---

CBS Does Denmark
But doesn't bother to get the story right.
by Henrik Bering
03/06/2006, Volume 011, Issue 24



Copenhagen
When 60 Minutes shows up on your doorstep, you have reason to fear for
your good name and reputation. The Danes learned this last week, when
reporter Bob Simon and his team of cameramen descended on the country to
pass judgment in the controversy over the Muhammad cartoons. The result
of their labors was a 12-minute segment that displayed all the customary
60 Minutes arrogance and superficiality. In the report, the respected
Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, which originally printed the cartoons, came
across as a publication hellbent on gratuitously offending millions of
Muslims around the world, while the Danes themselves were portrayed as
naive, full of themselves, xenophobic, and way too blonde for their own
good. Did we forget provincial? Add that to the list of Danish foibles,
too.

The 12 cartoons were commissioned last fall when the editors of the
Jyllands-Posten, feeling that a note of fear and self-censorship had
crept into the Danish public discussion of matters Islamic, decided to
test whether this was true. (Specifically, a writer of children's books
had reported difficulty in finding an illustrator for a life-of-Muhammad
volume.)

After an initial flap when the cartoons came out in the paper's September
30, 2005, edition, nothing much happened for months. Then a delegation of
fundamentalist imams from Denmark decided to tour the Middle East,
stirring up hatred. Unsure that the original, rather lame cartoons would
be sufficiently incendiary, the imams added three crude images to the
portfolio, including one purportedly of the prophet Muhammad disguised as
a pig. (It turned out to be a photocopied picture of a man in a pig mask
from a rural French hog-calling contest.) That certainly did the trick.
The Danes were suddenly the most hated people on Earth, with their
embassies under attack, their flag being burned, and their consciousness
being raised by lectures on religious tolerance from Iran, Saudi Arabia,
and other beacons of enlightenment.

Among the participants in the 60 Minutes trashing of Denmark was Ahmed
Abu-Laban, a Palestinian refugee and self-appointed spokesman of Danish
Muslims, who instigated the tour of the Middle East and whose name has
been linked to some very unpleasant groups and individuals in the Middle
East. But rather than explore Laban's background and grill him in depth
on the question of the added cartoons, CBS treated him with kid gloves as
an aggrieved individual. Not a word about his contacts, nor of the fact
that he has been speaking with a forked tongue, urging dialogue in his
Friday prayers in Denmark, while inciting confrontation and boycott when
talking to Middle Eastern audiences. All this is easily obtainable
information, which CBS chose to ignore.

Unfortunately, the editors of the Jyllands-Posten, having received a
forewarning about the likely drift of the program and reportedly in a
state of shellshock after weeks of criticism, chose not to appear on the
show. With death-threats and fatwas issued against the cartoonists, the
paper had thrown in the towel and issued public regrets for having
offended Muslims.

With the main players not being on hand to defend the rights of a free
press, this task was left to Tøger Seidenfaden, editor in chief of a
rival paper, the liberal Politiken, which has been in the forefront of
condemning the publication of the cartoons and whose endorsement of the
principle of freedom of speech was accordingly less than ringing. Some
suggest that the problem with Jyllands-Posten is that, not being left-
wing, it is not perceived to merit the kind of unqualified support from
Seidenfaden and his colleagues in the Danish press that Salman Rushdie
received when the fatwa was issued against him by the mullahs in Tehran
back in 1989 over his novel The Satanic Verses.

Having condemned the editors of Jyllands-Posten as irresponsible and
cowardly to boot for not showing up for public chastisement, it was now
time for 60 Minutes to turn to the rest of the country. As evidence of
its general xenophobia, Simon pointed to Denmark's strict policies on
immigration, which he called the toughest in Europe and which have earned
criticism from all the same organizations that habitually find fault with
America: the U.N., the European Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights
Watch, etc.

To understand Denmark's current stance on immigration, you need to know
how these policies came about. Through the 1980s and 1990s, Denmark had
an open door policy towards asylum-seekers from the Third World and the
Middle East, Palestinians in particular, often without sufficient
background checks being made. It was naively believed that if you gave
people a nice home, public benefits, access to free hospital care and
free schools, and freedom from persecution, they would turn into nice
Social Democrats.

