Screenshots

Very noble of Lester Melanyi for doing what he did. I wish I could say the same thing about our own federal Ministers.

I was wondering how come no one filter before the cartoon being publish?

"oversight"...? I guess he wasn't aware of what is happening around the world...

Not adding oil to the already raging fire. All I want to say is:

He has guts, and he stands on the principles of why he is a journalist/editor of a newspaper.

I guess religious issues should not be dragged into politics. If someone has to ridicule a religion just to get a message across, it is pathetic!

The cartoon was in poor taste. Its not even funny.The zealots would not be so mad if it can be compared to Hagar the Horible.

I bet many west Malaysian still don't understand why Sarawak paper are so "rebellion".

This is ridiculous. The editor was just doing his job. Sarawak dailies are rebellion? You got to be kidding! Their daily headline is nothing but CM Taib. But since Taib is still recuperating from his minor surgery..I guess the press needs something to fill in.

sigh...at least no building burned by sakai (brainless)

The oversight did cost the editor costly. However, I still feel that any rational person would also like to know what the fuss about those caricatures.

I guess the editor were in no way supporting the contents of the caricature by publishing it. It is like publishing a picture of a dead person being shot etc to support your write up or story for that matter. Does that necessarily mean that the editor condone the shooting?

What is indeed upsetting is that the vast majority of Muslims have not seen those caricatures and jumping into conclusion is not right. The whole matter is being emotionally driven by a few that led a huge crowd of people fast to condemn and worst still resort to violence to prove their grievances.

Thanks to the link provided by Jeff Ooi, I was able to view those caricatures. Does that mean that Jeff condone those caricatures? With the exception of a few, most of those caricatures are very much harmless and in no way demeaning to any religious belief. It is more of tongue in cheek thingie. There are many publications by the Arab media and also the Islamic world that make a mockery of Jesus Christ and other religious beliefs but nothing is said about it.

Danish embassy in Syria being burnt is simply unjust. Trouble makers are just seizing this opportunity to fulfill their means.

Nevertheless, I believe both parties the Danish and the Syrian government owe each other an apology.

Hello Thomans,

By posting a message on this blog, we are also supporting the message of 'Free Speech for press'.

It is strange (but is it??) why only some Moslim countries reacted so voilently? ARE THEY REALLY targetting the Danish cartoons? OR are MOST of them vending their frustrations at their own situations? Like a child, they do not know how to utter their frustrations in words, instead screams and howls? Is this a religious problem, OR is it a social problems?

Wrong. The Danish government owes no one an apology. They are the not the newspaper, they have no control over the newspaper unless it breaks any Danish laws which it has not done. Therefore they cannot and should not apologise. Why can no one get this simple concept. It goes hand in hand with freedom of the press, something I appreciate is a foreign concept in Malaysia (no point scoring intended, just stating a fact). Any argument with the paper should be a civil one through the courts or a consumer one through abstinance of product.

The targetting of people who had nothing to do with this, murder, kidnap, and arson and the calling for the death of those involved is a true demonstration of evil, not an irreverant cartoon in bad taste.

Syria however orchestrated the destruction of the embassy, no such thing as free demonstrations there, and for everyone's information, that is technically an act of war. An embassy is foreign soil.

Hi Flagrant,
you are wrong about the danish government having no responsibilities on the newspaper cartoon publications. Anything done within Denmark is in fact their responsibility. A message should have been sent to the editors that that there may be repercussions for their actions especially to other danish interest abroad, and to act more responsibly in future. BTW there is a large Danish interest in a Malaysian Plantation conglomerate and am glad to see that nothing has happened to them.

No I'm not. Freedom of speech, even if it is objectionable to some because they disagree with what is said, is enshrined in the Danish constitution. As such the government's only role is to protect it, not to agree or disagree with any particular use of it.

Therein lies the difference. The government is NOT responsible for everything that happens within its borders, only for the legal framework in which people live and conduct their lives.

How can they send a message to editors not to publish something when they would not have known they were being published. This is not the New Straits Times. They do not have to clear everything with the government before they publish.

They cannot apologise, it goes against everything that their constitution enshrines.

That is the difference between democracy and theocracy.

There are 2 issues in the Sarawak Tribune incident to be decided:
* Reporting the news -- either you report superficially, or you report in full, the latter decision means plus the caricatures first published by the Danish daily
** I salute the Editor-on-duty by going public with the "source" of the news crearing worldwide furore -- but he pays a heavy price, They Still Shoot the Messenger, Don't They?rrying the message to you?

I could not agree more with the several postings here that the editor was merely doing his job by reporting the truth and revealing the source.

I also agree that the Danish govt is not to be solely blamed for this saga. The protestors who resorted to violence would only further aggravate the whole situation.

This whole saga reminds me of the controversy surrounding the book "Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie way back in 1989. Just because of the decree/fatwa issued by the Iran's cleric Ayatollah Khomeini, it has stirred great anger and protest by the masses towards the author and also, the country Britain.

Then again, the majority of the masses who felt angry or aggrieved has never read the book, much less having any knowledge of the contents of it.

It indeed dishearthening to learn that the protestors would protest blindly just because of something said by a leading authority. It would be ideal if the thousand of protestors who took to the streets exercise some form of restraint and analyse the matter in detail before resorting to any action.

