Do we hate Denmark?

At this stage of the exchange I hope the readers will not object too much if I make a slight detour. There is a point to this, which will be revealed below.

In 2004 a completely unknown elderly gentleman in Moscow, living alone in his appartment off his pension as a former officer in the Red Army, was suddently and unexpectedly honoured by the Association of World Citizens and given the title “The man Who Saved The World”. Literally.

On September 26, 1983 Stanislav Petrov was the commanding officer on duty at the USSR control center for the atomic strike force of the Red Army.

Suddently and completely unexpectedly the alarms went off, as the computer, which was continuously monitoring all the sensor signals from all over the world, detected a launch of five nuclear rockets from within the USA.

The case was pretty clear cut and the procedure as to what should happen next had been written by Mr. Petrov himself. He should punch the Big Red Button and retaliate in kind with the full force of the USSR, which invariably would have destroyed the world as we know it.

Yet he hesitated, ignoring the frantic phone calls from his superiors. Then … he procrastinated some more, still not pushing the button, which would make time stop.

Later he explained that at the time it didn’t make any sense. Why would the US start a war with only five rockets, when they had thousands at their disposal? Eventually a glitch was reported from a satellite, and we all lived to hear about the story.

…

Yesterday I asked why it was that ‘all’ Muslims condemn Denmark, along with why some Muslim groups would like the Danish prime minister to apologize for the actions of a small, independent group of citizens within my country. Previously I had asked if anything could be done at this point to cool the tempers in the Arab world.

Haitham, did you consider whether I made a simple mistake when I wrote ‘all’ instead of, say, ‘many’?

You apparently concluded that I tend to consider all Muslims a homogenious group, possibly due to how Muslims are often portrayed in the media.

As it happens I *did* make a mistake, and for that I apologize. My only excuse is that it was late when I wrote what I did, though I did try to select my words with care.

In actual fact I am quite aware that there is hardly any way to group all people in the world of the Muslim faith under a single umbrella. The free media in Denmark (you may have heard of them…?) do happen to give a reasonably balanced picture of events in the world. Also we can receive both TV and radio from, in particular, Germany, which can hardly be blamed for giving lip service to the US. You should see some of the things the independent TV stations have shown and told about from Iraq in particular. It wasn’t pretty, and they didn’t use the term ‘colateral damage’.

As a result there is a strong opposition among the populace in both Germany and Denmark against the US invasion of Iraq, and people here in general are quite aware that whatever they see or hear on CNN and in other american media needs to be taken with *a lot* of salt.

But I am digressing.

I came to this blog looking for some answers to questions, which had eluded me since this whole story exploded. Both you, Haitham, and I myself made a few simple mistakes, and we got off track. Yet in a way this might have been a fortituous event, because I feel it neatly condenses what I suspect may be the core issue in the string of events surround JP.

The generally negative depiction of events in the mass media on both sides of the fence is of course a problem, which adds fuel to the fire. Yet it cannot explain events fully.

Have you noticed that the Saudi embassy in Copenhagen was razed to the ground yesterday night? No? Well, that might be because it wasn’t. In short the populace in Denmark has not responded in kind to the actions of some minorities in the Arab world, and if I am allowed a guess, then it never will.

And that is where I believe the bridge between our culture is hiding.

In Denmark, as in many other European countries, people are very slow to react to outside provocations and what might appear at first to be deliberate acts of offense. The cultures of the countries are sufficiently diversified that if we allowed ourselves to be dragged into a conflict over what was printed in a paper in another European country, we would be at constant war.

Our natural instinct is to assume that extreme levels of provocation is probably a mistake and not a deliberate act. Or, when that is obviously not the case, that nothing good will come from acting hastily to aggressive stimuli. The exception of course being an extreme emergency, where lives or property is at stake.

Danish flags are burned in the Arab countries, embassies attacked and torched. As a result the Danes are scratching their heads and wonder how to respond. In the end all apart from a handful of crazy individuals go about their daily business as usual, waiting and hoping for the storm to pass.

Most of the Muslim reactions to the cartoons I have read from outside Denmark, find the actions of JP offensive to and abusive of Islam and Muslims. Noone seems to consider whether JP might possibly have had *another* reason for publicising the cartoons in the first place, besides ‘obviously’ wanting to insult Islam and its followers.

(Before you pounch on the fact that JP themselves have said that they printed the cartoons ‘to test the freedom of expression’ or however it was they put it, then let me hasten to add that I believe that was a very unfortunate way of compressing the longer explanation, which has been given in the Danish media.)