After two decades of this policy, whose costs in terms of taxes have been
colossal, the Danes, like the Dutch, the British, and the French,
realized to their horror that integration was not working. Instead,
multiculturalist dogma had led to the development of parallel societies,
in which people chose to carry on the fights of their countries of
origin, while turning their backs on the country that had let them in.
Thus fundamentalist hate groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has called
openly for its members to kill Jews, have been increasingly vocal in
Denmark. The organization is banned in Germany and in Sweden, but so far
there has been no attempt to shut it down in Denmark.

Trying belatedly to get a handle on the situation, the center-right
government of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, which came into office in 2001,
imposed strict limits on immigration, urged on by its parliamentary
supporters, the Danish People's party, which was the first party in
Denmark to insist that there was an immigration problem. On 60 Minutes,
this party was labeled "ultra right-wing," suggesting strapping fascist
youths roaming the streets in search of defenseless Muslims. For anybody
even vaguely familiar with Danish politics, this is a ludicrous
caricature. The party consists mainly of middle-aged former Social
Democrats who were disenchanted with that party's refusal to tackle the
issue.

In its handling of immigration issues, it is instructive to compare
Denmark with neighboring Sweden, which faces exactly the same kind of
problems. The difference between the Swedes and the Danes is that the
Swedes have suppressed all debate on immigration, while the Danes insist
on carrying on an open and frank discussion. The result is that Sweden
has had some really nasty episodes of racist violence, in which people
have gotten killed; Denmark so far has had none.

There are two roads the Danes can take. One is to cave in to
international pressure, loosen up on immigration, and try in general not
to give offense. This is bound to fail, as it is not within the power of
the Danes to decide who chooses to be offended. It is the Islamists who
pick these fights. If it had not been the caricatures, it would have been
something else.

The other is to continue to pursue the course Prime Minister Rasmussen is
currently on, seeking to establish bonds with moderate Muslims, while
trying to integrate those who are already here rather than adding new
ones. Here it might be a good idea for the Danes to quit worrying overly
how they are viewed abroad. And indeed, to some Danes, there are worse
things than seeing their flag burned together with the American Stars and
Stripes. At least they are in excellent company.

To describe a small nation under international pressure would have been
an excellent journalistic undertaking. To do so, though, you have to know
something of the country you describe. Too bad the 60 Minutes reporters--
whose quaint liberal fables of ethnic victimization haven't been updated
since the 1960s--couldn't be bothered.

Henrik Bering is a journalist and critic.



© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

--
http://www.supportdenmark.com
http://www.prophetcartoons.com/

---

ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY schrieb:



CBS Does Denmark
But doesn't bother to get the story right.
by Henrik Bering
03/06/2006, Volume 011, Issue 24



Copenhagen
When 60 Minutes shows up on your doorstep, you have reason to fear for
your good name and reputation. The Danes learned this last week, when
reporter Bob Simon and his team of cameramen descended on the country
to
pass judgment in the controversy over the Muhammad cartoons. The result

of their labors was a 12-minute segment that displayed all the
customary
60 Minutes arrogance and superficiality. In the report, the respected
Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, which originally printed the cartoons,
came
across as a publication hellbent on gratuitously offending millions of
Muslims around the world, while the Danes themselves were portrayed as
naive, full of themselves, xenophobic, and way too blonde for their own

good. Did we forget provincial? Add that to the list of Danish foibles,

too.

The 12 cartoons were commissioned last fall when the editors of the
Jyllands-Posten, feeling that a note of fear and self-censorship had
crept into the Danish public discussion of matters Islamic, decided to
test whether this was true. (Specifically, a writer of children's books

had reported difficulty in finding an illustrator for a
life-of-Muhammad
volume.)

After an initial flap when the cartoons came out in the paper's
September
30, 2005, edition, nothing much happened for months. Then a delegation
of
fundamentalist imams from Denmark decided to tour the Middle East,
stirring up hatred. Unsure that the original, rather lame cartoons
would
be sufficiently incendiary, the imams added three crude images to the
portfolio, including one purportedly of the prophet Muhammad disguised
as
a pig. (It turned out to be a photocopied picture of a man in a pig
mask
from a rural French hog-calling contest.) That certainly did the trick.

The Danes were suddenly the most hated people on Earth, with their
embassies under attack, their flag being burned, and their
consciousness
being raised by lectures on religious tolerance from Iran, Saudi
Arabia,
and other beacons of enlightenment.

Among the participants in the 60 Minutes trashing of Denmark was Ahmed
Abu-Laban, a Palestinian refugee and self-appointed spokesman of Danish

Muslims, who instigated the tour of the Middle East and whose name has
been linked to some very unpleasant groups and individuals in the
Middle
East. But rather than explore Laban's background and grill him in depth

on the question of the added cartoons, CBS treated him with kid gloves
as
an aggrieved individual. Not a word about his contacts, nor of the fact

that he has been speaking with a forked tongue, urging dialogue in his
Friday prayers in Denmark, while inciting confrontation and boycott
when
talking to Middle Eastern audiences. All this is easily obtainable
information, which CBS chose to ignore.

Unfortunately, the editors of the Jyllands-Posten, having received a
forewarning about the likely drift of the program and reportedly in a
state of shellshock after weeks of criticism, chose not to appear on
the
show. With death-threats and fatwas issued against the cartoonists, the

paper had thrown in the towel and issued public regrets for having
offended Muslims.

With the main players not being on hand to defend the rights of a free
press, this task was left to Tøger Seidenfaden, editor in chief of a
rival paper, the liberal Politiken, which has been in the forefront of
condemning the publication of the cartoons and whose endorsement of the

principle of freedom of speech was accordingly less than ringing. Some
suggest that the problem with Jyllands-Posten is that, not being left-
wing, it is not perceived to merit the kind of unqualified support from

Seidenfaden and his colleagues in the Danish press that Salman Rushdie
received when the fatwa was issued against him by the mullahs in Tehran

back in 1989 over his novel The Satanic Verses.

Having condemned the editors of Jyllands-Posten as irresponsible and
cowardly to boot for not showing up for public chastisement, it was now

time for 60 Minutes to turn to the rest of the country. As evidence of
its general xenophobia, Simon pointed to Denmark's strict policies on
immigration, which he called the toughest in Europe and which have
earned
criticism from all the same organizations that habitually find fault
with
America: the U.N., the European Commission on Human Rights, Human
Rights
Watch, etc.

To understand Denmark's current stance on immigration, you need to know

how these policies came about. Through the 1980s and 1990s, Denmark had

an open door policy towards asylum-seekers from the Third World and the

Middle East, Palestinians in particular, often without sufficient
background checks being made. It was naively believed that if you gave
people a nice home, public benefits, access to free hospital care and
free schools, and freedom from persecution, they would turn into nice
Social Democrats.

After two decades of this policy, whose costs in terms of taxes have
been
colossal, the Danes, like the Dutch, the British, and the French,
realized to their horror that integration was not working. Instead,
multiculturalist dogma had led to the development of parallel
societies,
in which people chose to carry on the fights of their countries of
origin, while turning their backs on the country that had let them in.
Thus fundamentalist hate groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has called
openly for its members to kill Jews, have been increasingly vocal in
Denmark. The organization is banned in Germany and in Sweden, but so
far
there has been no attempt to shut it down in Denmark.

Trying belatedly to get a handle on the situation, the center-right
government of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, which came into office in 2001,
imposed strict limits on immigration, urged on by its parliamentary
supporters, the Danish People's party, which was the first party in
Denmark to insist that there was an immigration problem. On 60 Minutes,

this party was labeled "ultra right-wing," suggesting strapping fascist

youths roaming the streets in search of defenseless Muslims. For
anybody
even vaguely familiar with Danish politics, this is a ludicrous
caricature. The party consists mainly of middle-aged former Social
Democrats who were disenchanted with that party's refusal to tackle the

issue.

In its handling of immigration issues, it is instructive to compare
Denmark with neighboring Sweden, which faces exactly the same kind of
problems. The difference between the Swedes and the Danes is that the
Swedes have suppressed all debate on immigration, while the Danes
insist
on carrying on an open and frank discussion. The result is that Sweden
has had some really nasty episodes of racist violence, in which people
have gotten killed; Denmark so far has had none.

There are two roads the Danes can take. One is to cave in to
international pressure, loosen up on immigration, and try in general
not
to give offense. This is bound to fail, as it is not within the power
of
the Danes to decide who chooses to be offended. It is the Islamists who

pick these fights. If it had not been the caricatures, it would have
been
something else.

The other is to continue to pursue the course Prime Minister Rasmussen
is
currently on, seeking to establish bonds with moderate Muslims, while
trying to integrate those who are already here rather than adding new
ones. Here it might be a good idea for the Danes to quit worrying
overly
how they are viewed abroad. And indeed, to some Danes, there are worse
things than seeing their flag burned together with the American Stars
and
Stripes. At least they are in excellent company.

