Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons

[Briar]

Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons

Gwladys Fouché and agencies

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."
...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Oh boy. This isn't going to help matters any.

[YOY]

2. Lampooning christ has been done before...and done well

Ever see "Life of Brian"?

[Dunvegan]

3. Well, exposedhypocrisy on the part of Jyllands-Posten isn't going to help.

...matters one bit.

It's does begin to look like Jyllands-Posten was baiting a bit.

Nothing in the reaction is justified by this, but it is getting dumber by the minute...both sides.

[bemildred]

4. I think this whole dog-and-pony show is about selling the Iran war. nt

[Burning Water]

6. The hypocrisy, however,

is nto the important point. The reaction, which consists of physical violence, is far more important.

[neoblues]

5. Seems to me they are free to do as they please...

To make judgements about what their readers would like, dislike or whatever. They're free to be wrong too.

If they don't choose to show equal disdain for all religions, that's their choice. If it were me, I'd happily run offensive cartoons regarding any or all of them... or not. That's freedom of choice.

Speech can certainly be used to antagonize others, and perhaps this was a case in which there was an intentional provocation... but still, it was just paper and ink. Perhaps it was ugly, and even unnecessary... so what?

A society can still expect, demand and require citizens to behave themselves, regardless of any percieved offense to published material. "Grown ups" don't have to, and should not resort to sticks and stones. Don't support the offending media company, write your own editorials or cartoons (and there are plenty of offensive cartoons in Muslim publications), or write your elected officials (possibly a pointless activity since it may not fall under the government's purview so long as the publication complies with laws regarding decency--which is quite different from whether or not it's offensive to some group or other).

Muslims may well believe the government controls the media (and in some cases governments do--especially here in the U.S., but once upon a time it wasn't so, but in their case, the government probably had nothing to do with it). It may well be so in their home countries, but it's merely paranoia in Denmark. Even so, it's no excuse for disturbing public order in a violent manner.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. But here, it seems the situation is that the paper is deliberatly

inciting that disturbance of public order.

When Der Sturm (?) was publishing its anti-semitic cartoons and editorials in the 20s and 30s, was that OK? Justifiable because it was in the name of free speech, and nothing for the Jews to get riled up about? Were the Jews paranoid to think that there was official imprimature behind the paper?

These are not little radical rags being handed out on street corners - they are major newpapers that are publishing the offensive material. And they know full well what the results will be. Therefore, they are obviously pushing for exactly those results -- they want the prejudice, the hatred, the flaring anger by and against Muslims.

That's not free speech - that's incitement.

[stonedpika]

8. But when an artist in New York dips a crucifix in urine it is called

art... Same with the painting of the virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung. So, how come when it is Christian symbols and it is funded by NEA money it is called art and everyone defends the freedom of expression of the artist (BTW I think it was within hos right to do so)

But in the case of Islam it is called incitement? I don't recall a single Christian (of the 1.2Billion or so out there) rioting and threatening to have the artist's head cut off...

Just trying to find some balance here.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Cartoons published in a newspaper are not art - they are

editorial comment. The two things are apples and lug nuts.

What an individual artist does, repulsive as it may be, is still the province of that artist. What a newspaper publishes, particularly in nations that do not have the 1st Amendment guarantees, has the de-facto imprimature of the state.

Yes, you'd see protests about a Muslim version of "Piss Christ" but not the kind of reaction that you get when the state supports inflamatory rhetoric. They are intelligent people and recognise the difference between offensive art and offensive politics.

[CJCRANE]

11. If a muslim did the p*ss christ

and was supported by 12 muslim countries I betcha the freepers would go apeshit and demand those countries should be nuked.

[neoblues]

13. "incitement" is in the mind of the incited...

They choose to be "incited", cartoons don't force you to act violently. Fortunately, most Muslims when faced with the momentous choice of making a violent response or simply shrugging it off (as disgusting as they found it). The right choice. Further, they had the choice of discussing it with each other, writing and calling the publishers, publishing their own, bitching and griping or mere whining... The also had the choice of responding economically via boycotts... etc... however, there's a limit to acceptable social behavior.

The 1930's it was plainly evident the anti-Jew materials were being promoted by the government. It was a big hint that regardless of how unfair it would be, they might want to think about an emergency move. The modern 'cartoons' are clearly private entities and do not reflect the state's policies. The two situations have nothing to do with each other; it's pointless to discuss it.

That the offending materials appeared in a 'major' newspaper is irrelevant; and most of the printing is a result of the excessive and violent reactions by Muslims--that's the story they're covering. They didn't know "full well" that large numbers of Muslims would be uncivilized and react with violence; and even if they did, that to doesn't matter because they really are FREE to print whatever they choose to (as long as it falls within the laws of their country regarding indecent language/images).

By the way, "major" or "mainstream" Muslim publications regularly carry extremely offensive--fully equivalently crude cartoons against Jews and America. We simply don't follow their publications and wouldn't react in any uncivilized manner if we did come across their garbage.

[DemonGoddess]

9. then, they should have applied the same to the

Mohammed cartoons. Alternatively, they could go ahead and PUBLISH those Jesus cartoons and give 'em equal play.

[Igel]

12. I don't understand the context in which the Jesus cartoons

were presented. If for no other reason than humor or the commission, or the author's fame, perhaps they shouldn't have been printed. But they don't sound any more intended for the giving of offense than the Muhammed cartoons were.

Without a context, publishing the Muhammed drawings would have been an unnecessary, possibly provocational and possibly thoughtless act.

Context provides sense. One poster (different thread) cited an article that described the Danish cartoons as senseless; this was simply an error--intentional or done in ignorance--on the part of the author the poster cited. They were intensely "senseful". (I'm a linguist; we coin such words constantly.)

Even "Piss Christ" had some redeeming political point to make at the time, and was not done for the sole purpose of given offense for offense's sake, or to inflame Xians; while it was a huge controversy, much of the controversy was whether it should have gotten government funding--few seriously argued it should have been banned in a free society. I was in college and in a fundie church at the time, and caught it from both sides--my college friends thought it should have been funded, some of my fundie friends thought it should have been banned. My fundie friends and their fellow-thinkers were a small minority in American society. The Madonna-in-crap painting had no redeeming value as far as I'm aware, except I vaguely recall its author defend himself by saying it was an expression of African respect, leading me to immediately infer that if an African respects you he flings elephant crap at you (I couldn't bring myself to dig further, and I deemed his comment to be foolish and out of context); I don't mourn its passing.