Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

A new art installation going on display at the European Council building in Brussels has angered EU members with its lampoons of national stereotypes. The piece of art is the work of David Cerny and others artists called Entropa. The idea of the exhibit is to depict the EU countries in certain ways to see of they can laugh at themselves, but obviously it has not gone well as some EU countries have summoned The Czech Republic’s ambassador, which holds the EU presidency to explain why has the exhibit been allowed to be displayed in the first place. There have been strong calls for a ban on the exhibition from the European countries because they see as an offensive to their countries’ image.

I guess it’s easy to be hypocritical when a certain circumstance is inconvenient to our tastes and beliefs. But when it is the other way around, then it’s our chance to ramble and lecture others about the freedom of free speech, and how they should accept it regardless of how offensive or degrading the freedom of speech might be.

When a Prophet of over one billion Muslims whom love him dearly and see him as a holy figure, was portrayed by a European artist in a demeaning manner. Most European countries kept silent even thought they knew the importance of the Prophet Muhammad to the Muslims people, but when they asked why they couldn’t ban such a publication, they used Freedom of expression as an excuse not to interfere. Not to mention, Newspapers throughout the West jumped on the bandwagon as if it’s was a great opportunity that mustn’t be missed. I looked at the whole think from a rational point of view to try to understand what’s the point of doing that, but couldn’t find one clear logic that would justify such publication, instead any logically person would find it easier to understand it was a deliberate attempt to offend Muslims under the name of free of speech.


It can’t be right nor fair if I go on the street and point out how passers-by look, in a shameless manner, for example fat, ugly etc, and claiming it is my freedom of expression’s right to do so because that’s how feel about these people.

Three important principles that humans mustn’t ignore of they desire to advance their species to a better future they are, empathy, respect, cooperation and understanding. I guarantee you, if you display these three simple principles, you’d welcome in every societies throughout the world, because humans are might be different in some ways, but they are remarkably share these three principles.


Here is link to the exhibition’s story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7827738.stm


Peace/Love

Brother, the Western hypocrites won't even allow me to participate in my threads and other threads that I was heavily involved in.

So much for 'freedom of speech'. Fact is they are hypocrites. Your leaders have many such hypocrites as advisors, and it's a big mistake akhi. You should behave the same way with them that they do with you. End of.

Well I thought the whole thing was hilarious! However, you have missed one HUGE part of the story! The fact is that the guy was paid 350,000 Euro to pay OTHER artists to make the sculpture. But he kept the money for himself and basically came up with that tosh! So he screwed them over.

Personally I say good on the guy, it's about time people stopped taking things so seriously and could have a chuckle at things.

How clever of miss alcoholic to overlook that your kindred has yet to allow me access to my most frequently visited threads!

The same Westerners that shout 'freedom of speech' at the top of their voice BARS ME from entering 'Fight Club'. Oh dear!

I dont think its a case of freedom of speach thats keeping you from that place,i think that its more of a case that you are seen as a knobhead

If there was exercise of freedom of speech in this forum, surely whether you are anti-western or not, wouldn't matter in gaining access to 'fight club'.

So what if the Europeans complain, didn't people complain about the Danish cartoons? There will always be people who complain and don't want free speech, but in the end the right to free speech usually wins. Why? Because the alternative to lack of free speech can be very dangerous to society. After all... who is to decide what everyone should be reading, watching etc?

Hi kanelli, I hear what you are saying dear.

Yes they did complain about the cartoon and rightly so. The reason I why used the two scenarios was to put some high light on the definition of free speech and how it can be abusive if we misused it.

There are huge differences between the two cases. The Cartoon of the prophet was hyper offensive. The Entropa is a mild banter if I may say, but despite its low key offensiveness, some European countries were quickly discredited it and called to ban it because they considered it offensive – and they are rightly so to feel that way. So how come the countries who portrayed themselves as liberal react so badly to a mild banter, and confused when Muslims voice their oppositions to an extremely offensive attack on their beloved prophet.

I am not saying why European countries complained at all, it’s their right to do so. What am saying is, how far we can go with the so called free speech. I am in favour of free speech when it points out corruption, racism, bad politics, bad education, bad behaviors and so on. But totally oppose it when people use it to attack someone’s character, race, religion and family.

You see, the Prophet Muhammad is a holy figure to every Muslims, and to draw a caricature of these people’s holy figure is the ultimate insult. It’s even worse than if I come to your house without justification and insults your family badly. Just think how would that make you feel for a second, and then triple that feeling to give you a close measurement to how those people felt.

I remember a TV program depicted Mary with a little bit blood on her body, the second day the TV station was nearly burned by protesters, until it finally safe by the station’s decision to cancel the show.

In conclusion, free speech is a great, but it has be used within its boundaries. It mustn’t be used as an excuse to deliver a personal insult to anyone – because it isn’t right or fair.

