First off, in case you are interested, you can read my latest post on Global Voices Online, which happens to be a much clearer opinion piece regarding this whole cartoon controversy. It is not a satire and more of a straight forward viewpoint. You will also find links to blog articles presenting other perspectives on this issue.

Here is the link to that post:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/globalvoices/2006/02/06/pakistan-blog-o-reaction/

Jen, if this cartoon fiasco and the resulting protests have led to a healthy exchange of viewpoints (including ours) and encouraged a debate between disparate groups within Denmark and in other countries, I totally agree with you that that is positive thing. If it has led to better understanding of each other then I guess we can qualify this as a ‘silver lining’.

When I asked the question, “who gains from this chaos?”, what I was actually referring to were things at a macro level. This incident and resulting protests (which have taken a ridiculously voilent and extreme turn lately) are going to be exploited for political advantage. Religious extremists will use it to garner more support for their radical ways, while they remain continuously oblivious to the fact that is exactly what the global-elitists (fascists) want. The more the world is polarized the easier it gets to contol it.

Incidents like this have to be seen in the current political environment. It serves the purpose (or at least aids) the globalist agenda. It would be extremely naive to think that this cartoon publication is a one-off incident and that the resulting violent protests are not going to be exploited for political gain.

Jen, in case you are interested in continuing our exchange, you can email me at:
over (underscore) email at yahoo dot com. I think it deserves to be promoted to an email exchange..

peace.

Erhm, first of all:
“But guess who is gaining from all this chaos? I think we all know the answer to that one.”

That depends, doesen’t it? There are numerous conflicts not involving religion, let alone the Syrian-Libanese relationship, Iran’s nuclear facilities and the impacts of the US foreign policy

Basically I choose (I felt I had to choose) to believe, that we can make the better out of this situation.

I has definately taught the press a lesson, woulden’t you agree? Let’s not rant on about freedom of speech and the questions which forces all of us take a fundamental stand – I think it’s the pragmatics, that counts. The “behaviour”, if you will, not only of editors and journalists, but all off us.

I actually do think that here in Denmark, at least, it has brought us all a bit closer. Lots of muslims in Denmark have commented on the debate, and – more than before – their views and perspective have been valued and appreciated. That’s got to be a good thing?

A lot of things in the ongoing debate about Islam have been clarified, more balanced and definately less biased here with us. For instance most of us have begun to realise, that a lot of the traditions we’ve slowly adapted ourselves during the past 30 years, has a direct connection with the Danish muslims. This means that a lot of the native danes, who normally woulden’t poke their noses in to anything in public, all of a sudden have spoken up.

Denmark is a small country, but there are regional differences like there is in any other country, and it is very relieving to hear so many moderate and positive voices, for a change. Anything from old farmers and middleaged factoryworkers to young executives and small children.

I know that this doesen’t solve this conflict, but we’ve all got to start somewhere. At least now people know the difference between islam and terror. That, definately, is a good thing!

Awesome work

I am for governments (including my own) dealing appropriately (not meaning torture or murder) with any person presenting a danger to society or inciting others to commit unlawful acts.

These tinted immigration laws end up hearting ordinary people. Religious extremists cannot be filtered out by these laws. Case in point being, Abu Laban sitting comfortably in Denmark while genuine (ordinary) asylum seekers probably get left out.

I agree with you that these ‘kind of harsh’ immigration laws are reflective of the mindset of the whole of Europe and not just Denmark.

The point remains, to generalize and equate all muslims to ‘extremists’ (as Islamists is the wrong word) is wrong. Any person who justifies violence against innocent people by exploiting Islam is not a muslim. (period) That is what Islam teaches and anyone claiming otherwise is seriously misled.

In the end it is the average muslim who suffers from this discrimination by society (and governments) by lumping them with a group who have a skewed perception of religion.

The current anger on the streets by ordinary muslims is due to the fact they are already suffering from the post 9-11 bias of being called extremists (who they themselves detest), and suffering from a radical and abhorent US foreign policy and then to add fuel to the fire, some genius decides to ridicule their faith which they hold most sacred.

Freedom of expression should not be used as an excuse to insult a belief system. That is what the Neo-nazis, KKK, and the like do routinely.

The world is being polarised, a religion is being demonized, extremists are being incited to come out of the wood works and we are caught right in the middle. But guess who is gaining from all this chaos? I think we all know the answer to that one.

It is up to us to keep our heads when all about us are losing theirs.

Thanks for the exchange Jen. Peace.

The prominent danish muslim leader, Abu-Laban, for instance, is banned from Egypt – they regard him as a terrorist. But I don’t think anybody here, is about to kick him out of the country.

Anyway, kind of harsh emmigrationlaws is not a strictly Danish phenomenon – it is happening all over Europe at the moment.

Although the law might apply to all non-Danes and may seem generic, (but those who care to investigate a little further will realise), that the reality is that it is being exploited for a more precise purpose of targeting muslims. The justification given is that these are precautionary measures against radical islamists. It would be justified and appropriate if that were the case, but let us stop being diplomatic and cut the crap for a second. These laws end up hurting ‘moderate’ muslims who are asylum seekers and/or those who wish to settle down with their immediate family members in Denmark.

Let’s not be so naive and pretend that Danish immigration laws are politically correct and unbiased.
The reality is there is a ‘whitening’ of Denmark that is progressively happening (as mixed race couples are even being discouraged to immigrate but that is a story for another time and the subject of another article.)

I only suggest readers to search the net on articles relating to Danish immigration laws (past and present) and also source Al Jazeerah and the Guardian newspaper to get a complete picture of things…

Well, that’s not really the case. They’ve passed a law, which is limiting foreigners to enter the country. That goes for all non-danes, and has really no thing to do, with religion.