The actual nature of the cartoons makes some difference but from what I'm reading there may be more to this story than meets the eye (as there so often is). Our old friend Victor Danilchenko, without supplying a source, said this at The Ponderer's Guild:
I did find this article from last year so the matter isn't as recent as it appears:The publication of cartoons occurred in September 2005; nothing happened, until a danish muslim group put together a dossier showing how muslims are oppressed there, and included in it three extremely offensive cartoons which it did not actually get from any publication; this dossier was then distributed to leaders around the muslim world.
In short, this seems to have been an artificial escalation of hostilities where none need to have existed, and the Danish newspaper is not the primary culprit.
Actual PageDecember 30, 2005
Row deepens over Danish cartoons of Prophet
Protestors Arab foreign ministers have condemned the Danish government for failing to act against a newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. At the Arab League conference in Cairo, they said they were "surprised and discontented at the response." Islam forbids any depiction of Muhammad or of Allah.
The Jyllands-Posten newspaper published a series of 12 cartoons showing Muhammad, in one of which he appeared to have a bomb in his turban. The Arab League's ministers council said the cartoons were an insult to Islam. The government's response "was disappointing despite its political, economic and cultural ties with the Muslim world", it added.
Death threats
Danish Muslim community leaders held talks with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen in July to complain about press coverage of Islam. At the time, Mr Rasmussen said he could not tell newspapers what to print - or what not to.
Source: [BBC]
Arab ministers also said they were unhappy that European human rights organisations have not taken a clear position on the issue.
There have been street protests both in Denmark and in Muslim countries following the publication of the cartoons. The newspaper insists on freedom of expression and says it has the right to print whatever words and pictures it chooses.
It said both the paper and the cartoonist had received death threats.
Plus this article is interesting.
Dan Rowden