As cindy's posting pointed out, this does not appear to be a religious problem anymore but that of society. Worst still, we have situation here whereby the blind are leading the the masses of blind who fail to analyse the underlying problem.

First of all.. there is 2 kind of people who publish the images .. on the web or on the paper... depending to their intention...
1. to show the picture that it is insulting them and ask their fellow friends/readers to make some action against the drawing...
2. to insult their target audience or in most case to show and their readers/friends that he/she had insulted other religion/rade/ethnic/etc and asking the readers/friends to do the same... and enjoy it...

For me.. as a muslim.. the first catagory had no problem... Who said that those protesters don't even see the cartoon yet... remeber that Flemming Rose's statement about those danish Imams who went to Middle ease showing the cartoons... it might spread on some website or phamplets asking for protest already..

I think the anger that we see now is more on the 3 out of 12 artoons which show Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.

About people turning violent.. well.. we cannot judge their level of intellect, emotion and anger based on ourself... we will be an armchari general to do that... look at their education level... their intellect etc... maybe we can control our anger and rationalize it.. but will they??? They are just a few people in a million and this set of people exists in all race, religion and country.. not only in islam... look at Babri mosque, the threat muslims in US/Europe/Australia faced after 9/11 and 7/7.. even a singh was not spared to be atatcked simply because he wears Turban... look at those skinheads, neo Nazi, right wing in europe and recently in Russia (as reported by CNN last 3 days ago)

About the Danish Government.. why can't they act as the middle man??? they don't have to ask the paper to appologise... but simply to act as a moderator to call them to sitdown with muslims group and discuss.. and because they are the government of the people, by the people and for the people and as representatives of their people, why can't they apologise on behalf of the cartoonist and the newspaper (after discussion)... discussion doesn't means to force or interfear the newspaper but just simple to talk to find solutions... I will not believe this kind of PM/governemnt to represent me as the governemnt.... unresponsible government....

Whatever happens ,i just pray that the malaysian gahmen dont ban the import of TULIP BRAND DANISH BACON ,i might have to emigrate if that happens.

Part of the problem that everyone is facing with this is that no one really has an understanding of each others sentiments and sense of normality. While it is perfectly acceptable for western society to make fun of religion,a higher percentage of the muslim community have a more conservative view of what is allowed and what is not. One has to judge the actions based on their perception of religion, which to be quite honest, is their own personal perception, and to understand that what may be an attempt at humour for one party is a grave insult to antoher partys religion. Most non Muslims don't realize or trivialised the fervour that a Muslim has in practicing his faith, and are not attuned to the constant evaluating and reevaluating of ones faith and practices as more and more practices are going against Islamic teachings. While almost everyone agree that the source of constination and the after effects are both regrettable, one should also learn from this lesson and learn and respect or at the very least understand where the other party is coming from. While some here have asked the protestors on the streets to think and refrain before protesting, they should also consider ticking off the cartoonist to think and refrain from offending Muslims.

sydpu

Youa are deadly wrong in that the Danish government has any role in this. They should not, could not and hoepfuilly would never call upon for a cancelling an article in the paper, if they had, the paper could have sued the government for breach of power. In the US, papers can and do print articles, they were asked not to show bodies coming from from the Irag situation yet some (only a few) did show them, they were asked not to give true accounts of the americans who died there, hwowever more and more medias are giving more of an account.

The American government would prefer for the papers to print only positive things about the war, but they are no longer doing that, they are shoing that thousands of innocents are being killed, etc.

In other words in a TRUE free press (not what is practiced here Free Press with Responsibility-i.e. censorship)the government does not get involved. Here the nude squat situation has seen the sacking of editors who first published this instead of asking them to simply make a correction a retraction which is what most newspapers do when they made mistakes. This is not freedom of press, but censorship.

Showing pictures, talking about things that offend some people are just pictures and words and it is people themself who make these things into violent things. Yes you can call my mother names, call my government liars, make fun of my reglision and even say my god is not rea and make fun of him. I may get offended, I may get mad (I have in the past) but I have never once asked someone to shut up or fight over it, never not once. You will always be able to offend someone, I mean there are people in the world India, Africa who hold the cow to be utterly sacred, yet we have many cartoons making fun of cows all the time, Cow and Chicken on Cartoon Network, and no one called for it to be taken off. Maybe some peoplke believe you should not speak abotu another person's country in Anyway whatsoever unless you are their citizen, however we all know everyone talks about America, calls George Bush a liar etc.

Free press is exactly what is says, free press, no government intervention. It is up to the paper and the paper alone to decide if it owes an apology, the government should only uphold the papers decision what ever it is and nothing ever more.

I read with interest the use of the terms "free press" and "free speech". Do they go hand in hand with "responsible press" and "responsible speech"?

The cartoons in question are not news. They are more satire, I suppose intended to make fun. They are by no means news per se. As an analogy, is it ok for the publisher of an encyclopedia to list Malaysia as being a country where her citizens live on trees?

I think there is a need for western countries to try and understand better the eastern culture. Then they will not keep referring to Osama as 'Bin Laden'.