Had you asked me five months ago what would happen in Denmark if one of the major newspapers published some satirical cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, my answer whould have been: Nothing. Had you asked me three weeks ago, I would have answered pretty much the same thing, because nothing had. A few extremist followers of Islam had (predictably) raised some verbal complaints, but that is about it.

It is not that I or others were unaware that Muslims do not depict the Prophet. This is well known, just like the fact that, say, some Jews do not work on Saturdays etc.

It was only when the followers of Mr. Abu Laban managed to raise the issue in the media in the Arab world that things began to happen. Initially they were ignored as they travelled the Arab countries, but eventually they succeded by *wildly* exaggeraing what had taken place and by adding a few ‘extra’ cartoons for added effect. That is why it took four months before the world began hearing about the cartoons.

The Danish Muslim extremists haven’t stopped yet, by the way. As late as last week Mr. Laban was caught lying on camera by one of the major Danish TV networks regarding what he had said to Al Jazeera about asking for support from the Arab world.

But be as that might, the end result was that a lot of Muslims around the world began hearing about the JP story, and the rest is not yet history. Because they don’t live in Denmark, and they do generally seem not to understand how Denmark works on the social and cultural level.

Noone among the Muslims appears to pause and ask why Denmark, one of the major supporters of Palestine in absolute terms, would suddently turn about and punch Islam squarely in the face, figuratively speaking.

Did it occur to anyone that the explanation might be that *we* *didn’t*?!

But since it would appear that no explanation Denmark would be able to supply will be satisfactory, I suspect a dialogue will be pointless. Meaning that the end result will probably be that we withdraw from Palestine, stop the aid and wait a few decades before trying again.

Blackfeline,

With all due respect, I don’t think you fully read Jan’s post. For most Danes, freedom of speech does *encompass* the freedom to satire religious figures. For example, there are plenty of irrevent images of Jesus in the Danish media. Freedom of blasphemy is something that people in Europe have fought long and hard for. Personally, I think Jan and other Danes may be overlooking the racism of some the cartoons; However, just because Denmark doesn’t prohibit a small newspaper from publishing such images doesn’t mean Denmark is intending to spit in Muslims’ face.

Peter,

I understood perfectly well….either u have to face the predictable consequences or think out of the box…accept the reality that the world is becoming boarderless…and the demography of a country will change..it’s inevitable…u have to accommodate and protect the rights of minorities who will eventually assimilate into your society…freedom of speech is no sacred cow…amend it accordingly…period…why are u afraid?

To take Malkin, the crazy racist seriously is like to take the radical clerics seriously.please stop posting the link to her site.
I’m in no need to give any cents by visiting her disgusting site.

any of you who visited her site,need to take a shower with clorox,just in case.

How about the Arab world starts boycotting Egypt?

http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html

Blackfeline,

Thank you for your friendly reply.

I am not sure exactly what you got so worked up about, so please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of your two answers.

Is what you are saying to me:

Thomas, you are an idiot because you do not want to submit yourself to my way of seeing things and because you refuse to accept Islam as a higher law than the laws of your country?

I am not sure whether the two of us share the same understanding of the word ‘discussion’. To me it means an exchange of points of view WITH argumentation about how those came about. Also, as I understand ‘discussion’ it is a dynamic process where both parties have the opportunity to expand their understanding of a situation, but NOT a competition where one side wins ‘the whole truth and nothing but the truth’ by defeating ‘the wrong and ignorant’ opinion of the other side.

From my experience with Muslims (Muslim friends in the ‘real’ world and those I meet on the Internet) they take two general approaches to discussions. Some are a pleasure to discuss with because they take a modern approach by having the courage to openly discuss cultural values. Others are not able to discuss constructively because they cannot discuss cultural values because they are afraid it will ruin the picture they have of the world. In other words, some take a win-win (tolerance) approach while others view it as a zero sum game (submission).

Naturally, the Muslim friends I have and enjoy being with belong to the first category, because they share my view on culture: “A different culture is not wrong, just different!”

Unfortunately, there are far fewer open Muslims than there are closed Muslims. Even a lot of so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims are leaning more towards being closed and I am getting the feeling that so are you (again, correct me if I am wrong).

Generally, generalizations are wrong, but in many cases they facilitate a discussion, so that is why I am generalizing here.

