Author: Mick Hartley

story in building a great prosperous powerful nation.” He noted that Kim Jong Il unrolled a grandiose plan for the building of a great prosperous powerful nation with his far-sighted wisdom and matchless grit in the most difficult period of the Korean revolution to instill confidence of sure victory and optimism into the Korean people and has encouraged the People’s Army to bear the brunt in the advance with his original Songun politics.

KPA General Pak Jae Gyong in his speech titled “Respected Comrade Kim Jong Il is the great illustrious commander who has trained the whole army into the armed forces of the O Jung Hup-led 7th Regiment type devotedly defending the headquarters of the revolution” referred to the exploits he has performed by achieving the greatest success in the history of development of the revolutionary armed forces. KPA Lieut. General Jon Chang Bok spoke under the title “Respected Comrade Kim Jong Il is the great father who has shown profound loving care for the servicepersons of the KPA to provide them with excellent living conditions”.

So – a free and frank exchange of views then.

ran clashed with police and torched two cinemas in Pakistan’s second largest city Lahore, police said on Wednesday.

The city, was tense after the mob rampaged through a poor neighbourhood overnight and also smashed up dozens of vehicles, local police officer Mohammad Abbas said.

The trouble erupted late on Tuesday when copies of the Muslim holy book were found lying in a drain in the Bhatta chowk area on the fringes of the sprawling city.

“The news of the desecration of the Koran spread quickly in the neighbourhood and within no time some three to four thousand people took to the streets shouting slogans against the desecration,” Abbas said.

He said the crowd armed with bamboo sticks turned violent, setting fire to two cinema houses and attacking public and private properties.

“Police used a mild baton charge to restore order, but the situation is very tense,” he said.

What was it Christopher Hitchens said?

The babyish rumor-fueled tantrums that erupt all the time, especially in the Islamic world, show yet again that faith belongs to the spoiled and selfish childhood of our species.

Good stuff from Anatole Kaletsky, who had the misfortune to have one of his articles, which was less than complimentary about Bush, read out by Rush Limbaugh on the radio, and was deluged by hate mail from the neanderthal Right as a result – prompting a comparison to the Mohammed cartoon affair:

This comparison may seem far-fetched but it brings out three distinctions that are critical in managing relations between Islamic fundamentalism and the modern world.

The first, very obvious, distinction is between civility and legality, between comment or behaviour that is discourteous, inconsiderate or unpleasant and behaviour which is, or should be, unlawful. Despite the hypersensitivity of the Americans who showered me with linguistic ordure, nobody would dream of suggesting that insulting America and its President should be banned. These 300 right-wing nuts wanted me sacked for my ignorance; they wanted The Times used as toilet paper, but none of them would suggest that I should be legally prevented from saying that President Bush was a fool.

How different from the paranoid religiosity of the Muslim fundamentalists who insist that “insulting religion” should not be a question of taste or of judgment, but a subject for criminal law. Yet this obvious distinction between what is offensive and what should be illegal is deliberately ignored by the Blair Government, which wants to make insulting religion a criminal offence.

The second, and related, distinction is between verbal abuse and physical violence. Returning to my self-selected sample of nutty Americans, none of them threatened me with physical harm, or suggested that such harm might be my just desert. How different from the violence of the Muslim rent-a-crowds whose banners portray their enemies beheaded. Yet this obvious distinction between verbal abuse and physical violence is deliberately overlooked by British police, who have refused to prosecute Muslim demonstrators threatening their enemies with hideous violence. Meanwhile, British judges have sentenced Abu Hamza, convicted for inciting multiple murders, to just seven years. Presumably this means that religiously motivated murder is less serious in the eyes of our learned judges than such offences as drug-dealing or fraud.

This brings me to the third and most important distinction that Americans seem to understand much better than we in Europe. This is the distinction between religion and other beliefs. Why should religions be entitled to legal protection from “insults” and “attacks”? Would anyone suggest that communists and fascists or, for that matter, Tories and social democrats, should be protected from insults? Yet the first two of these movements were all-embracing secular religions and their believers, who numbered in the hundreds of millions, believed in them every bit as passionately as Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in their religions.