JJ,

Whhle I agree fully with you about "The cartoons in question are not news. They are more satire...responsible press" and "responsible speech" What I think needs to be understood is that political satire has been around for centuries in western print and it was the west whom coined the term free speach and free press. In the US it was for making comments on the government as well as the English government, however that is the US. While the West should indeed try to understand eastern cultures, the same shoudl also be said for the East. Islam is not just an Eastern Religion, there are Muslims in the world over, many are upset over the comics, and there are many also who understand that it is jsut a person's own drawings and his/her own opinion. Again there will always be comments, comics, news, etc said that wil offend, where do you draw the line. Perhaps you say religion is above reproach and sholuld not be made fun of, yet then perhaps some other group will say niether should people comment about governments, perhaps that groups holds governments to be sacred (there are people out there who feel that way) another may say science should not be debated except by only scientist thus no religious person, lay person, polition, etc, should comment on Cloning, gentic engerneering, etc. Again in a statment I made earlier, people draw cows in cartoons and make fun of them yet there are people in India and in Africa who hold the cow to be sacred and a god. Other people hold animals to be gods, and then there are others who follow devil worshiping which some do view as an actual religion.

The idea about free press, free speach as far as I am concerned is that under no circumstance can you legislate free thought or comment. You bring things out in the open, some are offensive some are not. It is up to the individual person what to make of them and how to react. But no matter what is written or drawn, they do not cause violence themself. a word is just a word, there are many people in the world who saw the cartoons and were disgusted by them yet they made their comments and did not go violent. This is part of the Western culture and even though there are people in other parts of the world with a different view on what constitutes free press and free speach, the west views it differntly and would expect the rest of the world to understand their point of view as well. Governments in general in the West do not control their papers, if they did then anarchy is sure to follow in those countries. Remmber the US and most Western countries are more racially mixed, and far more ethinc groups live there then in Eastern countries and there is usually less violence yet much more open discussion on all topics. Basically becuase if you do not like what someone has said you have the free right to write back and make a public comment without fear of your comment. And I personally hold that to be one of the greatest rights in the world.

I am not saying what was done was done in good taste, however keep in mind that those articles were directed towards people living in Denmark and not towards Eastern Countries, it was other people that brought them to the attention to the East. If they had not done that, this issue would not even been discussed today.

The west has a very different view of free speach and is sure not abotu to change it, also there is almost no way it could be changed, It has been ruled in the US Surpreme court that even Satinism, the worship of the devil is allowed and even children can discuss it as it is noted as a religion. There was an instance a few years ago in a school district in Colorado where the school had allowed children to hold religious meetings and talks in their school. A few kids wanted to have a satanic meeting there, the school told them no and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took the matter to court and the court ruled that since the school (a public one) allows religious groups to meet there after school it could not bar a student satanic group as it was their first admendment right to hold one protected by free speach.

Again not that I am saying the above is morally good, but it comes down to one group not liking what another group is dicussing and wanting them restrict them. Where as the other was is to allow people to discuss things and if you do nto like it then comment back.

Just for public information: You caqn see that Satire cartoons historially were about religion and started many years ago in Europe, the link is not longer around thus Google Cache has shown it http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:SGpUDpfl-QcJ:xroads.virginia.edu/~MA96/PUCK/part1.html+reasons+for+satire+cartoons&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9

You will see that Political and Religious cartoons has always been used in about the same matter as these had been done. To open people's minds and to bring out what is a percieved notion about certain aspects in life in order to change these aspects among those.

Why so much fuss about cartoons? So what if they portray a prophet? By being so sensitive about it only brings more unnecessary attention to a religion which is already under much negative publicity and scrutiny.

Will the problem be solved by inciting violence? Where is the "peace" in the religion? Should we just go kill anybody who insults our religion?

Why condemn when we can forgive? Why torment when we can teach?

The cartoons reprinted in the Sarawak Tribune are too small for any judgement to be made.

rmo,

Wow, such a long response. I guess that's what we are doing here, expressing our thoughts and commenting on the issue.

I understand political satire. We even have caricatures of politicians and celebrities. The position they are in makes them "fair" comment. And so long as the comments are fair, it will be very difficult to sue for libel or slander.

In the light of the present situation we are in, perhaps we should try and understand another's religion better. The Muslims do not allow any images of their prophets be displayed, let alone satirical caricatures. So, sometimes, restrain is probably more appropriate than to insist on ones right to make comment. No one is going to tell the Danish press what they can or cannot do. And now we have the reactions of the Muslims.
As the Malay proverb goes, "Siapa makan lada, dia terasa pedas."

JJ,

But that is where problems come out when you start to self censor, I am not sayign you should go around and just write or print hurfulk things, btu there will always be a group at one time or another that can get offended by an action of the press and tryign to regulate or be cautious in that is not harmful in itself but also determental.

A press can not choose religion alone and say ok we will not offend people's beliefs, especialy in the West. This had already been the case centuries ago where the church had control ove the states. It was in fact the press (the ilegal press mat the time) that was able to portrey the church as it really was that forced changes in Europe and more so in America, it was the press and political satire that gave the uneducated person a feeling of involvment and understanding what the churches were doing etc.

Again where do you draw the line, at religion only? what about a person's sacred view of science or of politions or governments. There will always be people that are offended. There is a leader in East Malaysia that once made public his view that pretty ladies should not be allowed to work cause they have no problem getting husbands, that less pretty women should get the government jobs instead, and he has made other comments as well, but there was no asking to silence him even though his view was extremely offensive to half the population in Malaysia and there is absolutly no difference, it offended a large group of people period.

I understand their respect and beliefe about their profit being depicted and not allowed to be drawn, however that is their belief and not that of the west, the west was doing something for themself in their own land for their own people who do not hold the same views as high in religion. Also In the west there have been drawings and painting of such for 100's of years in churches, museums, office buildsing etc. Even the a US government building in Washington DC has Moses, Mohammad and Anotehr religious figurew carved onto its outter walls for law giving. It could also be asked from those offend to be sensitive to the west also and their belief in a free press and free speach, the coint literally has two sides. The respect comes from being non-violence, it is just words, and even though words are mightier than the sword, it what you perosnally decide to do with yourself after seeing those words that marks the differenc ein respect and restriant

rmo,

I wouldn't call in self censor. Just being practical and sensitive.

Saw the CNY released movie "Fearless"? Huo Yuanjia exercised his right to fight everyone, whatever the cause, to be the No. 1 martial exponent in Tianjin. His good friend advised him against going overboard but he would not listen. In the end, he lost his mother and daughter.

I guess if one cannot predict the reaction to ones action, best to act in moderation. Moderation should not be seen as a sign of weakness.

JJ

Yes this may be so what you said, but again it does not change the fact that the west has a different view on press fredom as well as fredom of speach and that view has been around longer then the eastern view of press freedom and speach.

Moderation is not weakness, but you end up letting one group control your ideas then and then before you know it you have to give in to every group. Why should religion alone be above the newspapers, why not also governments, science, polititions, etc. where does it stop or end. What it comes down to is this: people should be allowed to speach their voice or draw their drawings and be freely published, if you do not like that is there, then you do not have to listen to it or read it or view it, you could simply turn away, or you can protest, voice your objection, show why you do not agree, but when you start to say you should not say that, you have no right, you are offending us, then you turn around and offend those that believe they have the right to free speach and free press. It should not be the fault of the paper that has caused such an outbreak in violence, it is the fault of the people themself period!!! There are many many muslims around the world who havbe heard about this and have not gotten violent, have not harmed people. and there are some that even though they do not agree with the cartoons would not limit the paper from publishing them though. Once you start to censor (and that is exactly what it is) then one will lead to another and another and then before long you censor too many things. So far, Two editors have left the Malaysian paper's becuse of the nude squat incident, the government would have liked it to have been swept under the carpet, the government is loking into or was looking into if the original publications were agianst natioanl security, a few years ago it was illegal for the papers here to publish the true pollution index for fear of hurting the country in tourism, an editor has resigned as of yesterday for posting the cartoons in Malaysia and is being called upon by the government. If you metnion things in a bad light about polititions here you might be arrested instead of just sued.

Censorship has a way of creeping up and going far further then it shoudl have. Churces to commint wrongs, this has been shown throughout history, all people and churches are people can make mistakes or believe in diffent things in which there is no reason for it not to be touched upon. Just because something is religious and happens to be 1000's of years old and there are people with emotional beleifs and feelings towards it is no reason for papers not to write about it. People are people and should be able to understand there will always be differnece in opinions and attitudes, so discuss it, talk about it, read it, do't discuss it, don't read it, don't talk about it, but you do not have to fight about it or try to control anbother to follow your ideas.

rmo,

I am not sure if there is such a thing as absolute freedom. We used to say in my company that the salesman are king. Then someone said, even kings have to drive on the correct side of the road.

While there are many things that we can legislate, just because some are not legislated does not mean it is open season. We have a conscience and I guess only the person who drew the caricatures can answer what was his/her motivation for drawing them. I am all for press freedom to publish the truth. Beyond that, I am not so sure.

The west have a different views of a lot of things. And sometimes, it appears only their views should prevail. And I shall give you a simple example. When you fill in an immigration form from the west, they ask you for your surname (or family name) and forename. As opposed to Singapore, they ask you for your name as printed in your passport.

I am not advocating that anyone imposes his/her will or view on others. Just that we look inward to ourselves, and reflect if we have done what we have done in good faith.

There are many instances when we give in to others, not because we are wrong, but because we refuse to behave in the same level.

As Rudyard Kipling wrote:

"If you can talk with crowds - and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute,
with sixty seconds worth of distant run,
Yours is the earth and everything that's in it,
And which is more, You'll be a Man, My Son."

I pray that this will not get any worse than it is now.

JJ,

I do appriciate your view, comments and belief, although I do not completly agree with them, I do honor them.

I agree the West is manytimes wrong, and I am not sayign they aqre right here either. All I have been stating is that I personally do not believe in limiting anyone's voice what so ever as long as that person is not outright trying to create a riot.

I still feel that a peper has a right to print what they feel they want to even if it will in fact be deemed as insensitive to certain groups. However, the outcome of doing such a thing can be delt with in many ways such as boycotting the paper, throwing the paper away, standing up to it and writing another article, express yourself in the opinion pages. that is part of free speach and expression. Cartoons are usualy the expression of the artisit himself not always the view of the paper.

Some might say, 'hey it is not my beliefs, why you bother if i said something bad about our religion?'.

Well my respond to this idea is 'IT IS MY RELIGION, WHY BOTHER HARASSING WITH MY RELIGION' just equally like 'WHY BOTHER WITH WHAT HAPPEN WITHIN MY HOUSE'.

The point is the Danish Newspaper and the Sarawak Tribune has intervened mindlessly into someone elses religion while there are too many things that they can report in their papers like famine in africa, gay problems in holland and denmark and so on. Why the caricature?

And this is what we call PROVOCATIVE actions. While there are too many other important things to report in this world, they chose to provoke Muslims for no good reasons. Just leave the muslims alone and get back to your normal life.

and as u might guess, this provocations WILL FAVOR THE AL-QAEDA in terms of moral supports because Muslims see that these are the people who can stand for them. and every one EDUCATED in this blog should have seen it coming in this first place.

That is why the US and British papers did not publish the cartoons because these papers know what that could bring more support to terrorists group. Now these are the real EDUCATED person.

and let me remind you that the everlasting peace that we are having in Malaysia now is partly due to the control on the 'Freedom Of Speech'. This is what we call the 'MINDFUL FREEDOM SPEECH' where tolerance comes first. And we do not want another 13th May to occur simply because people at that time applied freedom of expressions and the likes.

If you are a thoughtful Malaysian, living in a country where Islam is the official religion, then you know that Sarawak Tribune has done something to offend Malaysian Muslims in the name of free reporting.

Stand up and respect the Yang Dipertuan Agong who is the Muslim leader of this country. And I am referring to RUKUNEGARA!

I understand that you say it is your religion, but that does not mean you own it, nor own the right of other people commenting on that or any other religion, if that is so, then no person anywhere has to right to comment on another religion, another government, another person, another family, yes it can be stated as that. Religion is a public entity and anyone and everyone has any right whatsoever to comment on any religion even if they do not believe in it, even if they knowint thing about it, even if they have the wrong ideals about it, it is their right as an individual person with an individual mind to comment on it. Religion is a though, a belief, it is not a possesion like a car that one can steal from you, it is something you hold dear to yourself in your own mind and heart and (if there is one a soul), thus another person making a comment on it should not affect you at all, if anything it shoudl just make your own beloiefs stronger. Newspapers do report on many many topics, I am sure the same newspapers wrote about issues pertainign to their own country, to poverty, to business etc. Least not forget there are also muslims that live in that country as well, and not everyone thinks the paper should be limited. there have been reports on the internet as well as newspapers where some muslims have stated they feel the cartoons were in poor taste however they would not ban the right to publish some. Again it comes down to that one group of people want to limit another group from their rights. The right to publish this fdoes not interfere with your right to believe, you do not have to look upon those cartoons, you do not have to read it if it offends you, you can do what you are doing here and debate it, argue it, but you shoudl nto be givin a right to silence another group that acted within the law of their country. No religion belongs to any person, all religions belong to anyone who wants to follow them or not and those who do nto follow shoudl also have the right to comment on them as well. It can not go one way for one group and no way for another group which is what it seems is being said by a few on here.

You do not know for certain that the intent was to "provoke Muslims" for all you kow the writer or artisit believe in what he drew, perhaps that is how he or she feels about that subject and wanted to share it with like minded people, wheather right or wrong, and if that is the case then he has a right to his own opinion even if it is wrong, it is up to those who disagree to deabte it or challenge it. However, the US has published cartoons in the past of this nature, even in the US there is a government building in Washington DC I think it is the Surpreme court or maybe the Justice department that has a carving of Mohammad, Moses and another one on there as bestowers of law and it is a life like carving. In american museums there are countless works of art with Mohammds picture and yes there have been cartoons, even SouthPark on Television that has made fun of Mohammad and Jesus and God etc and allowed to be aired on TV.

Jeff I do not mean to go off target here, but just for a moment if you will:

Malaysia is a peacful country, however there is racial problems ehre for certain, everyday people are writing in the papers about "not" being able to speak freely, about their religion not being given fair treatment, about not discussing something when another group discuss their religion. However countries in the west which have a FAR more ethinc diversity then Malaysia (keeping in mind Malaysia is basically 4 ethinc groups, Malays, Chinese, Indians and Orang A) while in countires like America, UK, France, Canada, ETC (that do not have ISA Laws nor Censorship) have far more ethnic diversity, far more religions, far more people living in peace as well and they are not being arrested for their voice or need laws to keep them in place about what they have said. They have the right to disagree and comment back and foruth if they do not like what is said. When you subject a persons voice you then subject their rights and that can in fact lead to division, to hurftful feelings, of subjugation.

I am sure people are strong enough to understand a cartoon is just a cartoon, maybe be offensive but they do not have to follow it, otherwise I fear not the cartoons or publication but the people who are not strong enough in their belief that they can not handle critisim or another perosn view that does nto agree to theirs.

thanks for your respond rmo. I am not saying that the US governments are 'nice' to Muslims. But i am referring to the thoughtfulness of their papers at these critical time in their way to vanish terrorisms. what the danish and tribune has done was the opposite to those efforts.

What would you think the Danish would say if Malaysian Muslims make danish flags as floor mats or carpets in their homes and offices? Hey why bother, it is not my flag - it is not my country's pride!

But if we want to make friends of Denmark and Danish, we must be careful not to hurt their feeling or step into their taboos (as if danish have any taboos!) to ensure long last friendships.

If you say it is danish papers, not the government or the people of Denmark, then fine.

