Thankyaverahmuch, although I'm actually rather young and arrogant to boot.
>Why shouldn't people be allowed to make fun of other people's beliefs?
>Who's going to decide what's injurious? The Danish state? A Leninist state?
>There's a big difference between saying "let's go shoot some Muslims!" to
>an angry crowd and publishing cartoons like these.
>
>Doug
How about "saying" that "these Muslims are bloodthirsty sword-wielding, limb-choppers and suicide-bombers" etc. Is that making "fun" of other people's beliefs? I don't think so: I think it's malicious, racist caricature, not far removed from anti-Semitic material that corroborated and justified the mass slaughter of... oh, sorry, I'll move on. I also think you're possibly missing a bit of context. The environment is one in which Pia Kjærsgaard, as leader of the far right Danish People's Party - which in the last elections took 13.3% of the vote to become the third biggest party in Denmark - is encouraging people to heed a "call-to-arms" against "Islamism", which they describe as a "world revolutionary movement" seeking to impose Shari'a all over the globe. (There is a conspiracy theory propounded by some regarding a Muslim Brotherhood document allegedly located in Italy, which advertises a conspiracy to take over Europe - and thence the whole world! Cue evil laughter). Similarly, Queen Margrethe in her recent authorised biography urged the Danes to "stand up" to Islam. Louise Frevert of the DPP suggested that Muslims believe that it is their right to rape and assault Danish people and asserted in a pamphlet that the Muslims were conspiring to take over Denmark. Rape - the eternal crime of the aggressive, maladaptive Other. Instead of being a function of misogynistic society, it is cunningly made out to be a manifestation of some pathological anomaly among non-white communities, rather like the misogyny and homophobia supposed to be emblematic of hip hop.
These lies are issued for a reason - much the same reason as the less conscious lies about New Orleans blacks a-raping and a-looting - and that is to justify violent repression either by the state or by vigilantes. Before the National Front and the BNP began their campaign of racist violence in the north of England, they distributed large numbers of leaflets instructing people that their white children were at risk from "Asian gangs". There ensued firebombings, violent beatings and then a large-scale riot which the press and the government - of course - blamed on the Asians and their mysterious failure to integrate into British society. The lies about "Asian gangs" continue to be propounded and, of course, the UK police are reporting a drastic rise in the number of racial incidents, particularly those directed against Muslims. The law is of little use, of course. When the Kamara family of Stubbington, just outside Portsmouth, were attacked and threatened by local racists, it was Mr Farouq Kamara who was arrested because he was accused of having attacked the kids. He has been arrested several times now, despite repeated support from his neighbours who insist that the family is being targeted by violent racists who had thrown bottles at his house, broken his sons' bones and threatened his wife. The Kamara family now live in Manchester in irregular accomodation.
So, I am speaking of terror, of life and limb. That sort of injuriousness is hard to mistake. And I put it directly down not just to the police and the vicious little bastards who carried out the attacks, but to the climate deliberately created and stoked up by the press. Today, two leaders of the British National Party have been acquitted on charges of incitement to racial hatred, despite being caught on camera clearly breaking the law. Their party will be encouraged to increase the terror they exert on the streets through their supporters and affiliates, with "well-directed fists and boots" as Nick Griffin had it.
So, if your question about who decides what is injurious is intended seriously, then a good place to start is with those who are targeted. If Muslims feels they are being oppressed, then there are good grounds for considering that they might be right, investigating the correlation between the appearance of such material and actual criminal actions, and trying to minimise the harm to the oppressed. I mean, supposing we are actually concerned about the victims of racism and not the amour propre of some leftists who prefer to present their attachment to bourgeois democracy as a sort of libertarianism, then we could consider supporting such measures as is likely to prevent the spread of racist violence. Demonstrating against the racists wherever they try to organise would be a good start: it would be authoritarian too.
_________________________________________________________________ Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger 7.5 today! http://messenger.msn.co.uk