It’s good to see Muslim leaders taking their usual responsible attitude to current events. Here are two clips, at MEMRI, of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah:

On Al-Manar TV:

“If any Muslim had carried out the fatwa of Imam Khomeini against the apostate Salman Rushdie, those despicable people would not have dared to insult the Prophet Muhammad – not in Denmark, not in Norway, and not in France.

“What is this solidarity campaign all about? We are supposed to summon the ambassador, and that’s it? We are supposed to boycott Danish goods, and that’s it? No. I call upon the Muslim jurisprudents, the Muslim religious scholars, the leaders of the Islamic movements, the leaders of the Islamic countries, and all the Muslims to take a decisive stand. If we tolerate this now, only God knows what they will do later – just like the tolerance practiced with Salman Rushdie, and the carrying out of the fatwa.

“Today, we need to take a different position regarding Denmark, if it doesn’t take care of this matter, and regarding Norway, if it does not take care of this matter, and regarding France, if it does not take care of this matter. On this matter, we are not Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians, Egyptians, Saudis, Malaysians, or Indonesians. This is about the Prophet of the Muslims, the Prophet of 1.4 billion Muslims. I am certain that not only millions but hundreds of millions of Muslims are ready and willing to sacrifice their lives in order to defend the honor of their Prophet. And you are among them.”

On Al-Jazeera TV:

“The truth is that we face a new phenomenon, or rather a new example of the West’s hypocrisy. Its slogans constitute hypocrisy. This has come to be known in the Arab region as ‘double standards.’ They weigh things differently with us and with others.

“For example, a few years ago, a great French philosopher, Roger Garaudy, wrote a scientific book. He did not offend, curse, or insult anyone. He wrote a scientific research of an academic nature, in which he discussed the alleged Jewish Holocaust in Germany. He proved that this Holocaust is a myth. The great French philosopher Roger Garaudy was put to trial. He was offended and humiliated. It did him no good that freedom of expression is considered a human right in France. Why? Because freedom of expression extends to the Jews, but it does not extend to the Prophet of 1.4 billion Muslims. That’s hypocrisy.”

A symptomatic case? (via)

A Turkish youth reportedly linked to organised crime has confessed to killing Italian priest Andrea Santoro two days ago, according to judicial sources in the northern town of Trabzon .

The 16-year-old student was arrested early on Tuesday morning after a huge manhunt. When police found him at the home of relatives in Trabzon, he was carrying the pistol used to kill the priest .

Father Santoro, 58, was shot dead in his church in the Black Sea town while he was praying after mass on Sunday. His killer reportedly shouted “Allah is Great” before fleeing .

Turkish television network NTV identified the arrested youth as Ohuzhan Akdi and said he was linked to the trafficking of prostitutes through Trabzon .

The Italian cleric, who was born near Rome, had dedicated considerable energy in recent years to trying to help prostitutes brought to Turkey from former Soviet republics .

After confessing to the murder, Akdi said that he had been enraged by the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in the European press, NTV reported.

So the youth had links to organised crime and the trafficking of prostitutes, while the priest was dedicated to helping prostitutes, but the reason for the murder was that “he had been enraged by the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in the European press”.

Well of course.

A discovery about the hoax pig-snout Mohammed cartoon, and comment at Brussels Journal.

mply confirmed, and an argument which you might think would have some resonance for a professional cartoonist who deals every day with the risk of offending people. And the reason the Mohammed cartoonists might be regretting their action is, perhaps, something to do with the fact that they’ve had to go into hiding in fear of their lives. But all a fellow cartoonist manages by way of solidarity is a shrug, and the implication that, well, they asked for it.

