picked up from verdidebatt.no (Vårt Lands discussion forum). Lousy google translate.
In the wake of the horrific Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Casher massacres, one would have thought that some decency would prevail, but this is not the case with the Labour affiliated press:
Simonnes must apologise
Published January 15 – 4652 views Post
Editor Helge Simonnes draws a direct line between the cartoons of Muhammad and how the Jews were caricatured in Nazi propaganda in the interwar period. A serious infringement which he must regret. Alternatively, he must demonstrate that the link is relevant.
There is hardly a limit to how many peculiarities drawn into the debate on freedom of expression place in our society, then either in the form of irrelevant and subjective beliefs about what the individual thinks is “appropriate” to express (ref. Jonas Gahr Støre) or special weak arguments in defense of the individual media decision not to print caricatures and anything that may hurt someone’s religious feelings.
Much of this is just hopeless and unthinking extended rant, but some use an argument that is deeply problematic. One of them is the editor Helge Simonnes in Our Country, going a direct line between on the one hand the Nazi demonization of Jews, and Charlie Hebdo’s caricatures of Muhammad and the current Islamists on the other.
In the post “Bullying or satire?” draws Simonnes a direct line between the Mohammed cartoons and the Nazi propaganda against Jews in the interwar period. He writes under the heading “Jew Fear”:
“It is in critical situations such as this that we will get help from the story. It is now that we must be able to keep a cool head.
“The greatest crime” by Marte Michelet is perhaps the most important of last year’s books. The verbal negative exposure of the Jews in the early 1900s laid the foundation of Nazi persecution and extermination of people battle. In his book shows Michelet what could be published by decent Norwegians decent publications. Satire and derogatory jokes were part of this picture.
Right after World War 1. there were with many a clear perception that the Jews were a power group that deserved to be bossed around. We now know how wrong it was.
The more you despise and fear a group, the greater joy has that it will be violated. Muslim Fears anno 2014 has some similarities with the Jewish fear of 100 years ago. ”
and in the same post, (obviously before it was edited):
“I point out, among other things, that satire against the Jews in the interwar period is not what we have most reason to be proud of. The history of the Jews shows that it is better that we discuss possible negative effects in advance, rather than waiting until disasters occur.”
This is not just a vulgar simplification and total erroneous comparison, it is also a serious infringement against a minority. To draw the grotesque dehumanization and direct demonization of an entire people as the Jews were subjected to by the Nazi propaganda machine in the interwar period, down to a level where it all equated with the committing caricatures of a man and his partly brutal ideological mindset, so it emerges in the religion of Islam, so roughly that it requires an immediate apology from Simonnes, or that he explains, through relevant documentation, that the comparison at all relevant.
Thomas Kleivenes emphasizes Simon Ness fallacy precisely through this formulation:
“I have the last few days noticed that several draws parallels to Jewish drawings in the interwar years, now also Simones. It’s strange that he did not see the difference between caricaturing / proportionality a group of people and caricaturing / proportionality a religious figure. One is racism which is unacceptable, the other is criticism / ridicule of religion. the first is obviously uaksepatbelt and forbidden, the other we must endure. I have not read much Charlie Hebdo in my life, but what I have seen in recent days, has been caricatures of Muhammad and religious leaders, not sake of Muslims in general. Believes Simones that this can be compared with the manufacture of Jews as pests? People Groups are entitled to protection against slander and harassment. God, Allah, Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, Pope and Osama bin Laden do not. ”
Very well and correctly pointed. That Simonnes not see this distinction is incomprehensible and it is therefore difficult to believe that he did not do this deliberately. In this case we are talking about a classic red herring. And the pill rotten. The stink. He compares mentioned Nazi caricatures of Jews in the interwar period with caricatures of Charlie Hebdo by Islamists, and more than suggest that the latter caricatures embodies the same catastrophic hatred of Muslims, as history shows us that the Nazi caricatures of Jews represented.
It’s almost so you do not think what you are reading. An editor in a medium-sized Norwegian newspaper can allow themselves to commit such grotesque comparison is nothing less than amazing. To clean up this fetid visvasset must Simonnes umiddelabart regret this ugly over stomped against Charlie Hebdo that magazine, against the deceased and their families, not to mention Jews, who not only find themselves in a completely different category when it comes to what they were exposed by the Nazis, but also in Europe is under attack from the same groups who let themselves violate the caricatures Simonnes compares with Nazi cruel form of anti-Semitism.
Optionally he must come up with examples of caricatures committed by Charlie Hebdo that systematically produces the smooth Muslim cowardly, deceitful, deceitful, conspiratorial, slick and treacherously scum, vermin and subhuman. There are in fact so Jews were prepared by the Nazis. This has never Charlie Hebdo been close to them, neither against Muslims or other groups; their agenda is to criticize power in all its forms, whether it is now represented by religious leaders and their totalitarian ideology, or corrupt politicians and financiers. That someone feels offended by criticism whatsoever is not intended to frame them, is of course entirely extraneous matter and not something Charlie Hebdo can take responsibility for.
This obviously knows Simonnes perfectly well. Therefore his allegations, formulated in a cover-up as plausible and “relevant criticism and nuances” of having “two thoughts at once”, ditto uglier to observe.
I expect an apology coming and hope as many as possible of VD’s debaters entangles in markets thread, and promotes the same requirement that Simonnes must clean up.