The Adventures of Marianne

Sunday, February 05, 2006


I've talked to several people about the controversy surrounding the cartoons and I was a but surprised at the number of people who felt that the embassy attacks were unsurprising, to be expected and a even a natural, justified reaction.

I have a few issues with that argument:

a) Why punish an entire nation for the actions of independent newspapers? The of that newspaper (or in Norway`s case, small, independent Christian magazine) does not represent the sentiment of the nation as a whole or its government. The fact that an independent publication does something appalling does in my opinion not justify retaliation against the nation itself.

b) In all honesty, I believe that violent attacks and/or encouraging violence is horrible in the first place. Even more so when the trigger is non-violent.

I admit that I do have a biased standpoint on the issue, given the fact that Norway is my home country. However, I do wonder why Norway was targeted specifically to such a large extent? The drawings were reprinted in a tiny, Christian magazine in January (that I personally had never heard of until this case), and as far as I`ve understood, it was in the context of an article outlining the controversy regarding the printing of them in Denmark.

Many other nations` newspapers have also published the caricatures, several in Europe, and even "a select few media outlets in Canada dared to reprint any of the controversial cartoons". Why did Norway become such a scapegoat?


Post a Comment

<< Home