A particular risk for the cartoonist is that as a visual image a cartoon can easily be misinterpreted. For example, when Dave Brown, of The Independent, drew a cartoon of Ariel Sharon eating a Palestinian baby — an allusion to a well-known Goya painting — to comment upon Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, many Jewish people believed the imagery in the cartoon had been lifted straight from the virulent anti-Semitic Nazi organ Die Stürmer . Mainly because of its contentious subject matter, the cartoon was voted Political Cartoon of the Year 2003 by members of the Political Cartoon Society. This resulted in the society receiving the condemnation of Jews around the world.

An interesting comparison. Was Dave Brown’s cartoon really misinterpreted? It’s hard to believe that a working cartoonist could be unaware of the history of anti-semitic imagery used by the Nazis, and the blood libel theme which his cartoon seemed to many to draw on. So yes, a cartoon which gave offence, recalling the greatest crime in modern history in what many felt was a deeply unpleasant way. And what was the result? Did gangs of Israeli youths burn down the British embassy? Did Dave Brown have to go into hiding in the face of threats on his life? No – people complained. That’s what reasonable people do in a liberal society: if they get offended, they complain. And, if I read correctly what Benson’s implying here, at least part of the reason why it was voted Cartoon of the Year was as a deliberate gesture of support for Dave Brown in the face of these Jewish complaints. Compare and contrast the very different fate of the Mohammed cartoons, where everyone’s falling over themselves to say how terrible they are.

It’s perhaps worth recalling Tim Benson’s words at the time his society decided to give the Cartoon of the Year award to the Sharon baby-eating picture:

Mr Benson said the cartoon was a criticism of Mr Sharon and his policies, not a harangue against Jews. “I’m probably the most hated person in British Jewry now,” he said. “Jewish groups around the world are up in arms. These hysterical idiots are coming onto my site and calling me a Nazi. Do they not want people to have the freedom to express themselves?

“You couldn’t meet a nicer guy than Dave Brown. Cartoonists depict George Bush and Tony Blair in exactly the same way. If a cartoonist attacks the Israeli prime minister, it’s not necessarily anti-Semitic. Dave left the Star of David off the helicopters in the background.

“You can like or dislike a cartoon, but how can I censor a competition in which cartoonists submit their work? The cartoon was chosen because of its impact.

Stirring sentiments, and one can indeed sympathise: how can you censor cartoonists in a society based on the principles of free expression? Well in this society, as it turns out, it’s very easy. You threaten them.

And how sad that Tim Benson – a leading light in the Political Cartoon Society – is so eloquent in the face of Jewish pressure, but when given the opportunity to write an article in the Times about the Mohammed cartoons affair hasn’t a word to say in support of the beleaguered Danish cartoonists.

nless North Korea abolishes its slaughterhouse-like political prison camps and unleashes the freedom of its people who are chained to the country’s system,” Lim said at the news conference.

“This is not word play, but a last warning ahead of action,” Lim said. In a press release, the group said it plans to forge links with the North Korean military. Lim said the group planned to carry out “direct activities” in relation to North Korean border guards, though he provided no details. Wednesday’s news conference was attended by eight other former soldiers. Lim said his group includes some 53 ex-soldiers from the special units.

This could be significant – or it could be nothing.

far too dependent on imports. And Scandinavian companies should be compensated for their losses. Freedom of speech should at least be worth that much to us.

SPIEGEL: But Muslims, like any religious community, should also be able to protect themselves against slander and insult.

Hirsi Ali: That’s exactly the reflex I was just talking about: offering the other cheek. Not a day passes, in Europe and elsewhere, when radical imams aren’t preaching hatred in their mosques. They call Jews and Christians inferior, and we say they’re just exercising their freedom of speech. When will the Europeans realize that the Islamists don’t allow their critics the same right? After the West prostrates itself, they’ll be more than happy to say that Allah has made the infidels spineless.

n’t get worse, but it has,” said Peter Takirambudde, executive director of the Africa division at Human Rights Watch. “Sudan’s policy of arming militias and letting them loose is spilling over the border, and civilians have no protection from their attacks, in Darfur or in Chad.”

The government of Chad has already declared that it’s in a “state of war” with Sudan.