Arabs charged over Dutch cartoon
An Arab organisation is to be put on trial in the Netherlands over its publication of a cartoon deemed offensive to Jews, prosecutors say.
The cartoon, published by the Arab European League (AEL) on its website, questions the Holocaust.
It said the decision to prosecute illustrated bias against Muslims.
It said the same standards were not applied to the Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who made a film including cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
Last month prosecutors said they would not put the far-right MP on trial for distributing the controversial Danish cartoons, which caused a storm of protest after their publication in 2005.
However, he is still being investigated separately for inciting hatred against Muslims by making statements comparing Islam to Nazism.
Read more @ BBC News
Re: Arabs charged over Dutch cartoon
Re: Arabs charged over Dutch cartoon
[quote=You]The most sensible part of that article:
But Jewish groups said it was not reasonable for the group to express its opposition to alleged bias against Muslims, by attacking Jews.
Ronny Naftaniel of the Center for Documentation on Israel, said: "Imagine if Dutch Jews insulted Muslims every time they heard an anti-Semitic remark. What kind of perverse world would we be living in?"
[/quote]
I think the point they're making is that when ppl attack Islam, it's "fine", it's "freedom of speech"
but
when you attack the jewish people, or jewish faith, then everyone is so quick to defend them and say that's wrong, that's anti semitism
there's a bias
im not saying what they did is right or wrong
just tryin to see what the logic is behind their actions
Re: Arabs charged over Dutch cartoon
[quote=1R4M]im not saying what they did is right or wrong[/quote]
Why not?
If you see something as wrong, is it not our duty to speak out against it?
Re: Arabs charged over Dutch cartoon
[quote=You][quote=1R4M]im not saying what they did is right or wrong[/quote]
Why not?
If you see something as wrong, is it not our duty to speak out against it?
[/quote]
u misunderstood
what I meant was
I was trying to explain their reasoning
I wasn't defending them or speaking out against them
honestly tho
it was wrong of them
BUT
I can see the reasoning behind it
The most sensible part of that article: