I can not sit idle when I read something like that statement. It is unprofessional – and probably bad intended – to issue a press statement about an event that did not take place and which unfortunately have serious implications for our daily life as Danes in the Middle East. To me it looks like the IAF took a two year old press release “17 Danish Papers, Wednesday, a plot revealed yesterday” and changed the date of issue. Had the Cartoons been reprinted by the 17 papers in January 2010 I would not have criticized IAF for issuing such a statement – although I might have gone into an argument about why that could happen. And I for one am tired of seeing organizations and press just getting away with anything without being countered.

As regards the OIC (no deep linking allowed):

“The OIC General Secretariat condemns the reported attempt on the life of Danish cartoonist

Date: 03/01/2010
A spokesman of the General Secretariat of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Jeddah condemned and expressed concern on the reported attempt on the life of the Danish cartoonist, who drawn the offensive and derogatory cartoons of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) in 2005.

The OIC spokesperson stated that if the alleged attempt on the life of the Danish cartoonist is proven to have been committed as a reaction to the infamous cartoons of 2005, then it should be rejected and condemned by all Muslims unequivocally as it runs totally against the teachings and values of Islam.”

He refers to the statement of the OIC that according to him was “totally different in content”. The only OIC statement I could find on their website is as follows:
“A spokesman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference condemned the reprint of the blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) by the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten as reaction on the alleged attempt on the life of the Danish cartoonist earlier in the month.
The spokesman said that reprint of the cartoons was unfortunate and act of provocation on the part of the Norwegian newspaper as it would not serve any purpose other than to incite intolerance and hatred.”

And the only big difference I can see between that OIC statement and the IAF statement is that the OIC mentions the correct country. Apart from that, both statements show that neither the OIC nor IAF seem to know what the right to freedom of expression is.
But to defend this human right does not seem to be the Ambassador's point either.

I can not sit idle when I read something like that statement. It is unprofessional – and probably bad intended – to issue a press statement about an event that did not take place and which unfortunately have serious implications for our daily life as Danes in the Middle East. To me it looks like the IAF took a two year old press release “17 Danish Papers, Wednesday, a plot revealed yesterday” and changed the date of issue. Had the Cartoons been reprinted by the 17 papers in January 2010 I would not have criticized IAF for issuing such a statement – although I might have gone into an argument about why that could happen. And I for one am tired of seeing organizations and press just getting away with anything without being countered.

As regards the OIC (no deep linking allowed):

“The OIC General Secretariat condemns the reported attempt on the life of Danish cartoonist

Date: 03/01/2010
A spokesman of the General Secretariat of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Jeddah condemned and expressed concern on the reported attempt on the life of the Danish cartoonist, who drawn the offensive and derogatory cartoons of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) in 2005.

The OIC spokesperson stated that if the alleged attempt on the life of the Danish cartoonist is proven to have been committed as a reaction to the infamous cartoons of 2005, then it should be rejected and condemned by all Muslims unequivocally as it runs totally against the teachings and values of Islam.”

He refers to the statement of the OIC that according to him was “totally different in content”. The only OIC statement I could find on their website is as follows:
“A spokesman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference condemned the reprint of the blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) by the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten as reaction on the alleged attempt on the life of the Danish cartoonist earlier in the month.
The spokesman said that reprint of the cartoons was unfortunate and act of provocation on the part of the Norwegian newspaper as it would not serve any purpose other than to incite intolerance and hatred.”

And the only big difference I can see between that OIC statement and the IAF statement is that the OIC mentions the correct country. Apart from that, both statements show that neither the OIC nor IAF seem to know what the right to freedom of expression is.
But to defend this human right does not seem to be the Ambassador's point either.

Glad you did.