The big problem with integration in Denmark (and Europe in general, I guess) comes from the fact that closed Muslims are giving the impression that they, and Islam, is very ethnocentric and intolerant.

The knee-jerk reaction of closed Muslims is to say “the West does not understand Islam” every time somebody raises a question about Islam. This statements is always followed up with “I wish the West would seek more knowledge about Islam” combined with a big sigh and a facial look of desparation or dissapointment.

Lets face it, to closed Muslims, Islam is the absolute truth and therefore anybody who questions anything about Islam is a racist based on the fact that he does not accept Islam to be the absolute truth.

The statement that “the West should seek knowledge in order to understand the loving prophet Mohammed” is a big, fat, fluffy pillow that the closed Muslim can rest his head on because it ligitimizes his ethnocentrism and intolerance towards ALL other points of views.

As I have said several times in other posts, what you do in your country is none of my business and I cannot tell you what to do. Therefore, you have absolutely no right to tell me what do or what to think either. Especially not if your agenda is the one I interpret from your use of Muslim-speak.

In Denmark, Islam is NOT the absolute truth and it is not racism when Danes question or critizise Islam. It would be racism if we only questioned and critizised Islam, but it is our culture to question and critizise everything around us in our society. If we had not done that, then we would still be stuck in the Dark Ages and burning witches, sorcerors, gnomes…and maybe even Muslims who dared to cross our borders!

If you or any others ask us to accept that Islam is the absolute truth and to punish those that do not feel the same way, then you are NOT asking for our respect or understanding; then you are asking for our submission – and that you will not get.

PS: Just in case you are wondering whether I am mocking you. Yes, I am, I am trying to provoke you to come out from your hiding behind Islam in order to start a more constructive discussion with you!

First, re. the cartoons Haitham actually summed it up quite neatly with his post re: Freedom of Racism:

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/01/11/freedom-of-racism/

Second, Thomas is right: We can’t really consider Jyllands-Posten (JP) a Fascist newspaper based on what it said before WWII.

JP is generally a right-of-center, traditional-value and economically-liberal newspaper. Regarding immigration policy and religion, however, its editorials have long been known to harbour xenophobic and anti-Muslim points of view very similar to those of the Danish People’s Party, a rather right-wing party which is home to some *very* negative and rather paranoid points of view regarding Islam and Muslims (e.g., that Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian ideology, that the Muslims wish to take over and kill us, likening to them cancer cells whom we should be deporting to Russian jails – yes, this is true, and it is shameful for Denmark). Jyllands-Posten has, as I said, for some years been harbour to views of this Michelle Malkin/Ann Coulter/Daniel Pipes variety (while at the same time they have also from time to time had excellent coverage of Muslims and immigrants being succesful in Denmark – needs to be said, in all fairness).

The publication of the cartoons were a part of this trend – there’s no use in denying it. Our prime minister’s initial refusal to meet with the 11 Muslim ambassadors was arrogant and was done in catering to the extreme right.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that our friend Jan’s version of the story is not true and suffers from the same Pipes-isms as do Jyllands-Posten (in my opinion). I think he should be excused, since tempers are known to be hot on many sides, but we also need to point out that the origins of this conflict can never be understood from a “freedom of speech” point of view.

It *is* a question of hiding behind free speech in order to hide a deliberate insult to an already marginalized minority. That is, as Haitham pointed out, hiding behind freedom of speech to demand freedom of racism. They are allowed to do so, of course (and thus nobody in Denmark are actually challenging their freedom of speech) but that does definitely not exempt them from criticism.

Jan responded to my post, saying,

“…if you are unable or unwilling to accept the information I provide, what is the point of this so-called dialogue?”

I suspect Jan was frustrated that I challenged what he said about the JP, particularly because it seemed I did not have that much evidence to refute his claims that JP is not right wing, or that it supports various anti-Muslim policies. I understand that I did not then have solid unshakable counterevidence. However, my point was that Jan made claims for which he did not provide any evidence at all. I just wanted him to provide something to back up what he said.

The point of my challenging him on this has to do with whether the publishing of these cartoons was an innocent experiment gone awry, or something that was expected to make the reactions we have seen. I think he believes the cartoons were published innocently, and I do not agree.