To describe a small nation under international pressure would have been

an excellent journalistic undertaking. To do so, though, you have to
know
something of the country you describe. Too bad the 60 Minutes
reporters--
whose quaint liberal fables of ethnic victimization haven't been
updated
since the 1960s--couldn't be bothered.

Henrik Bering is a journalist and critic.



© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights
Reserved.

--
http://www.supportdenmark.com
http://www.prophetcartoons.com/


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tak for det. Skal prøve om jeg kan sprede det lidt.

Thanks for posting. I shall see if I can do my part in spreading this a
little more.




--
>.)

Unter blinden ist der einäugige könig.

http://worldimprover.net/

---

Michael Laudahn wrote:
The
> result
>
> of their labors was a 12-minute segment that displayed all the
> customary
> 60 Minutes arrogance and superficiality. In the report, the respected
> Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, which originally printed the cartoons,
> came
> across as a publication hellbent on gratuitously offending millions of
> Muslims around the world, while the Danes themselves were portrayed as
> naive, full of themselves, xenophobic, and way too blonde for their
> own
>
> good. Did we forget provincial? Add that to the list of Danish
> foibles,
>
> too.

Tja. Man skulle tro, CBS havde researchet i dk.politik og d.p.i., for så
ville deres karakteristik da være fuldt dækkende.

Det er den heldigvis ikke.

..net/

--
Per V.

Hvis sandheden er krigens første offer, er nuancerede standpunkter det
andet.

---

On 26 Feb 2006 20:25:45 GMT, ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY
<boludovsky@hotmail.co.il> wrote:

>Here it might be a good idea for the Danes to quit worrying overly
>how they are viewed abroad.

From all I know of the Danes (being one myself) I would say that most
Danes do not care a shit about it.

You can best see our reaction in cases like Jack Straw and Kofi Annan.
In the danish public they both used to be regarded as a kind of
freinds. But after they dared to openly critisize us, their popularity
in this country has dropped as a stone. We simply do not like that
kind of behaviour

---

---

Lars J. Helbo wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2006 20:25:45 GMT, ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY
> <boludovsky@hotmail.co.il> wrote:
>
>> Here it might be a good idea for the Danes to quit worrying overly
>> how they are viewed abroad.
>
> From all I know of the Danes (being one myself) I would say that most
> Danes do not care a shit about it.
>
> You can best see our reaction in cases like Jack Straw and Kofi Annan.
> In the danish public they both used to be regarded as a kind of
> freinds. But after they dared to openly critisize us, their popularity
> in this country has dropped as a stone. We simply do not like that
> kind of behaviour

Some pompous people think that because of this nations size, Denmark takes
an interest in whatever they say. The really conceited believes, we'll even
take heed. But .. we're rather contumacious when it comes to that little
game. Thats why the local traitors in favor of the european currency begged
other european stateleaders not to interfere on their behalf during the
danish referendums on the subject (the nay-sayers did'nt have that problem).
We snubbed the bastards on each occasion anyway.

When critisizing Denmark about the drawings, Jack Straw and Kofi Annan is
talking to their own foreign PC's and arab constituency only - here they
just makes fools of themselves.

---

"HrSvendsen" <HrSvendsen@msn.com> wrote in
news:4402bdd8$0$84034$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk:

> we'll even take heed. But .. we're rather contumacious when it comes

Contumacious? The word is not in my Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary?

> When critisizing Denmark about the drawings, Jack Straw and Kofi Annan
> is talking to their own foreign PC's and arab constituency only - here
> they just makes fools of themselves.

Aye. That they do. Straw is nothing but a dhimmi still in a position of
power, and Annan is probably the worst head of UN ever.

---

---

Listen, Hamlet. If you really are Danish, you should care? There's
something rotten in Denmark and its the stench of the filthy muzzies!
You should get your government to arrest the muslim pigs who
deliberately went arouns stirring up hatred by adding fake pictures to
the list in order to beat up the story and ferment hatred again
Denmark, the Danes and the West. Its your responsibility to defend
yourselves because right now the muzzies are planning how to murder
every last one of you!