But you as an educated person you KNOW that papers are widespreaded, you KNOW that papers are means of educations and you KNOW that papers are the places where people voices out their expression into the large!

and as i'd like to ask you, how come this paper make such caricature WHEN THERE ARE TOO MANY OTHER IMPORTANT THNIGS to report like the occupation of Palestinian Land by the ISrael and the nuclear arsenal in the possession of the Israel.

And you know that the caricature did not develop naturally, IT WAS INITIATED BY A CHALLENGE of its editor. that means it is no longer freedom of expression. it is exercising 'pushed reporting'!

please be advised.

and dear rmo, you said that i did not own my religion. It is clear now that you do not understand Islam and Muslims at all! Unlike other religion, Islam is the life of a Muslim. It not just some life, IT IS LIFE!

Since it is life (like the air you breath), then anything that threatens it is regarded as threatening to many Muslims' life.

This is where europeans, the west and people like you fail to understand Muslims. Most of these people have long lost their belief in their god and make their religion only as part time 'hobby'. So they dont feel threaten when people make jokes about their religion simply because they dont have religion in their life - that explains why they dont react the way Muslims do!

rmo,

I guess if we cannot restrict ourselves on what we write or say, then it is very difficult for us to restrict how others should react. If you stretch it, I guess their reaction can also be a "freedom of expression". Unfortunately, sometimes the reaction is not directed at the perpetrators. That's when innocent bystanders are adversely affected.

Thanks for your views and the discussion. Cheers.

When I said you do not own the religion, what I meant is this:

You do not own it in the since that you have complete control over it all, there are many muslims in the world, and theikr are different people in islam that do practice their religion differently then others, there are moderates, there are librals, fundamentalist , etc. Anyperson has the right to any religion, Religion is a thought, a feeling, a way of life.

And ther are many people of many religions that it is their way of life as well, the Amish, Christians (not all, just like not all Muslims practice the same), however many people here are speaking on behalf of all muslims, however there are muslims in the past week who have clearly stated they do not oppose the right of the paper to publish what was publish even though they feel the cartoons were in bad taste.

As for the Danish flag being walked on, do remmber that was done in America several years agto by an artist, they even went as far to put the American flag in a jar of Urine (pee) and display it. Some people protest, some tried to have it closed down, but in the end the courts rule that it was a person right to freedom of expression and was protected by law in the US and thus the artisit was allowed to open display his work even though it offended the majority of Americans and thei was in America.

thanks again. Then again you mistook my points. I am not refering to nationalism here.

but now you stated yourself that almost anything americans do to their flags are backed by the court. It is americans doing american flag. hey bro, its their own flag! who cares. I was referring to my flag being largely disgraced by other nationals.

How do you feel then when Malaysian flag are being so disgraced by, say our neighbors at national scale. You dont feel anything?

And about the court rulings you keep repeating, then you can see how those people put secularism over religion. To them, their religion is nothing! court rulings are far over god's words. That is why i said, other religion is considered as the last thing they would consider. Can we call it 'life' then?

And from your words, i sense that you dont even try to understand Muslims. It is not so difficult. Understanding Muslims dont mean that you have to convert.

And China has 20 millons of Muslims and we dont hear anything bad happen between them and their government because they simply respect each other.

And if Danish want to be respected, then they should learn to respect other people's core beliefs.

It is so not much to ask.

and to those people in this blog who said bad things about Muslims and Islam, then you should aware that I can do just about the same to christianity, hindu, budha and other religion or races. But as a Malaysian and particularly a Muslim, I restrain myself to say those bad words simply because i dont practice 'freedom of speech'. Or are you encouraging me to practice 'freedom of speech'?

"KESOPANAN & KESUSILAAN"

Thanks for this blog Jeff.

i dont have much time to read on those posted massage above, but roughly i look over it.

1st of all im staying in sarawak for on this moment and sarawak majority is cristien. they aspect of life is not same as penisula m'sia. we join m'sia under old govertment. nowdays we sarawakian is very open minded people and support of freedom of speech. if dont agree please go back and read the mean of democracy. so, if there are many problem with us, then before hisammudin preach on sacking the director of ST please ask AAB sack those responsible for previous offen 1st. we as sarawakian will willingly listen to what those [ DELETED ] will said. what i want to said here is, before talking people wrong doing please look around yourself, dont pick on us evendoor the cartoon is offenting your religious. we just support freedom of speech.

bak jako iban, anang nuan ngacau kami idup manah dituk laban nuan ka nyadi orang besai. kami dituk nadai medak penusula m'sia ngagak manah ngagai kami dituk. pedak nuan ati nak pecaya, gagak jambatan durin datai 10 tuan nak temuk temuk, tapi nama nak dibuai samy vellu? kitak diak laut jako pandai gagak nak sama, buai masa orang kami dituk aja, nama guna dasar perintah? nulong oran laut aja. anti sidak laut nak manah kitai tau pansut ari malaysia!!! without penisula we can survive betther then now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JEFF OOI says: We need a translator!

There have been countless cases on television where people from different countries have bunrt the flags of America and other countries and yet no violent outbreak.

Do I feel anythign if the flag is disgraced, I never said I did not, I never said I would not feel bad, or angry but I would not refuse them their right to do so. That is the difference, No one ever said newspapers had to be sensitive to the point of never casuing anyone harm, how is that possible then, there will always be something that someone finds too offensive.