Come to find out from Carston that,

“…JP is generally a right-of-center, traditional-value and economically-liberal newspaper. Regarding immigration policy and religion, however, its editorials have long been known to harbour xenophobic and anti-Muslim points of view very similar to those of the Danish People’s Party, a rather right-wing party which is home to some *very* negative and rather paranoid points of view regarding Islam and Muslims (e.g., that Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian ideology, that the Muslims wish to take over and kill us, likening to them cancer cells whom we should be deporting to Russian jails – yes, this is true, and it is shameful for Denmark). Jyllands-Posten has, as I said, for some years been harbour to views of this Michelle Malkin/Ann Coulter/Daniel Pipes variety (while at the same time they have also from time to time had excellent coverage of Muslims and immigrants being succesful in Denmark – needs to be said, in all fairness).

The publication of the cartoons were a part of this trend – there’s no use in denying it.”

This seems to characterize the JP in much the same terms I’ve heard about the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ has good economic reporting and presents issues in a fairly sympathetic and even handed manner, but it’s editorial writers push as hard a right-wing pro business-uber-alles line as anyone in the U.S.

Jan goes on to criticize the socialist argument for promoting the lie that the Danish Prime Minister could have seen the Muslim Ambassadors in order to distance the government and the Danish people in general from the insults committed by the publication of the cartoons. Jan argued that the PM could not have seen the Ambassadors because that would have embroiled a member of the Danish legislative body in a potential legal dispute. Further, the PM should not have seen the ambasadors because, as he has argued, the government has no right to interfere with whatever Danish papers want to publish.

I don’t think Jan considered the arguments made by the socialists. In part they claimed,

“…The decision of the right-wing Danish government to defend the newspaper that initially published the cartoons, and of newspapers in Norway, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Iceland and Hungary, both conservative and liberal, to reprint them has nothing to do with freedom of the press or the defense of secularism. Such claims make a mockery of these democratic principles.

The promulgation of such bigoted filth is, rather, bound up with a shift by the European ruling elites to line up more squarely behind the neo-colonial interventions of US imperialism in the Middle East and Central Asia. It is no accident that it occurs in the midst of the ongoing slaughter in Iraq, new threats against the Palestinian masses, and the preparations to launch sanctions, and eventual military aggression, against Iran.

It is, moreover, a continuation and escalation of a deliberate policy in Europe, spearheaded by the political right and aided and abetted by the nominal “left” parties, to demonize the growing Muslim population, isolate it, and use it as a scapegoat for the growing social misery affecting broad layers of the working class.”

By my reading of this passage, the issue that seems more important about the PM is not whether his refusal to see the Ambassadorswas as he said, he had no right to stand in the way of their “freedom of speech,” or because the Ambassadors had brought up the possibility of a legal dispute. The more important issue is whether the Prime Minister or someone else more appropriate could have pointed out that the insults the JP committed did not reflect the policies of the government or the will of the Danish people. It seems the PM should have simply distanced Denmark from the actions of a few rogue elements of Danish society.

The fact that the PM felt no urgency to build a wall between the actions of the JP and franchise-Denmark lends weight to the socialist’s claim that it’s the “ruling class” in Denmark and Europe, in general, that wants to promote the demonization of Muslims.

I have agreed with others who argue that the purpose of these cartoons was to promote anger and the violent reaction that has come to pass. This was expected. I suspect it was desired because, the socialists are correct to think that the violence in the Muslim community will isolate them from the rest of Europe, and from the world community, and thereafter make them much better scapegoats.

I am willing to agree with the socialists on this point, that it’s a planned operation, because the same process of demonization happened to the American black community of slaves. Blacks in America were isolated and made into 3/5′s of a human so that they could be blamed for the economic hardships that poor working Americans experienced throughout the early life of the country.

I don’t see why we should stand around and let the Muslim community take the blame for hardships and suffering most likely caused by the short sighted and selfish policies of the powers-that-be.

I am also aware of Thomas’s sensitivity about pots calling kettles black, as here,

“…I object to your notion of xenophobic Denmark and the other Denmark, because that makes you sound like a certain politician who is famous for saying “Either you are with us or you are against us!” and you completely ignore the diversity that I think Denmark should be proud of.

I do NOT sympathize with the agressive and intolerant attitidue towards the new Danes of the right-wingers and I do NOT sympathize with the submissive and appeasing attitude towards the new Danes of the left-winger.”

I am aware that Thomas might want to argue that both I and the socialists are “submissive” and have an “appeasing attitude” towards the “new Danes.” He might think this was a bad idea because some Muslims have made unreasonable demands like asking the Danish government to censor cartoons, or to punish the publishers. He might argue that it was unfair and painful to boycott Danish products because of the actions of a handful of journalists.