Lars J. Helbo wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2006 20:25:45 GMT, ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY
> <boludovsky@hotmail.co.il> wrote:
>
> >Here it might be a good idea for the Danes to quit worrying overly
> >how they are viewed abroad.
>
> From all I know of the Danes (being one myself) I would say that most
> Danes do not care a shit about it.
>
> You can best see our reaction in cases like Jack Straw and Kofi Annan.
> In the danish public they both used to be regarded as a kind of
> freinds. But after they dared to openly critisize us, their popularity
> in this country has dropped as a stone. We simply do not like that
> kind of behaviour

---

On 26 Feb 2006 15:36:31 -0800, "Gary Rumain" <grumain@googlemail.com>
wrote:

>Listen, Hamlet. If you really are Danish, you should care? There's
>something rotten in Denmark and its the stench of the filthy muzzies!
>You should get your government to arrest the muslim pigs who
>deliberately went arouns stirring up hatred by adding fake pictures to
>the list in order to beat up the story and ferment hatred again
>Denmark, the Danes and the West. Its your responsibility to defend
>yourselves because right now the muzzies are planning how to murder
>every last one of you!

Please read my posting once more!

I was talking about how we are viewed abroad - got it?

And I can asure you, that very few people in this country cares, if
Kofi Annan or Jack Straw critisize us.

>Lars J. Helbo wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2006 20:25:45 GMT, ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY
>> <boludovsky@hotmail.co.il> wrote:
>>
>> >Here it might be a good idea for the Danes to quit worrying overly
>> >how they are viewed abroad.
>>
>> From all I know of the Danes (being one myself) I would say that most
>> Danes do not care a shit about it.
>>
>> You can best see our reaction in cases like Jack Straw and Kofi Annan.
>> In the danish public they both used to be regarded as a kind of
>> freinds. But after they dared to openly critisize us, their popularity
>> in this country has dropped as a stone. We simply do not like that
>> kind of behaviour

---

"Lars J. Helbo" <fornavn@efternavn.org> wrote in message
news:q9s5029vquhk8aan86dvqvhcj5hvpeelk4@4ax.com...
> On 26 Feb 2006 15:36:31 -0800, "Gary Rumain" <grumain@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Listen, Hamlet. If you really are Danish, you should care? There's
>>something rotten in Denmark and its the stench of the filthy muzzies!
>>You should get your government to arrest the muslim pigs who
>>deliberately went arouns stirring up hatred by adding fake pictures to
>>the list in order to beat up the story and ferment hatred again
>>Denmark, the Danes and the West. Its your responsibility to defend
>>yourselves because right now the muzzies are planning how to murder
>>every last one of you!
>
> Please read my posting once more!
>
> I was talking about how we are viewed abroad - got it?
>
> And I can asure you, that very few people in this country cares, if
> Kofi Annan or Jack Straw critisize us.

Don't listen to him. "Gary Rumain" is nothing more than a troll also known
as "Reverend Terence Fformby-Smythe" who is pretending to be Susan Cohen's
husband in order to troll the NG. He's best kept in the kill-file where all
the other losers belong.
>
>>Lars J. Helbo wrote:
>>> On 26 Feb 2006 20:25:45 GMT, ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY
>>> <boludovsky@hotmail.co.il> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Here it might be a good idea for the Danes to quit worrying overly
>>> >how they are viewed abroad.
>>>
>>> From all I know of the Danes (being one myself) I would say that most
>>> Danes do not care a shit about it.
>>>
>>> You can best see our reaction in cases like Jack Straw and Kofi Annan.
>>> In the danish public they both used to be regarded as a kind of
>>> freinds. But after they dared to openly critisize us, their popularity
>>> in this country has dropped as a stone. We simply do not like that
>>> kind of behaviour
>

---

"ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY" <boludovsky@hotmail.co.il> wrote in message
news:Xns9776D9FBCB8DCbelgacom@130.133.1.4...
>
> CBS Does Denmark
> But doesn't bother to get the story right.
> by Henrik Bering
> 03/06/2006, Volume 011, Issue 24
>

snip

Who gives a flyin' what the CBS say about us? It was so clearly a biased (?)
"interview" that noone can hopefully take it seriously. Except for idiots
stupid enough to beleive the shit or worse, who actually want to beleive it.
They (the "interviewers") actually managed to find the editor of the most
pro-islamic newpaper (Thyre Seidenfaden from Politiken) and managed to avoid
asking the newspaper who publisehd the drawings (Jyllands Posten). They
actually managed to make a COMPLETELY biased little show.... starting off
with belitteling blond danish girls at a fashion-show, because there were no
turbans or black girls. Very commendable.

Of course, there are people out there who are stupid enough to fall for that
kind of crap.

Tim