View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:37 am Post subject: Clinton urges EU to convict publishers of caricatures |
|
|
Clinton advocates legal punishment for cartoonists
Quote: |
Former US president Bill Clinton on Friday condemned the publication of Prophet Muhammad��s (PBUH) caricatures by European newspapers and urged countries concerned to convict the publishers. |
I think to tell people the cartoons were in bad taste is quite a defensible position. But to advocate legal punishment? Ugh, as if that weren't bad enough...
Quote: |
Clinton praised Musharraf��s efforts to promote peace and stability in the region |
(shudder)
This is particularly disgusting in light of these events:
Syed Saleem Shahzad wrote: |
It is an open secret that the government encouraged and sponsored rallies ostensibly against the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. The aim was to send a message to the West of the dangers of extremism in Pakistan, and that it could only be contained by the military dictatorship. |
Anyway, I'll also put a link here for Flemming Rose's defense of his actions, in case this thread becomes a repeat of the many cartoon threads already posted. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Incredible. Was he high or something? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003 Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:26 am Post subject: Re: Clinton urges EU to convict publishers of caricatures |
|
|
Kuros wrote: |
Clinton advocates legal punishment for cartoonists
Quote: |
Former US president Bill Clinton on Friday condemned the publication of Prophet Muhammad��s (PBUH) caricatures by European newspapers and urged countries concerned to convict the publishers. |
I think to tell people the cartoons were in bad taste is quite a defensible position. But to advocate legal punishment? Ugh, as if that weren't bad enough...
Quote: |
Clinton praised Musharraf��s efforts to promote peace and stability in the region |
(shudder)
This is particularly disgusting in light of these events:
Syed Saleem Shahzad wrote: |
It is an open secret that the government encouraged and sponsored rallies ostensibly against the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. The aim was to send a message to the West of the dangers of extremism in Pakistan, and that it could only be contained by the military dictatorship. |
Anyway, I'll also put a link here for Flemming Rose's defense of his actions, in case this thread becomes a repeat of the many cartoon threads already posted. |
Let us know if you will if you can find an exact transcript of this. I can't seem to find it anywhere. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd like to see a quote, too. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jinglejangle

Joined: 19 Feb 2005 Location: Far far far away.
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, I also find this highly questionable. The paper you're quoting is Pakastani, and advocating someone being legally punished for saying offensive things is pretty out of character for Mr. Clinton.
I can't find this in any more reputable publication. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that as a general principle it is wise to not unnecessarily criticise another's religion. Moreover, it's commonsensical not to unnecessarily rile up fanatical followers of sentimental religions like Islam (and Christianity). If the reported remarks attributed to Bill Clinton are accurate I wouldn't be surprised, considering his skills as a pragmatic politician. An aspiring world statesman must respect and make some concession to the core beliefs of such a large religious sect, finding a common denominator with other religions which also decry blasphemy of God and those accepted as God's pure representatives . When there is an apparent clash between freedoms of speech, press and religion I think a sometimes fine distinction needs to be made between targeting public criticism at a religion per se and it's corrupt/misled clergy and followers...
Last edited by Rteacher on Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's one blogger's take on it:
Quote: |
Jim Hoft contacted the Pakistan Daily News, who broke the story, and was told the following:
There have been no complaints received from the Clinton Foundation over the article
The Daily Times will not comment further on the article at this time.
The Daily Times is not retracting nor making changes to their report at this time
Part of the Daily Times report was taken from comments after the official news conference |
Ah, found something else. BBC is reporting it differently.
Quote: |
Mr Clinton made his comments in Pakistan where he was launching an HIV/Aids project.
"I strongly disagree with the creation and publication of cartoons that are considered blasphemous by the Muslims around the world," the AFP news agency quotes him as saying.
"I thought it was a mistake."
But he lamented the escalation of differences over the issue. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
canuckistan Mod Team


Joined: 17 Jun 2003 Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
While publishing the cartoons wasn't unlawful in the countries/newspapers they appeared in, it wasn't the best discretion to do so and certainly not to then re-publish them to make a point about freedom of speech.. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004 Location: The deep south...
|
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's easy to tell that they mistook his word "conviction" (Used a couple of times in the transcript) to mean they should be "convicted." |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004
|
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
When there is an apparent clash between freedoms of speech, press and religion I think a sometimes fine distinction needs to be made between targeting public criticism at a religion per se and it's corrupt/misled clergy and followers... |
What exactly is wrong with 'public criticism at a religion'?
By the way, as a Hindu, how do you feel about Mohammed's injunction that you, as a 'polytheist' should face either conversion, or death?
I, being a 'person of the book', have the third option of maintaining my religion under a subjugated status of dhimmitude. Lucky me.
Please tell me, why should you, or I, not criticise a religion that is so grossly intolerant? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Hater. I was skeptical about that headline. What Clinton really said is reasonable. And MUCH more in line with his life-long record than the title of the thread/article lead us to believe. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|