You do not know if their religion is nothing to them, this is something that is personal and internal in thought and in heart, there are many Jewish, Christian, Muslims, Amish, Saatinsit, Christian Sceintist, ETC that have very very strong feelings. There is a large christian group in America (the far right and conservatives) that would in fact like America to be a religious country and put god's word above the secular law. But you are right, the west generally holds secularism higher in law then religious, that is part of what they were breaking away from when they left Europe. That does not make them less moral, less imporant or right, it just means they have a different set of values when it comes to laws.

Here you are maiing a judgment about me after a few postings, you do not know how I have been over the last several decades or whom I interreact with, I have many close close friends who are of many faiths and they all know my views on this, yes ev en Muslims and I do try very hard to understand their belief as well as others, and I do respect them all and do my best to not intionally offend them, however they also know my beliefs and my stand. They knmow I will speak my mind regardless and I do not try to offend but try to discuss. To say I do not even try to understand is a very much unqualified act on my nature, but then that is your right to comment on that and to say so, does it offend me, a bit, would I stop you from saying it, not at all, becuase I can write back on here and give my side.

As for China, actually I believe the account is more around 133,100,545 million there which makes up roughly 11% of the population according to http://www.islamicweb.com/begin/population.htm.

Do remmber that the China government does inf act restrict the press very fiecrly, thus we do not know if there is or is not true harmony. The same was said durintg the Soviet times, that ethnic groups (not religious) got along there was no racisim, however the minute the curtain came down, all to real it was shown there was in fact very much racial strife there. Also remmber China said up to a few years ago there was very little of an aids problem and would not give a real acocunt, forbid the newspapers to talk about ti, it has only been very recently that they have allowed such to happen. Thus again the problem of not having a free press, people do not know what is going on or what real problems there may or may not be.

You talk about core beleifs as this is more or less those with religiosu beliefs and as I ahve said before what about it going the other way around, will you accept that people in the west have very strong beliefs about women, thus there shoudl be no laws what so ever in any country forbidding women to mix with men they are no married to under any situation, this is a core belief in the west held by all the both sexes are equal period? Is it not the same, why not, becasue one is not religious while the other is? Both are very strongly held beliefs. There is the brotherhood of islam but there is also the sisterhood of women.

Ok on another point, what about there should be aboslutly no ethnic group given certain rights above another, are you willing to accept this in any country what so ever becuase other people hold a strong belife, or for commenting on another countries leader, or for that matter dear I say this again, about the devil, and I only say this becuase in some countries the practice of worshiping satin is allowed and is noted as an offical religion. Are you willing to respect their core beliefs, if not, then why not, it is the same, they are both religious groups whom hold dire beliefs.

Or more so the Cow, will you ban all cartoons that depict cows? The foremost name for the cow in India is Go-mata or Mother Cow. The wise men in ancient India considered that the human being has seven mothers; the mother who gave us birth, the mid-wife, the wife of the King, the wife of a priest, the wife of our teacher, the Earth, and the cow...SARVE DEVAAH STHITA DEHE
SARVA DEVAMAYEEHI GAOU"
The above shloka means that all the deities dwell in the body of a cow. Therefore the cow itself is as holier, as the deities. The various parts of the body of the cow in which the deities, the revered sages, the various elements, are believed to dwell are given as follows:
http://www.punditravi.com/custom3.html

Even in Africa there are cultures that worship the cow, there are aniministic cultures that worship everything on earth, the beatle the tree etc, where do you take a stand. Excpet understand that people will comment and make speach, these are words, this is how we grow and change this is how we learn and how we hurt and heal, this is the way life progresses and prospers, not always for the best, but ahead one way or another. Call me what you will, I respect your right and your belief, I do not wish to offend you nor anger you, but I do wish to hear all your comments and be allowed to make mine with respect, and if not respect well that is part of the package and I accept it, but I will give you mine.

Earlier it was stated no US paper published the cartoon, I am not trying to continue this argument further, just highlighting the inaccurace of that comment, a few have published it and more are planning on publishing them next week: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001957270

However as you will note most of the papers will refuse to publish becusae they view it is in bad taste. If you read my posts carefully you will see this is what I meant. That it is the papers choice, it is the publications choice to run with it or not. They did not say it was aginast freedom of speah, many did say it was in poor taste or too sensitive. Thus it was not other forcing them not to publish but a choice and that is all that I called for more or less.

To everyone on here that I have debated with, I wish to thank you all and do respct all of your comments. I would also like to stress just in case anyone has gotten the wrong view from me, that I do not believe in the right of anyone to cause hurt or harm anyone else in any manner. I do believe in the freedom of expression and speach as long as it is not intended to raise a riot or to cause directed harm to anyone or any group. I beleive freedom of speach is a perosn's right in any society and yes persoanl restraint should be followed, but it is for the individual to hold that restraint for themself. I respect and have nothing but the greatest admiration for all relgions, and yes this includes Islam, Chirstianity, Judaism and many others. I believe relgion has a great deal to offer to all for those that follow it. For those that do not, I hope they follow a moral ground that directs their lives to a healthy living as well.

There really is nothing more I can say and thank you all and Jeff for allowing me to have my say.

Peace really to everyone.

