bloggers succeeded. It was Freedom For Egyptians that gave the proof for the Islamic setup, and it was in the blogoshere that the bullets for the battle were cast and in fact still are cast.

Ninth: The war ain’t over till Muslims have been freed from their Islamic oppressors. It will take time, it will cost lives and it will be a clash between civilisation and absolutism, between the free world and the medieval oppressors.

Tenth: Only free speech will enable us to move forward.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Rev. Martin Niemüller, 1945

“Niemoeller was one of the most respected Protestant leaders in Germany. After a signal career as a young man, a decorated U-Boat captain in the First World War, he became an activated Christian. In 1933, when he became the most high profile of Hitler’s Christian opponents, he was in charge of a prestigious suburban parish in Berlin-Dahlem.

Niemoeller was a leader in the mobilization of the Pastors’ Emergency League, in the Synod that denounced the abuses of the dictatorship in the famous “Six Articles of Barmen,” and in other visible joint actions and sermons that finally led to his arrest on 1 July 1937. There were then a few honest judges still functioning in Germany, and when the court let him go with a slap on the wrist Hitler personally ordered his incarceration. Niemoeller was in concentration camp, including long periods of solitary confinement, until the end of the war.”

Quoted from Littell’s article in Christian Ethics Today
Found at PIA CAUSA

The Muhammad cartoons controversy began after editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad were published in the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, on September 30, 2005. Attacks on the cartoonists, and others, have resulted from these cartoons.

Here is the Manifesto as it was posted on the Jyllands-Posten website.

MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism

Origanaly posted: http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3585740/
Can also be seen: Fundamentally Right
More information: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

“Beneath the rule of men entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword.”
— Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1803-1873)
– - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - –
Sir Edward Bulwer-Lytton was an English author, playwright and politician. He is well known for the above quote as well the opening phrase, “It was a dark and stormy night.”

Other quotes of Sir Bulwer-Lytton are:

“One of the sublimest things in the world is plain truth.”
and
“When people have no other tyrant, their own public opinion becomes one.”
– - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - –
America has been a free country for many years. Since the Revolutionary War (1775–1783), America has had a government chosen “for the people by the people.” America became a stable country. Now, America is one of the largest, and strongest, countries in the world.

While I was writing a previous post – “In the name of religion…” – I realized I was more upset at the way Americans were acting over the cartoon riots than upset at the ones who started them. I took out my anger at the Muslims, at religion. But I was mad at America: at Bill Clinton, at the MSM, even at Ted Kennedy and others unrelated to the cartoons.

I was mad at America for picking themselves apart. I still am.
– - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - –
A wise man and a U.S. president, Abraham Lincoln, said:

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. ”
– - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - –
I realized the pen is mightier than the sword.

When 9/11 occured, Americans had to support each other. Afterwards, life went on, but one thing had changed: we had experienced one terrorist attack, and would not face another without being prepared. So you could argue that America is actually stronger now then it was before 9/11. The “sword” failed to defeat America.

But now the words of American citizens are taking up the task the terrorists left. Through the pen, America is destroying itself.

The pen is not just mightier than the sword - the pen is a lethal weapon that can destroy the greatest nations.
– - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - –

“Gevoelig:” A Cartoon

The maker of “Gevoelig,” Joep Bertrams, is a Danish political-cartoon author. While I can’t tell heads from tails with Dutch, this cartoon is affective in any language.

“Gevoelig” means “sensitive.”

By now news of the Libya cartoon riot has reached the world across the internet. In the article linked, the writer mentions a quote by former president Bill Clinton.

I can tell you, most people in the United States deeply respect Islam … and most people in Europe do.

I generally respect all religions. I believe it is a human’s right to worship a god they choose, both publically and privately. But “in the name of religion” isn’t a valid excuse for your actions. And when innocent people are harmed “in the name of religion” I loose whatever respect I had for that religion.

No American, old enough to hear the news or see the pictures on TV and in the newspaper, will ever forget the tradegy of 9/11. They will not forget the victims - and they will not forget the killers. Most will not forget the words of the hijackers: “Allah is the greatest!” Nearly 3,000 people died that day - 3,000 people died in the name of religion. Because of a “holy war.”

Now the Muslims are rioting against Denmark for publishing cartoons depicting Muhammad. So far at least 29 people have been killed. Why should people be killed because of religion?

So Mr. Clinton will have to forgive me for disagreeing with him. I no longer respect Islam. And Mr. Clinton is going to recieve no support from me regarding the following statement:

…people in the United States have also condemned the publication and they are deeply concerned on it.

I am deeply concerned about the effects of the cartoons. I’m concerned for the lives of the Danish supporters. I’m concerned for the lives of the law enforcement and troops.

I’m deeply concerned at where the world is headed when the freedom of the press and free speech causes the death of innocent people.

Update: Cartoon Protests Leave 15 Dead in Nigeria