The Danish cartoons - again
The International Herald Tribune reports on a conference on the aftermath and attempts at dialogue.
At the risk of being utterly defeatist, I cannot see that this circle can be squared, employing Vilhelm Aubert's differentiation between a conflict of value and a conflict of interest. Put very simply, the latter might be illustrated by bargaining over the price of a house - there is a wiling buyer and a wiling seller, all they have to thrash out is the price. Whereas a conflict of value might be between an absentee owner of that house and squatters who have moved in. In that situation, there is no real scope for compromise, as the position of one side will trump the other.
As a precursor to the Danish business, we have the Rushdie affair wherein the West showed a bit more backbone. The sheer gulf between sides was made all the more obvious when someone addressing a crowd told them they had gone the wrong way about it as if the government had realised the book also 'insulted' the Queen it would have been banned anyway. Oh dear....
The International Herald Tribune reports on a conference on the aftermath and attempts at dialogue.
At the risk of being utterly defeatist, I cannot see that this circle can be squared, employing Vilhelm Aubert's differentiation between a conflict of value and a conflict of interest. Put very simply, the latter might be illustrated by bargaining over the price of a house - there is a wiling buyer and a wiling seller, all they have to thrash out is the price. Whereas a conflict of value might be between an absentee owner of that house and squatters who have moved in. In that situation, there is no real scope for compromise, as the position of one side will trump the other.
As a precursor to the Danish business, we have the Rushdie affair wherein the West showed a bit more backbone. The sheer gulf between sides was made all the more obvious when someone addressing a crowd told them they had gone the wrong way about it as if the government had realised the book also 'insulted' the Queen it would have been banned anyway. Oh dear....
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 at 8:40 am.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Croydonian,the links not werking!
It goes to the IHT page but the article doesn't come up.
Weird - it works for me. Anyway, it is the lead story on the main site.
tried again and it is weird,the main site loads but the individual stories won't.Never mind
Sounds like the ghost in the machine to me. I've been able to access it on Firefox and (bleurgh) Explorer, so I'm mystified.
These people are so ignorant. They said during Mo Toon Rage that if we had drawn cartoons of the Queen or Prince Charles, we would have reacted in the same way.
To say they're still living in the Dark Ages (800 was the Dark Ages,wasn't it?) gives them too much credit for intellectual rigour. They're way back in the Stone Age.
It goes rather further than depictions of Mohammed. There's a hadith "Volume 5, Book 59, Number 338 linked here:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
Abu Talha, a companion of Allah's Apostle and one of those who fought at Badr together with Allah's Apostle told me that Allah's Apostle said. "Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture" He meant the images of creatures that have souls.
I'd like to know how photography, television etc can be permitted.
Oh, they will have an explanation. Believe me. And they will drone on and on and on with it with the circuitous logic of a child. Allah, one of the most backward looking, controlling people ever born, probably intuited the invention of television and phone cams and cleared it for Muslims because MOVING pictures would be OK (or something). Who knows. Don't ask.
BTW, any dog with any sense would not enter a house that had a messenger from Allah in it. I read that in the 'Dog's Bible', Woof 13.
» Post a Comment