I'd like to quote "I do believe in the freedom of expression and speach as long as it is not intended to raise a riot or to cause directed harm to anyone or any group. I beleive freedom of speach is a perosn's right in any society and yes persoanl restraint should be followed, but it is for the individual to hold that restraint for themself."

Now that is exactly what I mean. We believe in freedom of expression as long as it is not intended to cause riots and hurt anybody's feeling. We believe in freedom of speech but it is for the individual to restraint themselves... etc.

Now all these points really did not echo to what you believe in what the danish papers were printing. They DID hurt other people's feeling and they DID NOT restraint themselves from hurting other people's feeling. Are you practicing double standards here?

I don't want to argue more but let me tell you that the peace we are having in Malaysia now is the result of 'restrained freedom of speech or expression', while on the contrary you are still bearing that your true 'freedom of speech' is the better solution and we should practice that.

And if you really a true believer of free of speech, then you better draw your own version of Muhammad's cartoon and publish it in this blog and see what your Muslims friends would say.

Are you a true free-speech now just like the danish Jyland? Or are you a coward who cannot stand and die for what they believe?

JEFF OOI says: Your last two paragraphs - I am asking you - are you targetting Jeff Ooi the owner of this blog, or thr readers who write in their commentts, a privilege which does not make them a blogger, but mere commenters. You have 24 hours from 13:30hr Feb 8 to make the distinction of you thoughts so as it's not misconstrued by fanatics and get my house burn down.

When we draw cows, we did not mean it as gods to hindu. We really meant it as cows - an animal.

But what the JP was drawing was SPECIFICALLY refering to Muhammad and the Islamic teaching he brings. But here in Malaysia, I havent' seen any cartoon refering cows as gods to hindus.

[ DELETED - Yesterday, I caution a commeter not to start a comparative religion campaign commenting in this blog topic. I am exercising consistency. ]

Hey Jeff sorry man. I was not referring to you. It was for rmo. Thanks.

JEFF OOI says: Point taken. Thanks.

You claim the peace we have in Malaysia right now is due to the restraints on the press, I beg to difer, everyday in coffee houses, at work, etc I constantly hear storeis from people and their feelings here and about their view of the newspapers here. But that is another topic in itself, however the US and other countries that have more libreal freedom's in speach and far more ethnic people then here get along very well and in peace as well. Niether it better or worse then each other in their peace. Yet one is allowed to discuss what the feel.

"They DID hurt other people's feeling and they DID NOT restraint themselves from hurting other people's feeling. Are you practicing double standards here?"

No I am not, I may not like what you have to say, may even hate it, but I will defend your right to say it all along. I do not belve for a second that the authors direct intention was in fact to start violent riots. Or to set out to hurt people, I am sure they knew it would upset people, but not to this extent, and if they did know this then yes they should have used more restraint, then it is nothing more then an intended insult and nothing more then that. However, I am also certain there are people in the world that believe more or less in what the cartoons have to say. That beliefe no matter how unfounded may be the belief they were directing towards, nlo that does not make it anymroe right what they did, however, it is their right to believe it and discuss it. Words are still words, and yes they can hurt, but limiting what people can say can and has been shown to be even more dangerous in the past time and time again.

I have my own views of the cartoons, and I believe I have stated that once on here that I persoanly do not like the cartoons, althogh I do not see all 12 of them being extremely bad, I do see some of them being in very poor taste. My point is that freedom of press or drawings i.e. expression (and it is not meainly on these 12, but on any cartoon drawins weather nice or whatever) should be protected in the realm that because one group does not believe in making depctions of their prophet we should not be allowed to do so. In other words, it is one group's belief, not held by other people and those people have the right to make a drawing, a cartoon. I agree judgement shoudl be used, descreation (I have never said otherwise) however I believe it is up to the individual papers and not governments to see to that. That is mainly my point, it was not to say draw more of this, but merly who is to police the actions, leave it to the newspapers themself, if you do nto like it, simply do not buy the paper, do not by the products, voice with your mouth and letters in objection.

I am standing for what I believe in and I respect your belief in what you said here, although I may not agree with you on everything, I respect everybit your right to have your beleifs and in no wayt have made a ockery of that. Unfortunetly I can see you do not respect my right to believe what I believe in. I have not attacked anyone directly on here, yet seems you have a bit on me, that is your right, and at least here is a forum you are able to do so. Again as I said earlier, thank you for at least allowing me to have my say, it is simply my own belief. and I do hold the highest respect for Islam, Christanity, Judaism and many other religions.

Lastrly, I do have many freinds of differnt religions, and yes many our Muslims, and we have discussed thei and many other topics int he news over the last few weeks, they know my views and seem to respect it, some do not agree with it, but at least we seem to stil have great respect for each otehr.

I mapologize once again if I have upset anyone, that was never my desire, just wanted to post my view that freedom of the press can not be achieve with government involement, restraint shoudl be used, this is true, that is not takign away freedom of the press, the freedom is the right to publish it even at the cost of upsetting some groups, or political party or putting information otu that someone else does not want out. It is the responsibility of the papers and jounalist to know where to draw the line and where to hold themself, if they cross that line then there are avenues for repercussion such as boycots of the paper, or publishing your views in the papers.

I understand you disagree with me and I accept that, again that is your right, as it is mine to see it differently, that does not make you less of a person tl me or less moral just different views.