I’d agree that there have been some thoughtless or hurtful responses to the publication of the cartoons. People have died! I would just reiterate the socialist’s argument that the pain and thoughtless responses were just what those behind the cartoon’s publication expected. It’s what they thought would happen and what we can expect they’ll argue justifies the isolation and further punishment they would want to inflict on the Muslim community in the future.

Steven,

I don’t really care what the socialists are saying and I don’t accept your comments as anything else than political propaganda viz. the Syrian and Iranian propaganda to capitalize on the issue.

That does not mean that I write it off as not the truth, but I will remain sceptic about your unsubstantiated claims until you provide me with at least two different links to proof presented with reliable sources.

Sorry, but using ‘the socialists’ as argumentation and proof is the same thing as hiding behind any other religious or political ideology without having the courage to think and build an independent argument.

By the way, ‘the socialists’ you are talking about are they the same socialists who who continue to excuse all the ‘problems’ under Stalin with that Communism is misunderstood?

Thomas said,

“…I will remain sceptic about your unsubstantiated claims until you provide me with at least two different links to proof presented with reliable sources.”

It seems he is skeptical of the socialists. I am puzzled, though, by just what claims Thomas is thinking about. I suspect he may be skeptical about the claims made about Fleming Rose, the JP editor who authorized the publication of the cartoons. Here are a few alternate sources for my concerns.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,1707526,00.html

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8512

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=211

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/

One of my claims is that the Danish Prime Minister, or an appropriate official of the Danish government, should have distanced the government and the people of Denmark from the content of the cartoons published by the JP. Although this notion may have been suggested by other people, it seems an obvious precaution in such a situation. There seems no reason why we should think the PM would have endangered Danish freedoms by pointing out that the actions of an editor or a newspaper did not represent the position of the Danish people or their government.

Such a claim need not depend on sources. Does Thomas want a better argument for such a claim? Is there some reason to think such an action by the PM in a timely manner would not have prevented the reaction in the Muslim community that has come to pass?

Maybe Thomas doubts that there was some plan to create the violent reaction, that the Muslim reaction was expected. If he has such doubts, I’d like to ask whether Thomas doubts that Pipes , Rose, and others would want such a reaction, does he doubt that they would do such a thing, do you doubt that the printing of these cartoons caused the violence?

I am puzzled too about how the claims I have made support Syrian or Iranian propaganda. Suppose the Iranians, for example, were persuaded that the cartoons were published as part of an effort to isolate the Muslim community in Europe and to undermine world resistance to further aggression against Muslim countries. Would Thomas reject their position? What would his argument be?

Finally, perhaps I am wrong, but when Thomas said,

“…‘the socialists’ you are talking about are they the same socialists who who continue to excuse all the ‘problems’ under Stalin with that Communism is misunderstood?”

I looked at these particular socialist’s website. What I read seems to make no apologies for Stalin, but endorses the idea, which I’ve also heard elsewhere, that Stalin’s efforts were to seek out and destroy socialism in the Soviet Union. One piece discusses a history of the era, saying,

“…Professor Vadim Rogovin presents a detailed and penetrating analysis of the causes, impact and consequences of Stalin’s purges.

Rogovin demonstrates that the principal function and aim of the terror was the physical annihilation of the substantial socialist opposition to Stalin’s bureaucratic regime.”

http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/1937/title.htm

Does Thomas have a story behind his claim about these socialists that would show their real support for Stalin? And besides, should support for Stalin undermine their credibility when it comes to their account of this issue at this time? In what way?

Thomas would be right to be skeptical of the argument that we should go along with whatever the socialists suggest. Of course, we should try to put together our own understanding of the question of what the cartoons mean and how we can resolve the conflicts revealed by their publication. I’m just saying they provided a starting point which put together a fairly comprehensive account of the situation. That is, the cartoons are part of an effort by powerful people to isolate the Muslim community for their own purposes.

Does Thomas have some reason to think otherwise? I don’t think I can ignore what the socialists have claimed just because I didn’t think of it myself.

Have you ever seen the people who wants to interfere in someones matters because they cant solve their problem and wants to solve the problems of others! Muslims r not in favour to say something abou anyone’s Religon because these r serious issues which destroys the relations between two nations.But Eurpeon Countrie Wants to touch the Relations of two Religons which is Shameful!
They should appologies on this Unforgettable,unmiserable Mistake!

Cant we just all get along?
Ly dini wa lakoum dinakooum?