Freedom of Speech - Jyllands-Posten's Charade Exposed on HARDtalk

Stephen Sackur exposes the charade of Freedom of Speech that Jyllands-Posten hides behind - their hypocrisy exposed when he asks the editor if he would publish cartoons of a Jewish Rabbi dressed as a Nazi.

In September 2005, Denmark's Jyllands-Posten newspaper published a series of 12 cartoons which depicted the Prophet Mohammed of Islam. The cartoons drew protests from Muslims in Denmark at first but then in early 2006 these protests spread across the world. Danish products were boycotted worldwide in addition to other actions which led to steep losses for the Danish industry.

Stephen Sackur speaks to the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten and the local Imam who led the opposition to the publication in this episode of HARDtalk. It was the first time these men had sat down face-to-face and debated the issue in public.


Courtesy: BBC News

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Jyllands-Posten
• Danish
• cartoons
• Islam
• Prophet
• freedom
• of
• speech
• fake
• charade
• hypocrisy
• discrimination

[svindeladvobaltersen]

SVINDELADVOKATEN BALTERSEN I HIRTSHALS I DANMARK, presenteres her med video om ganske snart.....come back and check; Denmark are full of SWINDLER LAWYERS, that even the government has written about several times, in several media; and clips from newspapers will be posted in a video, SPREAD THIS INFORMATION....we know there are many out there who are victims of LAWYER'S CRIME

[SuperBabyBuddah]

@faris710 You sigh that politics & religion are a bad mix, I point out that Islam has always been a political/religious/legal/econ­omic system. And you sulk that the wall of separation between church and state in the West is not as good as it could be (.......and your point is...?) and that Islamic countries are "working on it". All I see are Islamic states where separating religion from politics is pretty fucking low on the To Do list. Even Turkey is devolving into an overtly religious state.

[SuperBabyBuddah]

@faris710 "You can't (..)deny the same to other groups who have similar needs".." My stance is crystal clear; NO ONE should have special courts in the U.K.. not Jews, not Muslims.. not Martians"

According to your "crystal clear stance" "NO ONE" should have special courts. Which implies you do not accept their arguments for having them. But you also talk about these groups having "similar needs" for special courts, which implies you do accept their arguments as valid "needs". Well which is it?

[SuperBabyBuddah]

@faris710 Yes, I was afraid you'd say that. Some principles you've got. I am not impressed. "Corruption is wrong!" "...but if the super rich don't go to jail because they can afford good lawyers then we need to forgive corruption for everybody else"?

A principled person would oppose ethnic segregation of the courts, schools, and housing, no matter what the current reality may be. That's sorta, kinda what having principles is all about, we need them to set goals for the society we want to have.

[SuperBabyBuddah]

@faris710 Are you saying that UK Sharia courts are obligated to correct the traditional gender inequality which exists in Islamic Law regarding matters of inheritance, divorce and testimony? That'd be good news, but I'd like a source for that. The voluntary character of British Sharia says nothing about whether those who do choose to comply with Sharia will retain or lose rights they have under secular law. So far you've made an impressive effort of not understanding such a simple point. ;)

[faris710]

@SuperBabyBuddah: The U.S simply applying ink to paper that religion is separate from politics is a load of bile as anyone who has studied U.S government & politics over the last century would tell u. Like it or not divorcing religion from politics is a wishy-washy grey area; each country & society tailor the mixture according to what works in those environments. Some Muslims countries have found the right mixture, others are working at it. Politics abusing religion is very real

[faris710]

@SuperBabyBuddah: Again, u're still running around in circles.. U've already been told that Sharia court decisions do NOT supersede British law.. Your presumptive comments are becoming regurgitated bile..

[faris710]

@SuperBabyBuddah: There's no discrepancy in my stance.. Either you say NO to all.. or you say YES to all... You can't cherry pick specific groups to appease, yet deny the same to other groups who have similar needs.. My stance is crystal clear; NO ONE should have special courts in the U.K.. not Jews, not Muslims.. not Martians.. BUT if you're going to make a concession one particular group, then u lose the plot & u gotta do the same for other groups as well. Plain & Simple.

[SuperBabyBuddah]

@faris710 "Politics abusing religion", this is a recurring theme for you. Islam is the righteous path, it's politics that corrupts things in the end. (In other words: do not criticise my imaginary friend). Haven't you noticed it was the West that first insisted on divorcing religion from politics for precisely that reason? The USA even put it in their Constitution. Islam has been a political/military/religious chimera since its very inception, starting with the founder, to this very day. 

[SuperBabyBuddah]

@faris710 If a Sharia court's rulings do not conflict with British law, the same way that Jewish courts do not legislate contrary to secular law, there's no problem, I agree. But the fact that Sharia law is voluntary in the UK does not give it a carte blanche. If a Sharia judge denies a Muslim a right this person has as a British citizen under British law, whether the person wants to accept it (out of ignorance? Peer pressure? Duty?) the judge himself is in violation of British law.