I just saw the art and I think its awesome-I guess its throwing a metaphorical two fingers up at political correctness in a way as well. With regards to freedom of speech/expression, I am all for it but there is no such thing.

My definition of the term is: the ability to say what you want and you feel without a backlash.

However, it seems this is not possible in the world today. Besides the fact that everything we say or do is monitored. This is not freedom, so we must stop deluding ourselves.

About the Muhammad cartoons, I personally didn't see a logical need for them myself (1) because of the current heated political climate concerning Muslims and the West and (2) because the Prophet Muhammad pbuh has never been pictorially depicted despite the amount of artists there had been during his time.

BUT since I am sure the Danes had no idea they would cause this furore I think the Muslims should just have let it go(especially since they started freaking out about 6 months after the incident even happened!)-the behaviour of some members at the various marches was despicable (one guy was actually arrested in the UK cos he turned up as a suicide bomber-how distateful and disgraceful!??!)

The problem with issues like this is anyone can jump on the bandwagon with their opinion. And is all frankness, that particular incident was really bad PR for Islam, because the Muslims did not behave like Muslims or follow the example of peace as taught by Muhammad pbuh

The Danes (and some papers in other countries) made the mistake of republishing the cartoons after they saw how much offense it caused. However, the confusion was why Muslims reacted so violently to the cartoons and why it took so long for people to notice the cartoons and why they were spread like wildfire and used as anti-West propaganda for groups itching for some new fodder. There are all kinds of religious images and commentaries in the West of Christianity and other religions, but so far no one has reacted as violently as the Muslim community.

In the West everyone is used to free speech and what it means - seeing and hearing things you don't like, but then having the choice to complain and/or ignore it, or help correct/discuss the misinformation or whatever is caused by the offensive images/commentaries.

I think that criticising the Danish cartoons and this latest EU art piece are just fine. The issue of what the artist did with the money may need further investigation... What is hypocritical in some European countries is that people who use free speech to deny the Holocaust can be arrested and receive jail time. As ing as I feel it is for people to spread the idea that the Holocaust didn't exist, they don't deserve jail time when others are spreading equally dangerous ideas and misinformation around on other subjects.

Kanelli, I totally agree with you!

Dear kanelli

I agree with you that It’s ashamed when people and scholars are genuinely interested to study and point out the truth of the Holocaust are banned, and will face jail term if they do so. This is precisely what free speech should be used for. These people and scholars don’t want to insult anyone, they only interested in facts.

Few months ago a scholar from England banned from entering Australia and New Zealand, all what he did was writing an article about the hypocrisy of banning researchers from studying the Holocaust.

So clearly freedom of speech is stifled and only allowed when it’s more likely to benefit one’s interest.

This is a stern contradiction with “In the West everyone is used to free speech and what it means - seeing and hearing things you don't like,” big time. And I could go on and on showing cases that have been blocked because they were considered offensive in some ways.


You see, in your country you might have a definition of free of speech which you’ve grew up with and fairly comfortable with. So do others countries and cultures, they have their own definitions of free speech which dictate how far they can go with it, and they are comfortable as you do with your own definition.

So it’s presumptuous for anyone to bring his/her free speech’s definition and try to impose it on others or expect others to like it. Best way is to learn before one embarks on a journey to a foreign country or culture, what’s offensive and what’s acceptable.

So clearly freedom of speech is just an illusionary term created by humans to fill an unattainable fantasy. Let me give you an example, if you were in clothes store and a lady or a man ask you this, could you please tell me if this outfit looks good on me, you’re answer more likely would be yes, you look great in it, even though it’s looks horrendous on him/her. Why because you hide the truth so you wouldn’t hurt his/her feeling.

So what does that, it means as humans we cannot say whatever we like, we are chained by certain principles, decorum, beliefs etc, that help us to live peacefully with one another. Just imagine if everyone says whatever comes to his/her mind, I guarantee you that, fighting and wars would be everywhere and the humans race would be long gone. So let’s not kid ourselves.

To conclude, free speech must be used freely to tackle corruption racism, and all the bad things. But mustn’t be used to insult someone’s religion or culture, look, gender etc – that’s where free speech can be abusive and hurtful.


That’s my humble opinion.

That is the problem about free speech... In order to be able to speak and be heard on the really important issues there has to be tolerance of all the "junk" free speech that some groups of people might find offensive. It still brings us back to the issue of who is qualified to dictate what free speech is allowed and what isn't? Do you want someone censoring what you can and cannot see? Don't you want to decide for yourself what you watch/read/discuss? With all the different people, opinions etc. no one would be saying anything for fear it might offend, so that makes for no speech at all! I'd rather wade through the "junk" free speech than have no speech or censored speech.

p.s. I seriously doubt the credibility of any scholar who can't find enough evidence that the Holocaust existed, between the written documentation kept by the Nazis, the eye-witness accounts, the mass graves and the photographs. I think families know how many of their family members went missing, and some families were wiped out completely so that needs to be kept in mind as well.

