Small comfort it may be, but academia here is probably not as uniformly dhimmified as in the case of these particular scholars who wrote the report. Dissent is possible, and not all newspapers stifle the debate as seen in Orwell Lite Sweden.

Now, actually *doing* something about the problem, that is another matter. Even deporting that filthy swine imam Laban who played a major role in stirring up hatred will never happen.

And Uffe is a wife beater.

Posted by: anti-uffe at May 28, 2006 6:59 AM

I ran another 5k race yesterday. As usual I wore my special T-shirt. On the front there are the flags of USA, Denmark and Israel. The words 'Land of the Free, Home of the Brave' beneath the flags. On the back of the T-shirt is the infamous Mohammed with a bomb in his turban cartoon; strategically located of course.

Posted by: JanuaryMan at May 28, 2006 8:45 AM

There are different opinions about how to handle political conflicts. I disagree with Dhimmiwatchs assertion that any other way of handling the cartoon-crisis would have been socalled dhimmitude or that anyone who disagrees with that are dhimmis. This thing about calling everybody who doesn't consider Islam a satanic, sinister movement you can't negotiate with for dhimmis, is a crude simplification that wont lead us anywhere in my opinion.

Posted by: seville844 at May 28, 2006 11:16 AM

A couple of statistics from that article which I found dismaying:

[The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance] stressed that the fact that 56% of surveyed Danes saw the caricatures publication as acceptable "is a testimony of the current climate in Denmark."

Only 56% of Danes saw the publication of the cartoons as acceptable!? That means that 44% found them UNacceptable. Denmark, according to the same article, has only 3% Muslim population, so that would mean that 41% of Danes, non-Muslims, found the cartoon publication UNacceptable! The percentage who find it acceptable, in a sane world, should be close to 99%. Or else the polling questionnaire did not make clear the distinction between

1) Do you think it's acceptable to go out of your way to offend Muslims?

2) Do you think that, in a free Western country, all citizens should have the freedom to offend any person's or group's sensibilities, as long as the offense avoids clearly illegal slander, threats, etc.?

At any rate, those 41% of Danes who found it UNacceptable should have known this distinction applied in this case, if they were intelligent readers of the news.

Another odd statistic from the article:

"Muslims make up around three percent of Denmark’s 5.3 [million] population, making Islam the second largest religion after the Lutheran Protestant Church."

3% of the population makes up the second largest religion...!!!??? That would mean that 94% of Danes belong to no religion at all! Or it would mean that this 94% is divisible into dozens of splinters of "religions", each splinter constituting no more than 3% of the total population! (This would apparently entail the classification of each separate Protestant denomination as a "religion", as well as distinguishing Protestant from Catholic from Orthodox as three separate "religions", which is absurd...)

Posted by: Television at May 28, 2006 12:02 PM

seville844 wrote: "I disagree with Dhimmiwatchs assertion that any other way of handling the cartoon-crisis would have been socalled dhimmitude or that anyone who disagrees with that are dhimmis."

seville844, here is the unambiguous definition of dhimmitude, from the DW home page:

"Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race."

From that definition, I would say that the labeling is not only appropriate, but precisely correct. Here we had foreign governments demanding that the government of Denmark enforce Islamic religious law on the all citizens of Denmark. The sad part was (and is), that Denmark did not react to this outrage with a ferocious diplomatic counterattack.

More "negotiating" on the basis of "what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable" will only encourage more outrageous demands. That is dhimmitude in practice.

Posted by: Stendec at May 28, 2006 12:39 PM

Television, I may get your argument wrong, but the Lutheran Protestant Church is the "state" or "national" church here, unlike the US, of course, which is composed of a number of non-state denominations. Most Danes are Lutheran by default, meaning only those who actively opt out (for religious/atheist reasons, or to avoid paying the church tax) should be deducted. It is very likely indeed that no other organized religion than Submission make up 3%. Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostals etc. are miniscule compared to Submissives.

