<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff background=""><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: spike
<BR>For the sake of argument, let us make a thought space<BR>map. Form
four quadrants by asking oneself two questions:<BR><BR>A. Were the Danish
newspapers right to publish the cartoons?<BR>B. Were the protesters right
to react as they have?<BR><BR>Position 1: no, no. This is the peacemaker
position, Bush,<BR>Blair, some other world leaders are going this
route.</FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><BR>*****This seems to me to be the position of expediency and moral
cowardice - not peacemaking. Appeasement is never a very permanent
solution. At best this position is a kowtow to fundamentalist
views and an admission that threats of violence justify
censorship.<BR><BR>Position 2: no, yes. Presumably the protesters point
of<BR>view.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>******This position denies free speech and attempts to impose censorship
(self-censorship) with threats of heavy retribution for non-compliance. Only
acceptable to those who favor dictatorships I think.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>Position 3: yes, no. Most journalists will go here, along<BR>with
many westerners who are not 1s.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>******Most westerners will/should be here I think, however this position
should be tempered by the knowledge that tolerance (free speech) needs to be
balanced with respect (sensitivity to the feelings of others). Medieval jesters
were permitted to mock the royal personage and burlesque the accepted rules of
court - so long as they were witty, satirical, admirable, laughable, wry, and
amusing. But they walked a tightrope - gratuitously offensive jesters could face
the dungeons - or worse... </DIV>
<DIV>In this respect it would perhaps be better to regard free speech as a
privilege - something hard-won and not to be senselessly frittered away on
trivial indulgence.</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>Position 4: Yes, yes. If both were right, the
proponents<BR>of this view must acknowledge that this will lead to
conflict<BR>which could tear apart societies and possibly lead to world<BR>war
4.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>******I can't imagine many would subscribe to this viewpoint. However those
that do - would be agreeing in essence that might is right. This would be
an admission that the threat of possible violence is a major determinant of our
behavior. This position is not only an abdication of rationality, it
also denies the rule of law. However, I can't deny the pervasive
influence of this mindset... This is fundamentalism at its most
fundamental...</DIV>
<DIV><BR>I recognize there are plenty of ways to complicate the<BR>question, but
let us start with this simplified thought<BR>space map. Can we make any
generalizations? Note that<BR>I am not asking about legality: the Danish
government does <BR>not control the press, so from a government point of view
<BR>the cartoons were legal whereas the protests, at least the<BR>violent ones,
were not. <BR>I am asking from the moral and ethical point of
view,<BR>which quadrant would one put oneself, and why? What<BR>do you see
as the long term consequences of your quadrant,<BR>and what of the other
three. Handle this topic with<BR>care please.<BR>I will offer my own
reasoning on this, but I want <BR>to see others'
thoughts.<BR>spike<BR><BR>******The whole sorry saga is an exercise in
reactionary politics - and in cold-blooded manipulation of opinion. When you
stop to consider the mind-boggling extent to which Moslems around the
globe have been galvanized to ill-considered action by influential
fundamentalists - a worthwhile question to ask may be - 'To what
extent are WE also manipulated by fundamentalist opinion?' </DIV>
<DIV>Jack Parkinson</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>