You only have to visit some of the places to understand the horrific things that went on. I have and I'll never forget it.

kanelli wrote:So what if the Europeans complain, didn't people complain about the Danish cartoons? There will always be people who complain and don't want free speech, but in the end the right to free speech usually wins. Why? Because the alternative to lack of free speech can be very dangerous to society. After all... who is to decide what everyone should be reading, watching etc?

The problem is when these hypocrites ban
1 Holocaust 'denial'
2 Pornography in public (except a few countries like Netherlands)
3 Obscenities in public media

but ALLOW
1 Insult to Islam
2 Insult to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)
3 Muslims
4 Violent groups that attack based on religion, race etc

and then even ban the Adhan?

Chocoholic wrote:You only have to visit some of the places to understand the horrific things that went on. I have and I'll never forget it.

U r rite ...but why dont u come to sm palces in afghanistan and northern areas of pakistan and i can show u the same here....but the prob is tht the ppl there r not allowed ...so called freedom of speech...and if sm one else try to voice them....he is a troll.

erm why in the hell would I want to go to those places? Not bloody likely.

Chocoholic wrote:erm why in the hell would I want to go to those places? Not bloody likely.

If u cant then u shud not comment like u do.....one shud be havin a clear idea about wht is happeneing around and...y in the hell u visited those holo affected areas....to know wht?

It was in Germany! er educational school trip - maybe, possibly.

daisy, just because chocs sympathizes about the holocaust in Germany doesn't mean she isn't sympathetic about human tragedies everywhere. She doesn't have to do a world tour to see the misery. Have you been to Germany, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Nigera etc? Maybe we should fault you because you haven't traveled to those places and aren't stating your sympathy for the plight of those people.

kanelli wrote:daisy, just because chocs sympathizes about the holocaust in Germany doesn't mean she isn't sympathetic about human tragedies everywhere. She doesn't have to do a world tour to see the misery. Have you been to Germany, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Nigera etc? Maybe we should fault you because you haven't traveled to those places and aren't stating your sympathy for the plight of those people.

Dont take it so personally...wht i said is tht we r still facing the same thing in this world where thousand and thousand of ppl have been wiped off this face of earth and we dont even know it in this global village ...high tech era.

kanelli wrote:daisy, just because chocs sympathizes about the holocaust in Germany doesn't mean she isn't sympathetic about human tragedies everywhere. She doesn't have to do a world tour to see the misery. Have you been to Germany, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Nigera etc? Maybe we should fault you because you haven't traveled to those places and aren't stating your sympathy for the plight of those people.

She doesn´t, even i did when i visited Auschwitz with the school, its a common thing in Germany to visit such places that such things will NEVER happen again.
BTW, u mentioned Nigeria, i´ve lived there the past years and i saw pll killed and burned alive, burning tires round her neck, dead bodys on the road...nobody cares

daisy, it just sounded to me like you were insinuating that chocs was putting more importance on the holocaust tragedy than any other tragedy happening in the world. Germany is a much more travel-friendly place for a lone Western female than Afghanistan or Northern Pakistan, don't you think?

U R always welcome

kanelli wrote:daisy, it just sounded to me like you were insinuating that chocs was putting more importance on the holocaust tragedy than any other tragedy happening in the world. Germany is a much more travel-friendly place for a lone Western female than Afghanistan or Northern Pakistan, don't you think?

Yes i agree that travelling to pakistan or afghanistan is not safe now....but it was ok like before 9/11 attacks.

I have dozen of friends from europe who come to pakistan and specially to those remote areas in the north of pakistan... gilgit and chitral....to make some designer wear costumes for their exhibitions...

Now adays everything is based on media...and if media states a place safe then it is and if they say that it is like every day hell then we all assume thats true...which is some times not,,

TheChoosen, that sounds horrible. I'm sad you had to see those things. It is definitely frustrating that no one seems to give a crap about Africa.

yes.....it is horrible.

The world is becoming very unsafe heaven , thanks to UAE and all the moderate people here .. its one of the few places in the world where I could manage to sleep a continuous night without being worried of some rockets falling on my roof, or a gang breaking in and rape the women and children like Nigeria ..

WOuld people stop assuming what I do and do not sypathise about? I do actually.

I have an entire list of places around the globe I want to visit. I do not want to go to Pakistan or Afghanistan, they are not on my list, and niehter are a few other places. But it doesn't mean I don't know what is going on or have no sypathies for the people there.

, watch out choco, you are losing you creditability here since kanelli is becoming your lawyer lately