Michel Boucher wrote:

>
> However it may appear, when a diplomatic request is made, it is rarely
> made to a newspaper. It usually goes to the government. The
> government CAN speak in the name of its citiens, or at least that is
> usually the case. Couching this as a freedom of speech issue does not
> obviate the fact that it was the Danish government who was asked
> diplomatically and refused. A diplomatic solution usually prevents
> outbreaks of this sort...usually.

Pray tell, what sort of diplomatic solution was Denmark supposed to agree
too. They seem to have indicated that they were not in a position to
punish the editors, to force them to retract the cartoons or to offer an
apology because Denmark is a free society with freedom of speech. That
should not be hard for westerners to understand, though it seems to be a
difficult concept for those living in Islamic countries.

The newspaper did issue an apology and it was accepted by the Danish
Moslems, and that happened before the riots erupted all over the place.

> And the publisher of France-Soir fired the editor who published them.
> At this point, it was no longer freedom of speech, it was hate
> literature.

I have seen them and I would disagree that they are hate literature.
Considering the stuff that comes from some Moslem sources, they would be
among the last to complain about hate literature. Perhaps their concern
over being portrayed with a sword and a bomb would be viewed more
sympathetically if they didn't respond with violent protests.


> > Then there are the stories about some imams having been
> > responsible for altering or making new and more offensive cartoons
> > for distribution.
>
> I suspect not. Probably a CNN canular. I doubt imams would risk being
> found in breach of the law forbidding representation of living
> creatures simply to get rise out of the crowd. That does not seem
> plausible.

Why not? They have made up a lot of other stuff over the years. One of the
reasons there are different sects of Islam is that some embrace
interpretations the others do not. They certainly feel free to spread lies
about Christians and Jews. According to today's reports, this all started
as some sort of Jewish conspiracy.

Dave Smith wrote:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>
>>However it may appear, when a diplomatic request is made, it is rarely
>>made to a newspaper. It usually goes to the government. The
>>government CAN speak in the name of its citiens, or at least that is
>>usually the case. Couching this as a freedom of speech issue does not
>>obviate the fact that it was the Danish government who was asked
>>diplomatically and refused. A diplomatic solution usually prevents
>>outbreaks of this sort...usually.
>
>
> Pray tell, what sort of diplomatic solution was Denmark supposed to agree
> too. [?]


They were supposed to agree to roll over and die. That might have been
enough...

Best regards,
Bob