16 2 mins 12 yrs


There is the political apology. “I am sorry if you are offended by what I said”. This is another way of not saying sorry! Then there is the apology issued by a leading Danish newspaper to Muslims.

Politiken was accused of betraying the freedom of the press after breaking ranks with its rivals to offer an apology to Muslims for publishing a cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban. 

 Politiken issued the apology after settling with a Saudi lawyer representing eight Muslim groups that complained after the cartoon was reprinted by 11 Danish papers in solidarity with the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who received death threats last year. Outrage at the move was led by Denmark’s Prime Minister and by Mr Westergaard, 74, who survived an alleged assassination attempt by an Islamic axeman at his home last month. Politiken responded that it was apologising for the offence caused, not the decision to publish, in an attempt to reduce tensions with the Muslim world.

I think Politiken should be ashamed of itself for expressing an opinion. This is the slow road to dhimmitude. I entirely sympathise with Mr Westergaard and the rest of the Danish media. 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

16 thoughts on “I’M SORRY IF I OFFENDED YOU?

  1. This is stupid. It makes no sence. You apologise for what you do or don’t do. You can be sorry about the result with or without apologising. Apologising for the result but not the act is meaningless.

  2. aileen

    agreed – It is as daft as punching someone in the face and then apolgising only for any pain that might be caused.

  3. … or apologising for their low threshold of pain.

    It is though amazing how many people get fooled by the "I’m sorry" and think that they have received an apology.

  4. I am not a great believer in apologies. They are mostly face saving exercises , designed to appeal more to the reputation of the apologee than the feelings of the ‘victim’

  5. Oh I’m a sucker for a genuine apology – or what I can let myself believe can be one.

    Of course is has to be from the person who actually did the wrong thing and to the person who was wronged,

  6. Aileen

    It has to be genuinely unsolicited, made under no pressure whatsoever, and to be even more authentic should be an admission of guilt where there was no suspicion, but revealed due to personal moral angst only.

  7. As a Dane and fan of Politiken and Tøger Seidenfaden I feel compelled to shet som light upon this debate. It’s a fact that Denmark has a heightened terror risk after terrible diplomatic lobbying in the time following the famous cartoons. The PM at that time refusing to meet with several ambassadeurs, our racist political rethorics throughout a decade (which results in obscene strict immigration regulations) and our willingness to support almost every war the US engage in. This is an attempt to start a dialogue, which surprisingly enough isn’t the guardians of freedom of speech’ interest.

    Instead of this posted summary of the event, which in my point of view is too crowded with pathos argumentation, please turn to Politikens own webpage in order to read the full press release, and their side of the story:


    Or see how the Germain newspaper Der Spiegel sees the story:


    Kurt Westergaard was attacked with an axe – true, but by a mad man without the articulated intent of terror in mind.
    Jyllands Posten (the Daily that published the original cartoon) was saved from terror by Danish and American Intelligence. This terror threat is imminent and real. This threat isn’t just aimed at a single newspaper but every at Danish civilians in general. Dialogue prevents misunderstandings and makes this risk significantly smaller.

    No Danish media wishes to publish these cartoons today, but they still deny dialogue. That is simply the true defeat of the highly estimated freedom of speech. Bear in mind; this privilege isn’t an excuse for offending others just by prooving the right to do so.

  8. Jesper (ex Dane), so you want to accept the Sharia law of slander, be ruled by a religion that you do not agree with or respect. I do not, I would rather die than submit to Islamic law. There is no misunderstanding, you lose your freedom of speach and accept Sharia or you do not. There is no dialogue with these people its accept the will of Allah, be a dhimmi or die.

    For example having studided Islam since 1997 I see it as a dreadful religion, for that under Islamic slander laws in the Sharia I can be killed, as Islam is also a political ideology with a system of law, and government I have lost my political freedom. You may wish to surrender free spoeach, I do not wish to be a coward, thanksfully many of your fellow countrymen are standing up to this.

  9. http://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/bilderberg-and-prophet-cartoons-plot.html

    Either interesting or ravings. Take your pick. The cartoon story certainly did occur during an Iran war countdown news spasm. The cartoons and the riots by Islamic invaders in Europe would then be a scripted event of preparation of the "mass mind" for an attack on Iran.
    The real story then would be not be freedom of speech, Islamics, dhimmi or Iran but the "hidden hand" of the "perception managers".

    Jesper-Denmark’s alien invaders seem to prefer rape to "dialogue".

  10. Do notice

    Nearly a full day that this has been up, yet no comment from any of the usual suspects.

    And I’m not trying to drag any begrudging, false comment from them.

    Only will say that they on some level are in support of those who protested the cartoons, and they have some satisfaction at this forced apology.

    They know who they are.

  11. I don’t see this as a abandonment towards Sharia. I think people who insist of seeing muslims as the warriors of Dark Lord Sauron waiting to take over the whole of Middle-earth and spreading terror for the sake of fear itself are simplifying things to no sensible reasons what so ever. Don’t you worry, my interest isn’t to devote myself to islam, nor is it a cowardly hide in fear – though I argumented for the prevention of terror. It is actually not the sole reason, only a benefit worth considering.

    I believe there is horrifying reading in the Koran, but heck it’s very old, and represents a time prior to CNN and the Internet. Fanatism is scarry, if it’s Muslim, Christian or Jewish. The Spanish Inquisition interpreted the Bible as if it was a Christian Sharia. My point is; you can find this everywhere, but let’s try to start a dialogue with those who represent some sort of sense. This lawsuit isn’t any different than others would sue for, if they were offended – a contradiction or an apology. Remember; this was an unnecessary provocation in the first place, which didn’t get much attention. Not until a group of twisted Danish imams travelled ’round the muslim world – lying about how the Danish media and public are degrading Islam. Showing pictures of pigs as the Profet himself, which was a lie and could look like treason to me – then the muslims all over the world were horrified, and who wouldn’t be offended, I know I would. I was when they burned the Danish flag in the streets. Their anger was provoked by a lie.

    What Politiken did, was apologizing for any inconvenience these drawings might have had, but they prooved their point – they had and still have the right to publish anything they’d like. There just aren’t any reasons for stubbornness or holding a grutch, let’s move on. Note how much the descendants of Mohammed actually accepted – in my oppinion they somewhat agreed that Politiken have the right to publish the cartoon. This very apology came from Jyllands Posten as soon as 2006, but that didn’t provoke you (selfclaimed knights of the permission to speak freely) to call them cowards.

  12. Jesper, in sadness I no longer have the heart and patience to explain to yet another naive person who shows signs of getting it, fact is I almost don’t care, I think the majority of people in Europe now deserve Islam. I know what Islam is, you do not, Islam is nothing like Christianity no matter what some people say, they are chalk and cheese. There is no point in talking to them about peace, there is no benefit in making concessions as they ask for more, they will turn your words inside out to make you look like the aggressor as they did with Denmark, that what you saw with the Imams spreading lies is the real Islam, their ideology is based on making them a victim so that they are free to carry out holy war.

    What they are doing here is applying the Sharia l;aw of Slander to you, that newspaper just accepted Sharia law over freedom of expression, now they have accepted blasphemy as defined by the religion of hate as controling their freedom of expression, those Danes who signed up to that are not the same who saved those Jews in WW II. Shame on them…

Comments are closed.