Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who depicted the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, says he will sue the maker of an anti-Islam film.
Mr Westergaard says his cartoon, which sparked riots two years ago, was used in the film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders without permission.
Mr Westergaard told Danish TV that his cartoon was a protest against terrorism, not Islam as a whole.
The Danish journalists' union is suing on his behalf for copyright violation.
"Wilders has the right to make his movie but he has not permission to use my drawing," Mr Westergaard told Denmark's TV2.
"This has nothing to do with freedom of speech," he said. "I will not accept my cartoon being taken out of its original context and used in a completely different one."
I find it intriguing that Westergaard chose the movie to make his stand and to argue that his cartoon was only an indictment against terrorism. He was certainly, ahem, silent over widespread adoption of his cartoon (portraying the Prophet with a bomb in his turban) by exactly those vocal European groups which explicitly claim that Islam as a whole is a problem. And I dont see how you can claim you are not indicting the religion as a whole if you coose to portray the founder of the faith himself as a terrorist. Logically doesn't that imply that his teachings are also terror?
I think the more likely explanation for Westergaard's sudden concern for moderate Islam is revealed here:
Mr Westergaard says he is once again in danger because the cartoon has been used in Mr Wilders' film.
In other words, he is really just afraid of the additional publicity. Since his cartoons did actually trigger a genuine StupidStorm of violence, whereas Wilder's Fitna is largely being ignored, I think his fear is understandable given his experience. Still, it's quite interesting that now he has basically endorsed the existence of moderate mainstream Islam, which will be a useful wedge to use against those who try to adopt his insulting cartoon as a weapon against ordinary decent muslims.
5 comments:
Now THIS is poetic justice.
Your argument is purely self contradictory and will not convince anyone.
Either "In other words, he is really just afraid of the additional publicity [will] actually trigger a genuine StupidStorm of violence" OR he is "endors[ing] the existence of moderate mainstream Islam."
You can't have it both ways because the act of cowering in fear of irrational violence is the action that speaks louder than any words, and, once again, supports Wilders thesis.
I would be nice if YOU could spare a word to actually support your own thesis and show that you are capable of campaigning against the theology of hatred and violence that makes up 100% of the content of the film.
THAT is an action that support the attitude you incorrectly projected on cartoonist, but it can only be done at the expense of admitting that the scenes and theology that Wilders underlined is real and a real problem.
You can't win by taking a stance of enmity to "the infidel", you have to join the human race and admit the depth of the problem.
Years ago, when I argued with you, I used a certain bit of hate speech in my arguments, I used the word "infidel" and you never corrected me and thus, I'm afraid, made my point for me. That's the depth of your problem.
You can not claim to that you represent "moderate" Muslims while pretending that the lies that men tell when they are terrified produces are gifts toe Muslims.
The cartoonist was terrified and lied for the radicals. They won, they stifled his speech, they coerced him into lying.
When you accept that lie at at face value, you seem to accept the obeciance of the terrified as your due. You can not accept the gift of terror while disowning the cause of that terror.
To disown terror, you must grant the right to honesty by ALL of terror's victims.
Damn you, Aziz. You have made it on the 'net! You have your own troll that spams endless garbage.
Post a Comment