As a consequence, the Lutheran State Church is very, very broadly defined. You will find New Age type (often female) priests here, in addition to the more conservative (slightly puritanical, as well as the "orthodox" hard line Lutherans) segment.

A few days ago I read that about two thirds of priests in the Church are leftist leaning, believing in "dialogue" (yawn) with Muslims, and apparently taking for granted that they are told the truth by the imams they invite into their local churches. My guess is that they are not aware of what taqiyya is, nor do they care. Lately, a group of hard line Lutheran priests have started a network critical of Islam. However, the gullible far outweigh them, I'm afraid.

Quite what this "dialogue" should conclude with continues to escape me; Jesus was not a minor third rate prophet, but actually second grade? You promise, cross (!) your heart and hope to die, not to islamicize our country, and we will not evangelize among your people? Jesus is the saviour for Christians, and Moehammy is the Prophet for Submissives? We both respect each other sooo much, both Jesus and Moe were fine people??? Funny thing is, nobody ever mentions this goal, but dialogue is such a nice sounding word.

Posted by: anti-uffe at May 28, 2006 2:39 PM

The article is WRONG!!! It's not that islamonline got it wrong, it's that jyllands-posten got it wrong.

First of all, it's not the official report that blames the government. The official report says the governments handling of the situation MAY have contributed.
Second, there were 18 middle-east scholars working on the background info for the report, and only 1!!! of them used the wording shown in the article.
Third, when the government is critisized for it's handling of the cartoon affair, it's done from a certain theoretical perspective: "recognition aspect" theory. According to that theory, unless you recognize the complaint/perspective of your "opponent", you'll end up marginalizing him, which in turn eventually leads to what happened in the muslim world at the hight of the cartoon controversy. In effect, the theory tries to explain why some people posess a victim mentality.

Basically, the quote is taken out of context...

Posted by: DanishDynamite at May 28, 2006 4:24 PM

"According to that theory, unless you recognize the complaint/perspective of your "opponent", you'll end up marginalizing him, which in turn eventually leads to what happened in the muslim world at the hight of the cartoon controversy. In effect, the theory tries to explain why some people posess a victim mentality." -DanishDynamite

DD, I am not arguing with your stating of the facts here, but what if your opponent *should* be marginalized, for the reason that his complaint rests on an unacceptable premise: that a khafir country should bow to sharia "law"; that countries with an abysmal human rights record should be allowed to dictate *us* anything; that there is such a thing as collective guilt/responsibility - our country is culpable for the choices made by one particular newspaper.

By "recognizing" any such right, aren't you chipping away at your own freedom? Do normal diplomatic theory suffice when you are talking about wild-eyed zombie hordes acting out their infantile emotions (as well as a host of other reasons unrelated to Denmark, diverting attention away from domestic problems etc.)?

Just my layman's two cents.

Posted by: anti-uffe at May 28, 2006 5:11 PM

The article misleads with false premises.

The 12 cartoons (of which only a few even depicted a "Mohammad" or "Mohammad"-like figure) were not "caricatures" that "lampooned" the "prophet" of Islam.

They were editorial cartoonists lampooning the cowardice of Danish children's book artists who cowered when they were asked by a writer to draw pictures of Mohammad for a work aimed at Danish kids entitled: "The Life of Mohammad and the Koran". (Since published this year, with images.)

The Danish illustrators demurred and told the author that they were too afraid of Muslim terrorism to take on the job. The naive Danish editiorial artists thought that this was a ridiculous excuse in a "free, Western, advanced country" and mocked their fellow artists with these 12 newspaper cartoons.

They tangentially also illustrated the violent nature of modern-day Islam, and the basically-violent nature of the "prophet" of Imperialistic Islam himself, by showing one image of Mohammad with a sword, and another with a turban, shaped like a bomb with a burning fuse. The critique was not actually of Mohammad, per se, or of Islam, as such (although it chided Islam for its 'short fuse'... which was proved to be true, as the "cartoon jihad", worldwide, demonstrated) but of those who feared to draw a little picture.

The misrepresentation of the meaning of these cartoon images is near total in the dhimmi West (which swallowed, unexamined, the propaganda of the Muslim accusers about them as "lampoons" and "intentional insults to Islam and its prophet"), and, more understandably, within self-excusing Islam.

"Serious" journalists, t.v. and radio commentators, and even Western editorial cartoonists (except for Art Spiegelman, apparently) all went along with this unquestioned deception. None did their homework. None even thought to ask: "Is Mohammad violent in the Muslim texts?" So afraid to offend that they agreed to castrate the First Amendment with a palette knife in order to please those who spit on the Bill of Rights.

A pathetic example of unparalleled p.c. poisoning.

Straining for a gnat as they swallowed a whale. (Or whopper, in the pre-Burger King sense.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 29, 2006 1:01 AM

Stendec wrote: "The sad part was (and is), that Denmark did not react to this outrage with a ferocious diplomatic counterattack."

How exactly is little Denmark with some 5-6 million inhabitants going to launch 'a ferocious diplomatic counterattack'? Denmark was choosen as their Ginny Pig because it was thought to be an easy victim - which it indeed was.

Posted by: seville844 at May 29, 2006 2:21 PM

My disappointment in the cartoons milieu is this: Why hasn't the U.S. media shouted out loud that we recognize no sacred cows---we spoof the president, the queen, the pope and anyone else.
That done, the cartoons should have been run in every newspaper in the country. Sadly, only a handful of newspapers saw fit to do so. Creeping dhimmitude, anyone?

Posted by: Nashville Gene at May 29, 2006 3:39 PM

Weasly, slimy dhimmi ragbag Politiken which until now has berated Jyllands-Posten for printing the cartoons have now themselves printed them. Their insufferably holier-than-thou editor-in-chief defends it on the grounds that it was done in a journalistic context (about cartoonist Art Spiegelman, I think it was), and hence acceptable. Whatever their true motives, now they can have their yellow weasly cake and eat it - we did print them, and we didn't do it to offend the good, peaceful Muslim citizens.

Posted by: anti-uffe at May 29, 2006 5:59 PM

seville844 wrote: "How exactly is little Denmark with some 5-6 million inhabitants going to launch 'a ferocious diplomatic counterattack'? Denmark was choosen as their Ginny Pig because it was thought to be an easy victim - which it indeed was."

The cartoon crisis was an attack on the sovereignty of Denmark. The call by foreign governments to suppress free speech in Denmark was a violation of international law in relation to protection of human rights.

A diplomatic counterattack would start with indignant public statements to this effect. Formal diplomatic protest letters could be delivered to those offending Islamic governments, and also made public. Danish ambassadors could be recalled from those countries. Denmark could pull the credentials of those Islamic ambassadors and send them packing as persona non grata, not to return until formal apologies were received from their governments. Resolutions condemning this assault on freedom could be initiated at the U.N., the E.U., and NATO. Complaints could be filed with U.N. Security Council. A firey speech could be made at the U.N. General Assembly, and these complaints repeated loudly at every opportunity there. The U.N. ambassador could take his shoe off and bang it loudly on the table to get himself on international TV. The U.N. ambassador could dramatically walk out, displaying a purple rage, in the middle of any subsequent Islamic rants there. Contracts could be cancelled. Foreign aid for Palestine (assuming Denmark contributes) could be flamboyantly cancelled or witheld from E.U. accounts. In short, have a diplomatic conniption fit. When the Muslims raise a big stink, raise a bigger stink. Become an endless "pain in the butt" for the E.U. Out Muslim the Muslims.

I know none of that kind of thing is ever going to happen. So do the Muslims, and so more attacks will be coming soon. Despite a bit of courage from a small newspaper there that gave us all some hope, we can see that freedom in Denmark is doomed.

Posted by: Stendec at May 29, 2006 6:53 PM

I haveone question for all Muhammadians. How can peace and blessing be upon a corpes that been a corpes for hundreds of years?

Just though that I'd ask.

Posted by: Ironman Hondo at May 31, 2006 9:47 AM